Why do you believe or not believe in evolution : please, i just wanna here ur thoughts.....here 's my thought

Question

Personally i don't believe in evolution because i believe that the awesome and almighty God created the world. i have reason to believe that because of a lot of stuff that i'm learning abt evolution and its counter arguements. here's some:

irreducable complexity - says that substances and particles couldn't have evolved because they need all their parts to work. If one of the parts is missing, then it cannot work, so mutations cannot support this theory. example: flagellum motor - research michael behe (darwin's black box)

mutations - almost all mutations are bad. if evolution is true then almost all the things that we see today, would have had to come from billions and billions of mutations. yeah, evolution says that it took billions and billions of yeas for these to occur, but why are we not seeing mutations and evolution today?

More: how do u explain entropy, DNA (which is crazy!), cambrian explosion - when fossils of different animals appeared at same time, teleology etc ?

actually...to the person talkin abt galapagos islands...i did study it. Darwin was talking abt mutations, but natural selection can only cause small variations. The finches beaks - when it was dry season the finches had long beaks to get food, but when the rain came, the finch species went back to short beaks.....it only went back and forth from that. the finches didn't become crows did they?

sorry...more details - actually the point about the different races is a good one, not sure how to answer that except the variations do not go extreme. People have gotten taller and so on, but have people become some other beings?
Also, about God.....who designed God, that's a confusing question, but don't u think that something had to be self-existent in order to create things that exist. i mean if big bang is believable, what came before the big bang? God is out of time, space etc....he is not like man.....so if He is self-existent then it would make sense that something that's out of time can call things into existence.

Also, science's defintion does not include supernatural....but that doesn't mean that there is no supernatural. If u don't believe in something u don't see, then how do u believe in abstract things like love, wind, fear, etc.....?

Actually amino acids might have been produced, but they form protein chains which lead to other stuff in cell.....there's a specific order in which the amino acids fold in order to form protein chains. that info is given by the DNA. DNA decides the sequence that amino acids are going to fold into. without that info, it would be like letters being randomly organized by the wind in order to form a shakespearean play. u cannot underestimate DNA. it's very complex. how did it come in the first place. who decided the genetic code?

to the person who wrote abt sickle cell anemia - it might be good in that it can make u immune to malaria, but i've heard that it can also kill u...how is that good for the betterment of human race?

Hi Jonmcn49 - hey i'm just a student....this is what i'm learning...if this is cut and pasting, then so be it....but seriously, if u have seen these arguements before, what r ur answers to them? please don't leave me hanging!!!

My sources:

a lot of stuff that i learned at my school: videos - Icons of Evolution, the Michael Behe video........yeah, thanks everyone for responding......this has been quite interesting!

What about anthropic principle - i don't know much abt it, but what i've heard is that it states that the earth is exactly as it should be in order to support and have life in it. I think its about the distance between the sun and earth, molecules and a lot of stuff i don't know the details about. but my biggest block abt evolution is: how can something have evolved so wonderfully without a designer? Design has been substituted with natural selection, but what w/ DNA and amino acids....i addressed this before, but natural selection could happen after DNA, how can it before?
About evolving....even if that happened....what triggered the evolution? what thought "oh i need to save this for the developement of life?" i think that can suggest inteligent design too.....so............

Answer 1

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information—and not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon (this is called “neo-Darwinian evolution”). So, the question is, can random mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Do they really explain that postulated change from fish to philosopher.

Obviously the evolutionists try to argue against this, but listen to what some scientists have said.

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information—a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”

And Dr. Werner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but we don’t see them causing an increase in the amount of functional genetic information.

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to (like antibiotic resistance in bacteria) are really only a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain.

For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information. And they have a survival advantage in a hospital, but are actually defective and can’t compete as well with ordinary bacteria. As Dr. Carl Wieland says, we shouldn’t call them “supergerms” but rather “superwimps.”

