Creationists are right about one thing: you never see a monkey giving birth to a human!?

Question

Other ridiculous birth examples are used, but here's what they don't understand:

A monkey giving birth to a human would be an act of creation! not evolution. Evolution is the gradual change of allele frequencies in a poplulation, which in turn may give rise to a new species over enough time.

That's even worse than the low chance argument (in which people assume the theory says all of life's features arise by chance, therefore disregarding natural selection).

What is the best argument you've seen against the theory of evolution? And if you don't agree with the theory, what's your major reason why?

Answer 1

The best argument I ever heard was one Michael Crichton used toward the end of "The Lost World", asking how a bat could evolve a talent like echolocation when it requires so many unrelated traits, all developing in unison (a voicebox to make the ultrasonic squeaks, the ears to hear them, the brain to interpret those echoes, etc.)

But reading some of Richard Dawkins' books helped to clear that up, and help me to understand that those seemingly "irreducibly complex" structures can and do have in-between steps that are still useful and worth passing on to successive generations...

Answer 2

Well, one facet of the improbability argument is that certain features of certain animals just could not have arisen by chance. A fly's wings, for example, would not have come about gradually because the tiny, intermediary nubs would not have been able to fly. However, to me, this just says that further investigation is needed. One theory is that the nubs originally functioned to optimize heat exchange between the organism and the environment, and only acquired the ability of flight after hundreds of generations. Biology, like all sciences, can be infuriatingly subtle.

Answer 3

Yes, they love to attack claims that science does not make and therefore does not defend. A hollow and dishonest victory.

There are no serious arguments which are based on evidence that have been successfully levied against evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory correctly explains the natural phenomenon of evolution, based on evidence.

EDIT 1: To I♥ME! Below:

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution or evolutionary theory. Evolution is a natural phenomenon which occurs in living things. That is to say, things that are already alive. Evolutionary theory is not meant to explain the origin of the universe or the earth, nor the origin of life. Evolutionary theory explains only the mechanism how life diversified and diversifies.

Edit 2: to "Someone who cares" below:

There are some modern cultures of humans TODAY which do not have ANY writing systems at all. Why MUST it have existed prior to when it came about?

Edit 3: to "Rev. Albert Einstein" below. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, except for those which went extinct without speciating first. Every living thing today is representative of a transitional form. Perhaps you mean INTERMEDIATE Fossils. Archaeopteryx is an example of this, an excellent one. It is a bird but still has reptilian features. Look at the lineage of horses all the way from Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Mesohippus to Equus. All of these are transitional AND intermediate fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Answer 4

I don't agree with the theory of evolution because I do believe in a creator. But from a completely logical standpoint evolution doesn't make sense to me either. If evolution were true it would still be happening... I don't know about a monkey giving birth to a human, but over time we would see gradual shifts, as evolution is a supposedly ongoing process. So how come we're not seeing evolution even now? Are we supposed to believe that evolution only occurred those few times but now that the final product (humans) have evolved, that it is just going to stop? Also I just don't believe that if you leave dirt alone for 30 billions years it will somehow "magically" turn into a vibrant, diverse , planet. Sorry, but it just makes so little sense that even something with as "little proof" as a creator sounds far more plausible.

Answer 5

honestly i havent seen a good argument against evolution ! And the deeper they dig into the what we already have in hand such as the 7 million year old skull - only really stand in defense of it.
Even if it wasn't the case....the bottom line is ....we did not magically appear here from some body's RIB for crying out loud. no one waved a wand and poof "here we are !" no no. i don't believe in fairy tales.

Answer 6

The best argument is the honest one.

"I don't believe in evolution, despite the evidence because my parents and pastor told me not too."

At least there is some truth to that argument.

The rest are always based in lies as highlighted by Lion of Judah's post.

Edit -- Lion, you post this often, but I have been waiting for the list of these scientists and their evidence from you for almost a year now. Why do you knowingly post lies to support a 'moral' religious belief?

Answer 7

because I believe they mixed a tad bit of truth with a big lie and boom, you have the evolution theory...when I think about the big bang, I wonder "where did those things come from to conceive such an explosion?", "did they always exist?"..."how is it possible for nothing to be something so great and complicated by accident?"..then I compare it with the Bible and though it is said God always existed just like the matter, hot gases and such that caused the Big Bang theory, I find it far better to believe we were made by an Intelligent Designer (God) just like how an artist creates his masterpiece rather than the materials evolving into an art work

But that's just me

Answer 8

Writing. Modern man is supposed to have been around for 200,000 years, then all of a sudden, about 6,000 years ago, he suddenly was able to develop multiple, even hundreds or thousands of writing systems?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

Surely if the evolutionary theory were true, somewhere in the previous 195,000 years, there should be SOME evidence of intelligent writing systems. We have millions of examples from the last 6,000, but NONE before that? And for someone to argue,oh, they were just hunter gatherers for 195,000 years, then got agriculture so now they could write just doesn't make any sense from a statistical probability of similar modern humans unable to develop it for 195,000 years.

Answer 9

Changes in allele only create changes and adaptations within the species. It does not create a new species. A monkey is still a monkey, it will never be a human.

Answer 10

The thing is, I never see a monkey giving birth.

One *supposes* that all the infant monkeys are born to monkeys, and that all the humans (I see a few "births" on TV) are born to humans.