Serious flaws about Evolution?

Question

Here are some serious flaws about Evolution.

1. According to the laws of nature and science that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser. Therefore, it is more logical that existence will come from a Creator rather than for existence to come from an amoeba.

2. There are no transitory species which means we cannot find any species of animal in a halfway changing point. Nor can we find any species with even that potential to change.

3. DNA DeoxyriboNucleicAcid, every creature has the genetic code that God has given it, you cannot change your DNA. A cat cannot become a dog and a monkey cannot become a human.

Although a species may change, there is never an instance of one species becoming a totally other species altogether.

Any thoughts?

I agree with change and mutation and "evolving" but my argument is with the theory of Evolution itself.

The bottom line is could we have come into existence without the hand of a power greater than ourselves?

Also, no one has been able to name 1 transitory species.

Answer 1

1. "According to the laws of nature and science that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser."

There is no such "law." If this were true, then a human being could not "come from" a sperm and an egg. Or a tree could not "come from" a seed. Or for that matter, the complexity of a snowflake could not "come from" the far lesser complexity of the water molecule. There are *so many* examples where the things is far "greater" than the sum of its "lesser" parts. There is no such "law."

2. "There are no transitory species which means we cannot find any species of animal in a halfway changing point."

A "halfway changing point" between what and what?

Do you mean between two current species (e.g. between a monkey and a human)? That can't happen because modern monkeys and humans can't mate.

Do you mean between an ancestor species and a current species ... such as between the ancestor to humans and current humans? *LOTS* of examples of "transitory species", including many on separate (but now extinct) branches:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens

(So much for being unable to name one.)

Do you mean a *living* transitional form between an ancestor and a current species? Not only does evolutionary theory NOT predict that there should be any, but this would completely violate the theory of evolution. It would presume that intermediate forms are somehow constantly getting "frozen" in that "half-way" evolutionary form while the rest of the species evolves. I.e. that if there is a chain of intermediate forms A B C D E F G H I J K ... that we would not only find members of K living today ...but *all* intermediate forms A - J. Why??? Why would some member still continue to reproduce, but in some "frozen" intermediate form? That is a bizarre concept that makes no sense. That is why it is NOT an expected outcome of evolution.

>"Nor can we find any species with even that potential to change."

Nor would we expect to. No living species would be *expected* to have the "potential" of "changing" into another living species.

... No more than I have the "potential" of "changing" into my siblings or cousins.

All organisms absolutely DO show the potential of "changing" into something else ... just not something else that is already alive.

3. >"DNA DeoxyriboNucleicAcid, every creature has the genetic code that God has given it, you cannot change your DNA. A cat cannot become a dog and a monkey cannot become a human."

Of course not. But evolution doesn't say that "a cat can become a dog, or a monkey can become a human."

(A) An individual cannot "become" a different species. *SPECIES EVOLVE* not individuals.

(B) Nobody says that any *LIVING SPECIES* can become another *LIVING SPECIES*. Cats can't become dogs because *DOGS ALREADY EXIST*. Cats and dogs can only evolve into some species that *DOESN'T EXIST YET*.

(Why is that hard to understand?)


In summary, you have indeed stated some flaws ... but not in the theory of evolution as scientists understand it (and accept overwhelmingly) but in some jumbled, incoherent version of evolution that bears no resemblance to the real thing. You are stating some bizarre, CARTOON version of evolution that completely *VIOLATES* the real theory of evolution.

No wonder you don't believe in evolution. Your understanding of it MAKES NO SENSE.

Answer 2

First thought: get your science from scientists, not religious leaders.

Laws of nature and science? Where did you get that? There is no concept in biology better supported than that of evolution. Even if we accepted your hypothesis, evolution works in both directions, increased and decreased complexity. Consider parasites as an example of the latter.

Transitory species? We keep coming up with them. I think Tiktaalik is the latest. You fundamentalists just say, "Well, what is the link between the links?" You will never be satisfied.

DNA changes all the time. It's called mutation. That's why you are not a carbon copy of your parents. BTW, nobody (at least, no scientist) ever said that cats became dogs or that monkeys became human. (Granted, I have had some doubts when I've graded some of my students.) However, the two pairs can be traced back to common ancerstors. Considering the odds against fossilization of any individual, I'd say we've done quite well in piecing together the fossil record.

AHA, you admit a species can change. Doesn't that negate your third argument?

While evolution is generally too slow to see during the short time man has been around, there has been an instance of a new subspecies evolving fairly rapidly. It is a small rodent found only on an island in the Great Salt Lake. The ones on shore area different subspecies. We can time it fairly well because that island didn't exist until relatively recently.

Answer 3

what are your sources? sounds like a very bias source if you ask me. Number one, no one said that any species alive today is greater than any alive 300 million years ago, the species alive today have simpIy adapted to the current conditions if you did a little research you can find that 99% of the species ever alive on the earth are extinct. it is the nature of things. Number 2 is wrong because they have discovered a few transitory species. The most famous one is the archeopteryx. It is half bird and half dinosaur. It has the feather and claw features of a modern bird, but the teeth and bone structure of a dinosaur. Number 3 is very wrong. Whales and sea mammals came to evolve from land mammals, which came from the first tetrapods, (four legged amphibians) which evolved from fish that developed the ability to adapt to life above water.so they went from sea to land back to the sea. mammals came from the land, they did not evolve in the ocean. And one of the main reasons why the discovery of DNA is so imoportant in the first place is that it shows how much variation there is in life and readily and constantly it does change. Your argument is flawed here becasue no one ever said a cat could become a dog, or even that a monkey became a human, we did not transform over night there were many steps and millions of years involved. I think you need to read a little more and find out the true nature of evolution and how much headway has been made in the past few years, especially in micro-biology. best of luck in your education:)

Answer 4

What the hell is a 'transitory species'?!
What, like a species of animal that 'isn't quite right yet' and is still on the path to becoming what it isn't yet?