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information. The protection against malaria comes at the high cost of a less functional hemoglobin molecule.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. As Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”

It’s pretty sad, but many of the so called “evidences of evolution” actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. As Biologist Dr. Gary Parker said in his discussion of mutations, “Even more serious is the fact that mutations are ‘going the wrong way’ as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes . . . In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse.” Mutations are one of the consequences of God’s curse on creation because of Adam’s sin.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

Answer 2

Well, how do we explain the existence of species? If according to scientists the human being started in the warm parts of the earth and we chose to gradually migrate for peace and longevity, we acquired different pigmentation and lose melanin to adjust to the lack of a need for it in the colder climates. I've seen people from warmer regions come to the US and after fifteen years their appearances have changed. In the 1960s the average Asian male was hovering around 5'-5" tall, today we see them at all heights above 5'-8" and so on. We see mutations or transformations daily but we do not accept them as such because we will always choose see what we want to see. If you want to see god in everything, there he is! If you don't care to see god at all, he does not and cannot exist. So it is with evolution. In the first half of the past century, women typically bore children between 18 and 30. Over time, it has changed and today we see multitudes of women of all races bearing children well into their forties. Our parents would still think it strange for this to be 'natural', yet it is. So, does this mean we have evolved? Does nutrition cause us to change our nature? God did not play a part in that, it just happened out of convenience because more and more people are looking to have their careers started before their families are started. So in our small lifetime we do see changes to the life forms around us, imagine how much more changed it would be in a hundred, thousand, even ten thousand years. You won't be around to see it but by then the changes would be nothing but evolutionary, if not revolutionary.

Answer 3

Think of it this way.
I would imagine you like cars.. or trains.. or computers.. or something that has taken time to create (pretty much anything). I won't go in depth with biology as I doubt you would understand it.

1.Take cars. Look at the first car, look at a car now. How did it it get that way--evolution of the car. Sure there were errors along the way, we don't see horribly designed cars because they were never made (spontaneously aborted as most mutations are) or are not popular (died out because they were not fit). Extend that idea to biology.

2. Sometimes accidents are beneficial (good mutations), with cars I have no real idea as I know little about them, but the microwave was made on accident. Thats somewhat like a good mutation.....

Virtually every human has several mutations, they are not serious because they do not occur on bases that code for proteins. So... The scrap metal is a funny color. However, many genetic diseases occur because of mutations.

Evolution is occuring today. You fear to reflect upon your roots as a human, then look at other animals. There are records of birds evolving in the last 40 years (beak size gradually became smaller as large seeds from a tree no longer became available and only smaller seeds are available)-- thats evolution.

3. Entropy means everything is becoming gradually disordered and it takes energy to make order.. Disorder=low energy state Order=higher energy state. Things want to go from high energy (unstable) to lower energy (stable).

DNA. Crazy, yes. If you mean hard to understand, I think the root of all this antievoltuion/antiscience talk comes from a lack of (willingness maybe) to understand. Do some research and think about it and the truth becomes apparent. It is a lot easier to think God made everything perfectly. Cambrian explosion, new climate allowed for the diversification of species. You seem to be spewing terms you really don't understand at this point. Fossils of different animals appear at same time.. Cause theres only one animal now?

Don't even know why you used the term teleology....

I'll respond if you have further questions, I would admire your quest against evolution except it seems to be based on a lack of willingness to learn. Come up with better proof and I will listen, until then I follow the status quo.

Answer 4

I am astounded, I really am.
If you don't believe in evolution then I can't really help you. You need to just sit in the corner and be content.

I wish I could find such comfort in ignorance.

However, I cannot, so I'll answer you as best I can.
Irreducible complexity - These include the eye, even though there are so many different types of vision, from crude, light-sensitive patches, such as in Euglena, to eyes which can see into the ultraviolet spectrum, such as some insects and hawks. Why didn't the creator give us, his best creation, the best eyes - ours are fundamentally flawed. As to the out- board motor design found in flagella, there are intermediates found in cilia etc, and there is no reason to suppose that it could not have developed along the lines of mitochondria in animal cells, that is, two separate organisms coming together, one that looked like a flagellum, the other a normal bacterium. to form what seems to be a single bacterium.
You're right in that most mutations are bad, and that forms the basis of evolutionary adaptations. We only see the mutations which are not fatal to survival. The mutations which are beneficial tend to spread throughout the population. Look up Haemoglobin S and sickle cell anaemia for a good example.
We are seeing mutations today. How do you think resistance to antibiotics is occurring in bacteria, or pesticide resistance in locusts? This is natural selection, in an artificially induced environment.
Entropy is explained easily by thinking about how large an environment to consider - sunlight falls on the Earth, is collected and converted by plants, this is eventually passed down the food chain to all organisms on Earth. From higher to lower energy states. It just seems to be moving the other way if you look at it superficially. How do you think a nice stable apple is converted into muscle, fat, glucose and energy when you eat it, if this were not possible?
The Cambrian explosion did not occur overnight, it happened over millions of years, and followed a massive extinction-level event, which wiped out most of life on Earth. This allowed many new species to adapt rapidly (eg a million years or so) to a changing environment. The extinction of the dinosaurs allowed for the rise of the mammals in a similar way 65 million years ago.
.

