Debunking Evolution. Anyone want to help?

Question

I'm trying to defy evolution.
First of all, there are so many amazing organisms that do miraculous things! How could they've evolved from something else?
Secondly, Darwin said IF his hypothesis was correct our geological column would be FULL of intermediate links. Evolutionists only have a couple HIGHLY questionable ones like Archaeopteryx & Australopithecus afarensis. You would think if creatures evolved evolutionists would have several good fossils. Lets not forget that even Darwin had doubts about his theory! Third, how do you explain structural homology? We now know more about genetics.
You cant add genetic information! The only way it could occur is through mutation but thats a lot of mutation
Molecular Biology? Not much evidence there either. You'd have to ignore 99% of the data and believe 1% of it.1% of data agrees with macroevolution!
And why arent creatures still evolving? Why?
It seems you need more faith to believe Evolution vs. Creation theres such little evidence!

btw to all those rude people out there I have the highest grade in my advanced biology/pre anatomy class so please dont act like I'm "ignorant" or "uneducated". Thanks!

High school, and my teacher is a professor and teaches biology at a major university. So I'm taking the same course the college kids are taking. And I'm quite happy with the course I think my teacher is brilliant and very intelligent. He took us to a cadaver lab! And we got to work with cadavers! It was great. I'm telling I've done/am doing way more than you ever have or ever will, realitybites!
So I think you're the fool here! Thanks for answering though!

"Such simple insects as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
Charels Darwin.

"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having not been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views."
Charels Darwin, The Origin of Species.
He's saying that there should be "fine intermediate varieties" of fossils in between species. Since there wasn't he said this was a problem he called "grave"
He figured there would be more links found in the future, there haven't been though.

uh out of characters...hold on next details

You could assume that bat and man are related b/c of their similarities in their forearms. You see, if structual homology was the result of common ancestry, it should show up in the genetic codes of the organisms that posses similar structures. Yeah the forearms of bats, man and porpoise all might be similar but that means the DNA should also be similar. Back in Darwin's time I dont think we knew how traits got passed, we do now though. We know traits from parent to offspring get passed by DNA. If all those creatures inherited the forearm from one ancestor than the DNA should all be similar. Thats how traits get passed on right? Through DNA? Yes, of course it does. So the DNA should be similar...but it isn't. What does that tell us? It probably didn't all come from one organism.

Hey,
Thanks! And btw, I didn't make it up...I actually saw a video in class that had that quote in it. Thanks for letting me know I was off some! It was intended to be a lie! Take care!

Answer 1

Evolution is debunked by real science. Evolution is a faith based religion that has zero evidence to support it. Most legitimate Molecular Biologists do not subscribe to evolution. The ones who do, do so at the cost of integrity and fact based science. Evolutionary science is a very degraded and compromised form of science ignoring facts and making unrealistic guesses to avoid admition of intelligent design.

Here are a few sites that may help you, they may be too simplified for your level of education, but it is a good place to start and they have some good links:

http://www.theevidence.org/episodes/schedule.php
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://evolution-facts.org/
http://www.childrensbiblestudy.com/TheoriesTested/dinobook/dinobible.htm
http://www.creationevolution.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Also look for a book called "The Evolution Cruncher"

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

"First of all, there are so many amazing organisms that do miraculous things! How could they've evolved from something else?
Secondly, Darwin said IF his hypothesis was correct our geological column would be FULL of intermediate links. Evolutionists only have a couple HIGHLY questionable ones like Archaeopteryx & Australopithecus afarensis. You would think if creatures evolved evolutionists would have several good fossils. Lets not forget that even Darwin had doubts about his theory! Third, how do you explain structural homology? We now know more about genetics.
You cant add genetic information! The only way it could occur is through mutation but thats a lot of mutation
Molecular Biology? Not much evidence there either. You'd have to ignore 99% of the data and believe 1% of it.1% of data agrees with macroevolution!
And why arent creatures still evolving? Why?
It seems you need more faith to believe Evolution vs. Creation theres such little evidence!
Additional Details"

