Day 4, People who believe evolution is not true.?

Question

(Reposted since no one has yet. With the exception of the guy who was playing pokemon. No one has provided anything that isn't easily refutable yet.)

Please provide your evidence. I wish to know. Yes I will research it. Yes I will listen.

However, if your answer is thermodynamics then please move along you don't understand thermodynamics. If your answer is something about god said X then please move along as that is not evidence. If your answer is statistically unlikely hood then please explain why people win the lottery. Lastly, the magnetic field does not indicate it is permanently decaying. It goes through ups and downs and that is evident by the newly created sea floor. Covered under Oceanography.

Posting previous question links in a second.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai2ABZJKF5Emj8oIX.ghW_Lsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070831160658AAujbHC

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgjJsTZGXwv0jr7ShOePcZvty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070830170029AAijS2X

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvBeoh4iTgfFWcBJjfOhGjTty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070829181257AAk4xQH


Ignore the voted for best answers, I was ill for two days and my timer expired.

Csuf:

"I believe we adapt to our surroundings"

That's evolution. The whole thing about monkeys is just ignorance. You might want to actually look up evolution and not make foolish statements like those.

Da Mick:

People die for lies all the time. That is why every prisoner is innocent. Something came from nothing, where di your god come from if you say it was always there then that is from nothing. Besides, that is abiogenesis and it came from inanimate gases and not "nothing.

D2T:

Explain why we have a step by step fossil record of horses. Second, most of the species being dead is exactly what would happen under evolution. Third, you obviously accept microevolution so please tell me, is ten microevolution changes not a large total change? Oh and I found NOWHERE at all where anyone mentions anything about DNA losing information, other that creationist sites. Try again.

Myfrenzcallme:

I already know the answer and the truth. I am once again pointing out to people like yourself that you really have no clue what it is you speak off and dismiss. I would like you to prove your spirit claim. I will deal with the thermodynamics thing in pivate so as to not embarass you. Unless you want to make it public.

Mr Glass:

Sorry, it comes down to you not understanding evolution. A large change has been witnessed, AIDS. As for the impossibility of it occuring, please answer why it is a bunch of creation scientists arrived at a statistical number showing it could have occured? Not only that but please, explain exactly why all mutations are bad? Rattlesnakes are being born with smaller rattles now due to the fact they are hunted by sound more often than not. Then there is Manta Ray bay where the rays there have lost the use of their stingers because so many divers have fed them. Those are mutations. Try again.

CSUF:

Well you didn't pay ANY attention in your class. We don't come from monkeys. Adaptations are evolution. Go repeat the class.

Steve:

Apparently you don't read your links. The entropylaw.com goes into an article pointing out order can and does come from chaos. In goes into the fact that in nature it will ALWAYS choose order over chaos as order takes less energy.

The rest you linked don't even vaguely apply considering the second law of thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems. Neither Earth nor life is a closed system. Hence, the intial comments about the fact anyone who mentions thermodynamics as proof has no clue what they are talking about.

Mr Glass:

"AIDS is a virus, not alive"

Riiiiiight. Let me guess bacteria isn't either?

cbmultiplechoice:

That is a mutation or change that allows them to survive in that state or condition. It is only detrimental when not in that state. That is evolution. Let me put it in other words. Without oxygen we die. Obviously that disproves evolution right?

D2T:

"is a potentially valid argument but suffers from the same problems as the irreducible complexity argument. (2) is essentially the tautology "systems that are wildly unlikely to evolve are wildly unlikely to evolve," which proves nothing about whether or not a particular systems really are wildly unlikely to evolve."

And that was from Wiki. I didn't even have to research the specified complexity.

Dealing with mutations:

"Actually, the number of mistakes that remain incorporated into the DNA is even lower than this because cells contain special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA that are caused by mutagens. The repair proteins see which nucleotides are paired incorrectly, and then change the wrong base to the right one."

source: Learn.genetics.utah.edu

Mr Glass:

Wrong again. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00077043-911C-119B-8EA483414B7FFE9F

Viruses are a gray area of life. And they absolutely can evolve and AIDS is a perfect example of that.

I already addressed your points and proved they were wrong. Try reading it again. You obviously don't understand adaptations. But thanks for calling me an idiot, keep reading.

Cbmultiplechoice:

So what about 10 microevolutionary changes? Wouldn't that be macroevolution? You might want to realize adaptations don't just stop unless the race dies out.