Edit:
Haemoglobin S exists primarily at to levels, depending on how it is inherited, either homozygous state (SS) or heterozygous state (AS). SS is generally fatal in childhood, AS gives the individual protection against malaria. The more individuals who have AS, the greater the benefit to the society or village, or tribe. The deaths are, in essence, unimportant as they do not contribute to the gene pool. What is important is the protection of AS to Malaria.
There are many other examples like this. What can't be explained by creationists is why the SS form exists, it can only be explained by evolutionary logic.

Answer 5

First of all, no one can prove (or disprove) the existence of God. No one has "seen" God and lived to tell about it. Near death experience? That's like a "near miss" of airplanes. The only way to "prove" God's presence is to die. If you're that se ton proving it, do the world a favor. Take that theologian BS away from the Science category.

Now to address your.... well, for lack of a better word, points. You really don't have any, just a lot of rambling nonsense. Most mutations are bad? Of course they are, but not all of them are. Many allow organisms to live when they would not ordinarily. That, my uneducated friend, is evolution. For example, let's take Staphylococcus aureus. A simple bacterium, usually sensitive to several antibiotics (that means they kill it). One simple mutation and it can produce an enxyme that degrades those antibiotics, thus making it resistant. One minor case of MRSA and you might think differently on evolution from mutation. Or, you could get AIDS. Carry around 400 different strains of HIV, a third of which are likely unique from anyone else with the virus, and you will surely see evolution in a different light. Evolution over millions of years is evidenced by tons of fossils and other findings. Every living thing evolves a little every day, making it more suited to it's ever changing environment.

As for creation, it is possible that an all powerful being spoke the entire universe into existence. But no one said it was created exactly as it is today. Evolution is a natural part of the universe; and if it was created, that is part of that creation. But regardless, that is a debate for a different category.

Answer 6

>"Personally i don't believe in evolution because i believe that the awesome and almighty God created the world."

Why could God not have created life through evolution?
The only reason is if your belief in God completely depends on an absolutely *literal* interpretation of the Bible.

>"irreducable complexity - says that substances and particles couldn't have evolved because they need all their parts to work."

And Michael Behe is one of the only scientists to take the irreducible complexity argument seriously. Why does it have practically *NO* support in the scientific community? Because the flagellum, the eye, the wing, and every single other example ever offered by Intelligent Design people as 'irreducible' have *all* been shown to be absolutely 'reducible' after all.

>"almost all mutations are bad."

The key word is *almost*. As long as *some* mutations are good, natural selection will make them spread, while the bad ones will tend to disappear.

>"how do u explain entropy"

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution. If you're referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this applies to a *closed* system, which the earth is not (as it has an external energy source).

>"DNA (which is crazy!), "

What about it?

>"cambrian explosion - when fossils of different animals appeared at same time"

The Cambrian Explosion occurred over a span of 80 *million* years. That is unusually "rapid" by geological standards ... but far from "at the same time."

And it also happened 580 million years ago. A far cry from the 6,000 years ago believed by creationists.

But Creationism doesn't just argue that many different species appeared at the same time ... but that *ALL* species did ... and no scientific description of the Cambrian Explosion says that ALL species appeared at that time.

In other words, if you're going to use the Cambrian Explosion as an argument, you have to use all of it ... you don't just pick the little pieces of it that you think support your argument.

>"teleology"

What about it? (I'm sorry, I don't understand these one-word 'arguments', so I don't know how to refute them.)

Answer 7

Unfortunately you appear to have been taken in by the rhetoric of the fundamentalist crazies. Not all people of faith are crazy by any means, but the ones who deny the fact of evolution are either crazy or liars. Take your pick.

From your question it's clear you don't understand the subject - you're just parrotting the common creationist objections to evolution, all of which have been answered many, many times. And you're not even asking them very well. The best thing I can recommmend is stay in school.

Answer 8

There is no reason why evolution and God-driven creation cannot both be true.
Evolution makes no comment on whether God created life on earth (in fact, evolution makes no statments about how life began at all).
The only thing that evolution (and geology, and astrophysics, and most fields of modern science) can state with respect to God is that the bible cannot be literally true. For example, the universe is a lot older than 6000 years.