1. That's irreducible complexity, which isn't a valid argument. You can't say "look at how complex that is, surely it debunks evolution!", when evolution is designed to explain the complexity.
2. Evolutionary intermediates include the ones you mentioned (although we have more than one afarensis), but also Titaalik, Austrolopithecus africanus, microraptor, dormaalocyon, etc. A quick google search can more than answer this.
3. Structural homology shouldn't even be here. Similar structure but different function means nothing, other than linking animals together in a tree of life (which involves evolution). I assume you mean things like whale's fins and human's arms. Surely that is more evidence of evolution than not!
4. Yeah, a lot of mutation. But guess what? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TIME. There was one experiment in which the microbiologist had 12 colonies of bacteria, and after propagating their populations separately, he saw that after 2000 generations (these are quick-dividing bacteria, remember), one of the colonies' populations SKYROCKETED because they evolved the ability to eat citrus, which was one of the things in their test tube. Originally they only ate the glucose or whatever, I kinda forget. Not only that, but he saw the bacteria getting larger, in response to the limited food. Genetic information can definitely be added, even if we don't know how, but I think we do.
5. Please elaborate on this 99% of the data that the scientific communite missed.
6. Short answer: they are still evolving. You might have a problem with this, but in fact everything is evolving, through natural selection, as well as things such as sexual selection. It just, you know, TAKES A LONG ******* TIME.

Anything else?

Answer 3

Yes, you're absolutely brilliant. In a mere five sentences under your question (really three; the first and last statements are actually sentence fragments) you have managed to destroy a theory that has been around for a hundred and fifty years, has withstood withering attacks, and is the bedrock of modern biology. Oh well, back to the drawing board . . . Actually, this is typical of the ignorance displayed by people who want to "debunk" evolutionary theory. There are, as I write this, more organisms alive that either injest and excrete through the same orifice, or which have no injestion and/or excretory orifices at all, than there are organisms that have separate injestion and excretory orifices. Game, set, and match. By the way, how exactly did you come up with chances of 1 in 65 trillion that an organism's mouth and "butthole" (clever, that) would have to develop simultaneously? Did you pull that out of your excretory orifice?

Answer 4

You got to love high schoolers. So young, naive, and inexperienced but they think they know everything.

Your science teacher is doing a terrible job because you don't understand what science is much less evolution. You can no more defy evolution than you can defy gravity, or electromagnetism or any other natural phenomenon. You can certainly deny evolution, as many people do. However, evolution is something that happens and is easily measured.

Did your science teachers also tell you the proper way to study something is to first come to a conclusion and then look for the evidence?

You barely touch molecular biology in a high school or introductory college course. You are still learning the basic vocabulary at that stage. So, it's understandable that you are so ignorant about the biochemical and genetic evidence that is fully consistent with evolution by natural selection, evidence that is much more powerful than the fossil record. The only reason fossils are still brought up is because they are conceptually easier to understand instead of having to learn biochemistry, genetics, statistics and molecular biology before being able to read and fully understand the history of our phylogenetic legacy written in the cells of all life on this planet.

Keep reading creationist material and you'll stay blissfully self-satisfied about your special place in creation. After all, ignorance is bliss.