Answer 1

Well of course they don't have any. If they did, it would have come out sometime in the past century and a half. You and I both know that it is an intellectually indefensible belief. It's analogous to believing that the earth is flat (it's actually an EXTREMELY accurate parallel, but I won't get into that). If they want to believe it, I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with, however, is their belief that it is actually a valid answer to the question of how we came to be. Even they know that creationism is pseudoscience, at best. Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District destroyed what credibility they were hiding behind. Gotta love legal precedents like that!

MrGlass08: You clearly have no idea what a mutation is. Read something from an authority on the matter and then we can talk.

CSUF: You've taken a class on evolution? Now I know you're lying. Liberty University courses don't count. Do you even know what natural selection is?

CBMultiplechoice: You can't take "micro"-evolution and reject "macro"-evolution. They are one and the same. Evolution is a process. That's like believing in gravity, but only in the northern hemisphere. It's just stupid.

Oh, right....

Answer 2

The Scientific Law of Biogenesis...

The mathematical formula that calculates populations...

The LACK of a true Evolutionary Geological column ANYWHERE on the earth...

Darwin's own words that, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (The Origin of Species)

The "Cambrian Explosion"...

After the "Cambrian Explosion" almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record...

The 'evolved' bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics also die when placed in an environment without said antibiotics...the mutation has just become detrimental to that species.

Stanley Miller's 1953 experiment...

Homologous structures are often developed from genes that are NOT homologous...

Additional in response to your rebuttal of just one of my points(?): They are still bacteria right? How is that Macro-evolution? I have NEVER said there is no such thing as MICRO-evolution, That by definition is change WITH-IN a species, VERY scientific VERY PROVABLE, Macro is where there is NO PROOF and NEVER will be =)

Additional response: 10 micro-evolutions = 10 MICRO- evolutions that is all. You might want to brush up on exactly what micro-evolution is...just for starters...micro-evolution = change WITH-IN a species. We see this every day...look at all the different species of dogs...and yet ANY 3 year old will tell you they are ALL DOGS!!

Answer 3

How ridiculously impossible it is MATHEMATICALLY, for 'order' - of the magnitude of the human brain and DNA - to come from absolute disorder? How could TIME alone account for the order in the universe, natural laws, complex organisms, etc.?

Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is
r to the power 200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10 to the power 60, which is impossibly small.

Here are few links discussing Entropy (Second law of thermodynamic) with reference to evolution vs. creation:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=86

http://interactive.colum.edu/students/BWasilewski/biology/

http://www.entropylaw.com/

http://home.earthlink.net/~jjwhitt/JJsEditorials/EntropyCreation.html

Answer 4

The problem is, people with little knowledge of mathematics and virtually no idea about what the theory of evolution actually states, say evolution is impossible because it has a "insert made-up probability here" chance of happening.

Similarly, if dealt a royal flush in poker, I would expect them to say: "The odds of obtaining this hand are 649739:1. Therefore, it did not happen."

What's wrong in their "calculations" and belief that it is so improbable that we exist is that they don't account for natural selection. Life is designed in a way; but this designer is a natural evolutionary mechanism. The funny thing is that natural selection is always emphasized heavily with the theory of evolution, so it seems that creationists are willingly ignorant in this subject, and don't mind passing down lies.

We are an animal who likes to see to believe, so some people expect to witness a species miraculously change within their lifetime.

Answer 5

I have a hard time understanding how chance plays a vital role, nor do I understand how something comes from nothing. When we see a building, we know something built it, same as a painting, or even an empire for that matter. It just seems logical that there does exist a Creator.

*If you look at religious experience, it follows the same pattern, which can be used as verification. It would not make sense for someone to die for a lie. Why would you die for a lie? What do you gain? If you know there is no "Heaven" then why die for the cause?

Answer 6

1. no eyewitnesses.
2. no way to prove evolution using the scientific method.
3. the current 'proof' of evolution as scientific fact when scrutinized is merely a voting it into fact-by means of publishing the theory in science journals for peer review-voting, it was accepted as 'fact' by some, not all, in the science community.