Irreducible complexity is an "argument from incredulity". Basically, it says "I cannot see how [the eye/the immune system/the wing/the flagellum/whatever] could have evolved: therefore it didn't evolve!" All it demonstrates is a lack of imagination on the part of the person making the statement. And all the objects proposed as irreducibly complex have been shown by others to *not* be!

It is not neccessarily the case that almost all mutations are bad - it is just as likely that mutations are good. But we only tend to notice the bad ones (we are aware of the problems associated with cystic fibrosis, for example, but it's not like we perform complex genetic analysis to determine why some athletes are better than others). But even if most were bad, we only need for there to be a few good ones in order for evolution to occur.
And we *do* see mutations and evolution today: industrial melanism of the peppered moth, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in mosquitoes, speciation events in fruitflies, and many, many more.

The Cambrian explosion is explainable *because* of evolution. Alternative "theories" like creationism do not address the Cambrian explosion at all.

> "who designed God, that's a confusing question, but don't u think that something had to be self-existent in order to create things that exist. i mean if big bang is believable, what came before the big bang? God is out of time, space etc....he is not like man.....so if He is self-existent then it would make sense that something that's out of time can call things into existence"

Sure. Why not? Science cannot answer these questions *because* they deal with things outside the physical universe. Which is why science cannot be used to disprove the existance of God. However, whether God created the universe or not has nothing to do with evolution: both can easily be true.

> "u cannot underestimate DNA. it's very complex. how did it come in the first place. who decided the genetic code?"

Interestingly, this is one of the strongest arguments *for* evolution.
All organisms share the same genetic code: so the codon GUU codes for Valine in *all* organisms, and never for anything else. There is absolutely no reason for this to be the case, even if we are all using the same 20 amino acids; I mean, why doesn't GUU code for Valine in humans, and for Serine in birds, and for alanine in plants? In fact, a different genetic code would be an *advantage*, as it would prevent cross-species infection by viruses (as the virus' genes would code for the wrong proteins in different host species, and it wouldn't be able to replicate itself). The only reason why this should be the case is because we *all* evolved from the same primordial organism that used that code.

> "to the person who wrote abt sickle cell anemia - it might be good in that it can make u immune to malaria, but i've heard that it can also kill u...how is that good for the betterment of human race?"

Sickle cell anemia only gives you the disease if you are homozygous for the trait. Heterozygotes are resistant to malaria, and do not get the disease.
Also, evolutionarily speaking, the major drive is: can you survive until you have children? If so, then you are an evolutionary success. If malaria stops you having children due to being ill, then its better to have some sickle-cell traits.

The best website to check for this kind of information is www.talkorigins.com
But these wikipedia entries are pretty good too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
_______________________________________________
Edit:
>"What about anthropic principle "
Good question. The anthropic principle states that all the constants of the universe (such as the strong nuclear force, the speed of light, the gravitational force, etc.) are "just so" for matter as we know it to exist. If they were even slightly different, then matter as we know it - and therefore life as we know it - couldn't exist. Therefore (it concludes), the universe was constructed in just this way in order that we can exisdt in it.
However, this isn't really a scientific hypothesis, as it's not testable.
Also - it says nothing about whether evolution occurs (which was your original question). Another idea you may be interested in is "Theistic Evolution":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
which holds that both evolution and God can exist, and that God instituted life and evolution in order that it eventually produce us. Humanity, capable of free will, rationality, and salvation.

The other stuff you mention - such as the fact that Earth is in the "Goldilocks Zone" for life is conjecture. We actually have no idea if life could have evolved if earth were closer or farther from the sun.
And, in actual fact, it *still* doesn't say anything about evolution.

>"Design has been substituted with natural selection, but what w/ DNA and amino acids....i addressed this before, but natural selection could happen after DNA, how can it before"

Anything that can self-replicate with variation can undergo evolution. Computer programmes can show evolution.
And not all organisms have a DNA genome: some viruses use RNA as their genome, but they still evolve. The 'flu is caused by an RNA virus (influenza virus), and it evolves every year - which is why we need new vaccines each year.

However - you are making the mistake of confusing abiogenesis and the RNA world with evolution:
Evolution says nothing about how life began - only about how it changed (and continues to change) after it began. So why does it need to be "before DNA"?