Answer 5

You're trying to defy evolution.LOL.you're body itself will experience about 100 mutations before you die.Are you in Jr high or high school?Any college course worth a dime should have taught you about how genetic information can and does increase.Maybe you should get a refund.That's FIRST year courses.It's really sad that you don't even realize how much the creationists are lying to you.I'd love to know how you came up with such a ridiculous number such as 99% of data must be ignored.That has to be one of the most rediculous things i've ever heard.I bet you've never even seen peer reviewed data.You probably don't know what it is.Every bit of it confirms that evolution is a fact.Not one time ever has a creationist or ider presented legitimate scientific research to the table,other than when they actually leave their beliefs behind.All the creationist websights are junk,but just good enough to fool the average person.If you actually want to learn about evolution,i'll leave a few good links with real scientists that actually do real research.You can read every creationist article ever created and it won't help you turn over real evidence.When people post sites like answers in genesis,they only embarrass themselves.If you feel lucky,you can debate me or a host of other at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66 BY THE WAY check out the panda's thumb article where one of the biggest I.D. guys admits that weve just witnessed hiv evolve..............Uh Little bri,here's a news flash for you.I graduated from Rutgers 8 years ago.You'll be lucky to do a fraction of what i've accomplished.And yes,ive worked on cadavers too.And pig fetuses,cats just to name a few.I'm glad you like it.This fool is going to close down the lab i'm working in right now.I'm making some real big foolish overtime money.I'm getting ready to go back to my big foolish house and sleep in my big foolish bed.But thanks for the additional comments.They were very revealing.

Answer 6

First off, you seem to have your mind pretty much made up. Beyond that, you will not succeed in debunking evolution. Evolution in the strictest sense is an OBSERVATION...for which we have a theory - much of which Darwin formulated.

If organisms reproduce...and individuals vary genetically...and the variations affect survival and reproduction...then evolution happens. Period.

Incidentally...the fossil record is chock full of intermediate forms. Creationists commonly assert that there is some lack...that's simply not the case. The abundance of fossils for a particular lineage depends on many things...populations at any given point in the history...whether the environment the species lives in is conducive to fossilization...whether conditions allowed fossils to persist.

And no...Darwin did not doubt his theory...people should read his entire quote about the eye before they use it as evidence that he had serious doubts...

QUOTE:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

He then continues...

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

...Edit...
Go ahead...if it makes you feel better, run to the middle of the town square and bellow "Jesus did it! Glory!"...Good luck with that book learnin', sport.

Answer 7

Hi,
Obviously, many of the points have already been addressed, but here's my 2c:

>First of all, there are so many amazing organisms that do
>miraculous things! How could they've evolved from
>something else?

Through numerous, small, incremental steps. You don't jump from no eyes to the vertebrate eye; you go though photosensitive patches, to cup-eyes, to pinhole eyes, to a full lens/retina system.


>Secondly, Darwin said IF his hypothesis was correct our
>geological column would be FULL of intermediate links.
>Evolutionists only have a couple HIGHLY questionable ones
>like Archaeopteryx & Australopithecus afarensis. You would
>think if creatures evolved evolutionists would have several
>good fossils.

It is full of intermediates, or "transitional fossils". Here are some examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
However, the "transitional forms" issue is one often siezed upon by creationists *because* it is actually insoluble: if you have two organisms, A and C, then you can argue that we should find one (B) between them. If we manage to find a fossil of B, the it has just doubled the problem, because anti-evolutionists can now ask for intermediates between A and B, and between B and C.


> Third, how do you explain structural homology?
This is one of the main arguments *for* evolution, not against it.

>We now know more about genetics.
>You cant add genetic information! The only way it could
>occur is through mutation but thats a lot of mutation

It is simple to add information. One potential mechanism is called "gene duplication": if a portion of DNA (containing one or more genes) is accidentally copied twice during DNA replication (an "insertion mutation") then you suddenly have 2 copies of those genes. Those genes can then evolve seperately within the organism - and you now can have a new protein, and therefore more genetic information. An excellent example of this is yota-crystallin in the lens of the diurnal gecko. Geckos are nocturnal, and - as a result - have lost the ability to blink (as it would cut out important light; instead they lick their eyeballs clean). One gecko species - the diurnal gecko - has reverted to being diurnal. Unable to blink, it cannot shield its eyes from excessive UV light during the day, and this risks damaging its retina. However, a gene duplication event meant that this gecko has two copies of the gene for a retinol-binding protein; one copy has continued to be expressed in the blood, while the other became expressed in the lens (as yota-crystallin). It just happens that this protein is yellow in colour, and can therefore act as "sunglasses" in the lens - filtering out UV light. So this diurnal gecko now has two retinol-binding proteins, one acting as it always has (allowing uptake of vitamin A), and the other as a UV filter. See Werten et al, ('00) PNAS USA, Vol. 97, No. 7, pp 3282-3287.