Answer 7

Wow, since you are trying so hard to believe what you so desperately want to believe (as it is much more convenient to believe there is no God to hold you accountable for sin, which is what this really comes down to), I'll humor your over-debated question. And how do you know who understands thermodynamics and who doesn't?? Don't assume others lack knowledge of a subject simply because you do.
You've heard of the missing link. The EVIDENCE our scientist just can't seem to find linking man and beast. If it is not evident to you that there is a major difference between animal and man, like for instance a spirit, maybe you should look closer at people (and what makes us such) and not spend quite so much time on yahoo answers that you have to ask the same question 4 times.
(que weak dismissal of missing link and 'stupid Christian' insults)

Answer 8

Natural selection from existing genetic information is observed and not at issue. For molecules to evolve into people (Darwinian Evo) requires new "beneficial" genetic mutations to occur and then be selected.

All of the beneficial mutations in a search of the literature involving almost 20 million references were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.

As many as 200 million different proteins may exist. From 150,000 to 250,000 extinct animal species have also been identified and reported in the paleontological literature. NeoDarwinists estimate that as many as 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 52; Raup, 1977, p. 50). Although some claim the number is far lower, assuming this estimate to be valid would put the number of species that have ever lived at over 200 trillion!

Given the estimate that roughly an average of 1,000 transitional forms are required to evolve a species (a number that is a rough estimate and is dependant on various assumptions)—this would mean that 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 transitional forms have existed. If 1,000 mutations are required for each transitional form, this would translate into 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 beneficial mutations that are required. And not one clear beneficial mutation or transitional form has yet been convincingly demonstrated, although likely some do exist. The paucity of clearly helpful mutations must be considered in context with the estimate that 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations that are required to produce the natural living world existing today and the number of animals that are speculated to have once existed.

EDIT to your reply:
It amuses me how proponents of evolution claim to use logic and critical thinking to arrive at their conclusions.
Why don’t you engage these skills when examining the “evidence” for Darwinian Evolution? Who’s brainwashed?
Do you understand what specified complexity is? Do you understand what an increase in information is and why it is required for Darwinian evolution to be true?
This type of evolution requires more than “large changes” – it requires large changes of INCREASED specified complexity – billions of times.
Empirical evidence (the flag that Atheists wave) does not support this supposed evolution – Again, molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.

Horse evolution is shown supposedly smoothly spanning some 60 million years. The sequence has been published in numerous books as “fact” and has been incorporated into innumerable museum exhibits as “fact.” Yet as long ago as the early 1970s it was already clear that this smooth sequence was more fabrication than fact. Evolutionists like J.B. Birdsell (1975), G.G. Simpson (1953), Macfadden (1992), and S.J. Gould (1996), among others, have conceded that the “surprisingly complete” sequence to which we are STILL subjected in the popular “science” media, was long ago found to be plain wrong.
Why? 1) at least three different members of this so-called ancestor/descendant sequence were found to have coexisted, 2) “advanced” foot structures were found on specimens assumed to be “older” than their “primitive” counterparts, 3) the members of the sequence are not found in the same regions or on the same continent (i.e., the “sequence” was assembled from samples without regard to the members' geographical or chronological relationships), 4) serious and legitimate doubts have been raised as to whether some of the sequence members really belong in the ancestry of Equus at all [H. Nilsson (1954), G.A. Kerkut (1960)], and 5) there remain rather large and embarrassing gaps between ALL of the specimens (i.e., each one appears in the fossil record (usually not in the popularly depicted sequence) wholly in its own form, continues without indicating any transitional change between itself and either its alleged ancestor or its alleged descendant, then “vanishes.” The record is scarcely one of “surprising completeness”—but, frankly, reveals more of a “surprise” that editors and curators are taking so long to undo the lie perpetuated by their silence and inaction on this matter.

I was also going to answer your reply to 'mrglass08' but I see he already corrected your error.

Answer 9

The late paleontologist and educator from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, put it this way:

"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."

In other words, throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons, the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance. They show no evolution over long ages.

Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist, but he declared:

"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla. This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of this entire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance between backboned animals or vertebrates, the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods. If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."

There's also Dr. David B. Kitts, an evolutionist and paleontologist, who said:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." ("Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.)

Evolution is not visible in the past via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology, where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.

Dr. G. A. Kerkut of the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, has openly admitted some of the unverifiable assumptions of the evolutionary theory. In his book "Implications of Evolution," Dr. Kerkut makes the following statements concerning the theory of evolution:

"There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. These are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

4. The fourth assumption is that the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.

5. The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock , and so on.

. . . there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

There are also plenty of others:

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philisophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
(Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London: Croom Helm, p. 422)

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge...or even a new enzyme."
(Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38)

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools...Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
(William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident - such a person believes in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

There are plenty more quotes just like these from many respected scientists confirming that evolution is not true. Do yourself a favor - open your eyes as well as your mind and discover the truth for yourself.