>"what triggered the evolution? what thought "oh i need to save this for the developement of life?" "

That's the "Natural Selection" part of the theory.
Traits that allow an organism to survive and to reproduce will be selected for simply because that is what happens. Lots of offspring, carrying the same genes will perpetuate those traits in the population.
An organism that does not have the traits that allow such survival, or permit lots of offspring, will not have those traits selected for, because they will have less offspring than their more evolutionarily advantaged colleagues, and the number of those genes in the population will decrease every generation.

Answer 9

I've already seen your specific problems addressed by others here, but I thought I should add a link to the talk origins' list of creationist claims. All your objections and more are addressed here. Just be sure to exorcise Morton's Demon before looking into it.

Answer 10

I am continually astounded at the reasons put forth by the faithfull to "refute" evolution.

Believe what you want, organisms will continue to evolve whether you believe they are or not. These fairy tales require faith in order to continue, and eventually that will fade as new religions/cults take their turn in human societies. As to your objections....

Irreducible complexity-- We've all heard this one before, and addressed it on numerous occasions. It is an unbelievably flawed bit of logic that only works if you presume the authenticity of the supernatural. I'll just issue you with the standard response that if a flagellum is too complicated for you to conceive of its' origins, how do you justify the spontaneous existence of a supernatural force capable of "poofing" it into existence. In other words, if complexity requires a designer, then who or what created that designer....
As you are requiring documented proof of a well tested scientific theory like evolution; I feel well within my rights to request an answer here that doesn't require this designer to be the lone exception to the rules of existence.

Mutations-- Indeed, many mutations are "bad" as you put it. Most mutations, however, have no immediate effect upon the organism being mutated. Some are decidedly advantageous to the creature in question. I can see that you readily accept the idea of genetic variability within a species, but you reject the mere possibility that accumulated mutations within a population would eventually lead to a new species. While I can't understand that sort of logic, perhaps you could find what you seek by reading the court transcript of Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I suggest looking into days 10,11, and 12 when Mr. Behe is forced to defend ID on the stand.
Mutations do continue to occur today all around you. They are only noticable in organisms with very short generation spans, such as bacteria and viruses. Have you ever gotten a flu shot? That is the result of evolution happening around you.

Entropy-- This has to do with non-living matter in a closed system. It has as much to do with evolution as the dietary habits of deep-sea tube worms has to do with the college world series.

DNA-- As early as 1956, scientists performed experiments in sealed test tubes containing the 4 basic compounds believed to exist in our early atmosphere. They were subjected to periodic heating and cooling (simulating day/night cycles and volcanism) and electric jolts (simulating lightening). Within one week, 13 different amino acids were found to have formed spontaneously, and after two weeks, the number was up to 16. All DNA is simply a combination of different amino acids that becomes self-replicating upon reaching a certain size and structure.
If we can create up to 16 of these amino acids in a couple weeks, is it really that hard to believe that they wouldn't eventually bump into each other to form more complex proteins and in turn create complex molecules like DNA? Particularly given half a billion years to do so....

Probably should point out that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.... evolution deals with the origin of species, there is a rather large difference between the two.

Cambrian Explosion-- I can't think of a much better proof of evolution than the cambrian explosion. Consider that you are dealing with the first complex multicellular life on earth in a world full of unexploited niches.... An "explosion" of new and different forms of life is precisely what evolution predicts in such a case.
It most certainly doesn't help the idea of creationism. Unless you are prepared to tell us that all of these creatures.....allow me to rephrase that..... all of these MARINE creatures didn't make it aboard some boat and therefore died in a flood.... I would hope even a staunch person of faith would find that one hard to swallow.

I sincerely hope that science never has all the answers. None of the questions remaining about the natural world will ever require the intrusion of a supernatural entity unless you WANT such a being to exist. As for myself, I will galdly count myself among those that at least SEEK the truth, rather than throwing my lot in with those that would discredit and demonize those that work everyday to better understand the world around us.

At one point it was blasphemy to consider the world as anything other than the center of the universe..... Then it was equally preposterous to suppose that continents moved and mountains were still being formed..... Now you have chosen to make your stand on speciation, good luck with that one.

Answer 11

You're not asking a question,you're ranting about something you know nothing about.Go to the Galapagos Islands you will see Evolution. You are still ranting, beaks getting longer,or shorter,how long do you think this process takes?