And lots of time (i.e. - geological timescales) means lots of mutations are possible. We can observe fairly dramatic evolution even within a human lifetime (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, speciation events in fruitflies), so geological times can produce even more dramatic changes.

>Molecular Biology? Not much evidence there either. You'd
>have to ignore 99% of the data and believe 1% of it.1% of
>data agrees with macroevolution!

Not true. 99% of molecular biological evidence *supports* evolution.
As an example: all organisms use the same codons for the same 20 amino acids (so GUU *always* codes for Valine, and never any other amino acid). Why should this be the case, except that we all evolved from an ancestor that used those codons? In fact, it would be an *advantage* to not have the same codons across speciaes, as it would prevent viruses from cross-infecting different species (as their genes would code for different proteins in different host cells, and they'd be unable to assemble their viral proteins).

>And why arent creatures still evolving? Why?

Just see my examples of antibiotic resistance, and speciation in drosophila flies to see that this is just *not* true.

>You could assume that bat and man are related b/c of their
>similarities in their forearms. You see, if structual homology
>was the result of common ancestry, it should show up in the
>genetic codes of the organisms that posses similar
>structures. Yeah the forearms of bats, man and porpoise all
>might be similar but that means the DNA should also be
>similar.

And it *is* indeed similar. Retinoic acid is the morphogen that is responsible for a lot of the embryonic patterning of the limb in *all* vertebrates. It's just slight differences in the patterning of receptors, and transcriptuion factor responses that causes the different limb morphologies. But the proteins involved (and their genes) are *highly* homologous - just like the limbs themselves.

Have a look at this excellent wikipedia article on the evidence *for* evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
And this one on the objections to evolutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

And I'd also reccomend talkorigins, as a good site for evolution evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org

In all honesty, the *vast* majority of evidence points towards evolution. There are some controversies within science about particular points of evolution: for example, how quickly it occurs (steady rate vs punctuated equilibrium), or the precise route taken to evolve a particular organism (e.g. - human evolution). But 95% of *all* scientists, in every discipline, credit evolution as being "true" (or, at least, the best current explanation).
There is a reason why the only people who seriously object to evolution do so on religious grounds rather than on scientific ones (though some of them might pretend otherwise).

Have fun with your reading and - if you *do* find questions about evolution you cannot understand, or that genuinely seem to say it cannot have occurred, then please do post them here.

Answer 8

If you are in AP biology then where did you get such *BAD* information about evolution and about Darwin?

>"Darwin said IF his hypothesis was correct our geological column would be FULL of intermediate links."

No he didn't. Darwin expressed that as an objection that some people might have ... and then Darwin refuted that objection.

Here's Darwin's actual text describing the geologic column. You can read for yourself:
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-origin-of-species-307.html

>"Evolutionists only have a couple HIGHLY questionable ones like Archaeopteryx & Australopithecus afarensis."

Wrong again. First, these are not "HIGHLY questionable". Second, these aren't even *CLOSE* to being the only intermediate forms that 'evolutionists' have. Since *EVERY* fossil is an intermediate form between an ancestor and a descendant, there are literally *tens of thousands* of examples. The fact that you only know about two of them should tell you that you *may* not know as much as you think.

>"Lets not forget that even Darwin had doubts about his theory!"

No he didn't! Why do creationists keep telling this baldfaced LIE ... when (a) it is absolutely *trivial* to disprove ... if you actually *read* Darwin, and (b) it is irrelevant anyway!!

>"Third, how do you explain structural homology? We now know more about genetics. "

Ah! Finally a correct point ... but one that supports evolution! (I thought you were trying to refute it.) Why does a human arm+hand, a bat's wing, a mole's front leg, and a horse's leg all have structural homology. Because of genetics ... *shared* genetics.