Answer 10

The change of a species into a completely new species through mutation is an impossibility. Mutation is a bad thing for DNA. It results in the loss of DNA material and actually hinders life. Birth defect are a form of mutation and none of them are good. Natural selection is possible in that it allows for changes between species in the same family. The different Galapagos tortoises and finches might have changed to adapt to the island but they are still tortoises and finches, they did not change into something completely new, they just changed the dominant characteristics to better fit survival because the other traits died out. This form of evolution is true. However, at no point did a finch change into a cardinal or an eagle, they stayed as finches. They all stayed within the same genus. Evolution can claim that sometimes evolution can change genus and this has never been conclusively proven to be true.



Obviously you do not understand anything about what a mutation actually is. A mutation is a copy error in DNA, therefore it is a mistake. Something screwed up to cause a mutation.

AIDS is a virus, not alive and so therefore cannot evolve by definition.

If you do not understand the main point of my argument I guess it is my fault. I will spell it out for you: Speciation and adaptation do occur so your manta ray and rattlesnake rattles fall into this category. Evolution into a different genus is a fantasy and if you believe in it then you need to get outside your own propaganda and actually research what is happening. The change of one species into a different genus has never been found.




AIDS is a virus and what is the definition of a virus:

Virus (from the Latin noun virus, meaning toxin or poison): is a sub-microscopic particle (ranging in size from about 15–600 nm) that can infect the cells of a biological organism. Viruses can replicate themselves only by infecting a host cell. They therefore cannot reproduce on their own.

A part of the definition of a living cell is if a cell can reproduce on it's own. If it can it is alive, if not then it is not alive.

I notice that once again you are avoiding the main point of my argument to attack something that is of lesser importance. Do you not have an answer to what I am writing and so just attack a small part to try and discredit the whole thing? Never mind that you are proving yourself an idiot by not knowing elementary biology by claiming that a virus is alive, because by definition it is not, but also you do not seem to have a grasp of rhetorical skill and do not understand the principles of debate because you are not responding to my actual argument but attacking the part that is not needed by the rest of the argument.

Oh by the way bacteria does fit in the definition of life and so is alive. In fact it makes up the largest group of life on the planet and is sometimes divided into two subphylum Prokaryotes, which to not have a nucleus or membrane bound organelles and Eukaryotes, which do have a nucleus and membrane bound organelles. Unless things have changed since I was in a biology class, which would not surprise me and is kind of weird considering that most people consider it to be the end all be all of truth.



Try again without using the propaganda that you believe fits your facts. You give one example and I'll raise you two.

A virus is not alive until it enters the cells of a living plant or animal. http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/programs/understandingviruses/

We'd be more comfortable with them if they were, but by the rules we've established, they're not. They clearly cannot respire, grow or reproduce on their own. Biological structure composed mainly of nucleic acid within a protein coat, ranging in size from 100 to 2000 angstroms (unit of length; 1 angstrom is equal to 10-10 meters); they can be seen only with an electron microscope. During the stage of their replication cycle when they are free and infectious, viruses do not carry out the usual functions of living cells, such as respiration and growth; however, when they enter a living plant, animal or bacterial cell, they make use of the host cell's chemical energy and protein- and nucleic acid-synthesizing ability to replicate themselves. Viral nucleic acids are single- or double-stranded and may be DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or RNA (ribonucleic acid). After viral components are made by the infected host cell, virus particles are released; the host cell is often dissolved. Some viruses do not kill cells but transform them into a cancerous state; some cause illness and then seem to disappear, while remaining latent and later causing another, sometimes much more severe, form of disease. Viruses, known to cause cancer in animals, are suspected of causing cancer in humans. Viruses also cause measles, mumps, yellow fever, poliomyelitis, influenza and the common cold. Some viral infections can be treated with drugs. http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/garryfavwebfaq.html

Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living oganisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisms if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow. http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212089/virus.htm

You have not answered my claims, what you gave was examples of adaptations which I said do exist. Now show me where an adaptation has changed the phylum of an organism and then you will prove me wrong, until then you have not answered what I have said.

If the magic hand wave that you have can not answer my question and yet you still believe in it then you are a fool. I will also answer sarcasm, especially unfounded, with attacks back at you, if you can not stand the heat get out of the fire. You insulted my intelligence and I responded in kind.