>"You cant add genetic information!"

Wrong again. Of course you can. But the problem you have is that you first need to understand what 'information' actually means. How much background in Information Theory have you had?

>"The only way it could occur is through mutation but thats a lot of mutation."

... And a lot of Time means a lot of mutation.

But also ...aren't you forgetting something? A small little piece of this evolution theory? Something you have to take into account if you're going to "defy" evolution.

That's right! A little thing called *natural selection? That means that the mutations are filtered relentlessly. Bad mutations don't last long. Good mutations are mass produced. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Add a billion years here, three billion years there ... and pretty soon you have a substantial amount of accumulated mutations.

>"Molecular Biology? Not much evidence there either."

Sorry ... just wrong, wrong, wrong. Just the presence of junk DNA alone is evidence of common ancestry. The fact that up to 98% of our DNA doesn't code for anything at all is evidence of billions of years of accumulated junk.

But add to that the fact that much of this junk DNA is *identical* between species, and you creationists have a real problem! Why would a creator include so much indentical DNA between two species ... if it serves no purpose whatsoever for *EITHER* species.

>"And why arent creatures still evolving? Why?"

Oh c'mon. (Are you sure you're in AP Biology?) That's like standing in front of a tree for ten minutes and saying "why aren't trees still growing?" and concluding that the tree must have been put there in its current (fully grown) form.

In other words, one of the things they usually cover in AP Biology is the fact that evolution is kinda ... well ... slow.


Look. My point is not to beat up on you. My point is that you are clearly getting some really really *BAD* science information! It's easy to spot. It's trivial to refute. And it makes you look foolish.

You've got some really good education going. Keep at it! Don't start out from the very start with the notion that the overwhelming majority of scientists are utter morons who accept a theory without evidence.

Don't just take the word of some creationist web site about what Darwin did or did not say. *READ* him yourself. You're a smart kid. You can handle it. There's nothing in there that will turn you into a satanist.

----

{edit}

Sorry ... the level of misquotation just went over the top:

>"Such simple insects as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
Charels Darwin.

Those are *NOT* Darwin's words!

These are Darwin's words:
"The subject of instinct might have been worked into the previous chapters; but I have thought that it would be more convenient to treat the subject separately, especially as so wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of the other mental qualities of animals within the same class."
http://darwinlibrary.amnh.org/index.php?globalnav=manuscripts§ionnav=viewer&unit_id=715

In other words, Darwin did not himself express that *he* thought this was a difficulty ... only that it may have occurred "to many readers."

... And then he writes a chapter to refute that objection.

Congratulations! You are well on your way to arguing like a full-fledged Creationist. When you can't come up with a good argument ... just make stuff up ... or lie ... or just repeat some "fact" without even a minimum check for accuracy.

{edit again}

OK, sorry for being so hard on you. But you clearly are willing to believe all sorts of nonsense about what Darwin said or believed ... without actually *reading Darwin yourself*.

The same for so many other things you have said. You are being fed really *TERRIBLE* misinformation.

I do not trust a teacher that would show a class a videotape with that kind of mis-quotation. Or would somehow allow you to maintain so much misinformation about Darwin, about evolution, and about science.

Answer 9

The main problem with debunking evolution is the strong supporting evidence that the decoding of the entire genome has provided to evolutionary theory. I do not think however, that a belief in evolution precludes a belief in God, or some other mechanism of creation. One can still ask the question "who provided the master plan and design for the evolutionary journey?"

Answer 10

Hey, go for it! You can believe anything you want to. Of course, nobody with any adequate education in biology is likely to go along with you, but don't let that stop you. As long as you can convince yourself that you're right, who cares?

Answer 11

Creatures are evolving constantly. Its just that it happens over a long period of time.

There are plenty of intermediate links.

Come back when you have bothered to get educated!