Actually, instead of defending the theory and reality of evolution, which is a bizarre thing to have to do, I'll ask about your 'God.'

So in your mind 'God' is an actual BEING? This is illogical:
'Beings' die - this is what makes them 'beings'. Surely you should be able to see that, just from observation. So if 'God' does exist it can't be human, intelligent, localized or 'alive' in any sense that we understand, or else your 'God' would not be immortal.

Evolution is life.

God is not the head of some 'Organization' that we can just seamlessly fit into when we die. There's no 'taking phone calls' or 'running errands' in some 'after-life'.
It is SUPREMELY ARROGANT for humans to think that there is some 'spiritual network' out there that we cannot perceive that has been designed by some deity to cater for OUR NEEDS after we die.

This, friend, is the 'Illusion of self' - and is the cause of most of the social, psychological and ethical problems in the human world.

People have to be adult enough to accept that while there clearly is a process that results in consciousness like ours, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, AND GOD WILL NOT SAVE YOU.

Doubting evolution is just a drowning man clutching on straws, trying to believe that there is meaning in his individual self, and that he might survive and live forever in heaven or something.

But meaning comes from multiple selves interacting with each other: love, hate, loneliness, togetherness.

If anything, this is what your 'God' is telling you: Do not try to preserve yourself, but rather try to enrich your respective group(s) because this is where true meaning and value in life lies.
And in their honest quest for 'truth' our brightest minds began to investigate the Theory of Evolution, a theory that has gone from strength to strength over the years while the dogmatic pseudo-philosophy or our religious institutions look progressively more ridiculous as time moves on. (Unlike scientific theory, 'religious theory' CANNOT EVOLVE lol)

Answer 5

> "1. According to the laws of nature and science that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser."

Well - apart from the fact that, in this context, "greater" and "lesser" have absolutely no meaning, this statement is completely false. You grew from a single fertilised cell, becoming much "greater" in the process.

> "2. There are no transitory species which means we cannot find any species of animal in a halfway changing point."

Again - untrue: *all* species are transitional between what the species was like a million years ago, and what it will be like in a million years from now.
And if you are asking about transitional fossils - then there are literally dozens of examples found in the fossil record.

> "Nor can we find any species with even that potential to change."

*All* species have the potential to change.

> "3. DNA DeoxyriboNucleicAcid, every creature has the genetic code that God has given it, you cannot change your DNA. A cat cannot become a dog and a monkey cannot become a human."

Individual organisms, with their "set" DNA do not evolve. It is changes in the frequency of different genetic traits within a population that causes ... no, that *is* evolution. For a simple example, you only need to look to the emergence of antibiotic-resistance in bacteria, or pesticide-resistance in mosquitoes.

> "Although a species may change, there is never an instance of one species becoming a totally other species altogether."

All that is required for such speciation is for reproductive isolation to occur: for two sub-populations of the same species to become unable to interbreed. And this has been observed many times also.

I'm afraid that your points are all false, and your conclusion - that there are serious flaws in evolution - is also untrue.

Answer 6

I d say those transitory species are just errors of classification since they have 2 of every 3 incorrectly classified just in the 12 of North America they bothered to study. So any claims of anything being transitory is more likely another classification error. If dogs were not alive today evolution would show how each one was a separate species and draw a pretty tree for them - and be totally wrong.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs?language=en

Answer 7

There are only serious flaws in your understanding of evolution.

1. It is completely unparsimonious to assume that a creator came from nothing, and if you're referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is in regards to closed systems.

2. All life has the ability to change; they're called genetic mutations. Evolution is a change in population over time. Populations evolve, not single organisms.

3. DNA can change. Changes are called mutations. Evolution works slowly because if a human's DNA changed too drastically, they would not be able to reproduce with other humans.

What was your question now?

Answer 8

I'm not a biologist, so I will not comment on 2) and 3) above. However, I am a physicist, so I can tell you that there is no law of nature and science that says that "that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser". I suppose you may be thinking of thermodynamics, which has the statistical property of systems evolving towards greater randomness, rather than greater structure. However, this only applies for a closed system and in a statistical manner. There is nothing to say that there cannot be portions of that system that tend to a more structured, rather than a less structured, state.

A simple example is the snowflake. From random water molecules comes a complex and beautiful structure. Does your Creator sculpt each snowflake? Maybe you think it does; however, the snowflake is the product of well known physical processes, and does not seem to need the assistance of any Outside Forces.

Answer 9

> 1. According to the laws of nature and science that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser

False. There is no such law of nature or science which says that. Quite the contrary. The "law of gravitation" brings hydrogen atoms (lesser) together to make stars (greater).
Whoever made the statement #1 wasn't thinking.

> 2. There are no transitory species which means we cannot find any species of animal in a halfway changing point. Nor can we find any species with even that potential to change.

False. Consider the wolf as one endpoint and the mini-dachshund as the other. You can consider other breeds of dog as being transitional between wolf and mini-dachshund.
Whoever made the statement #2 wasn't thinking.

> 3. DNA DeoxyriboNucleicAcid, every creature has the genetic code that God has given it, you cannot change your DNA.

Objection: God not in evidence, Your Honor.
False. DNA changes by a variety of well-understood methods, including mutation and viral lysogeny. Such changes may become prevalent in a population through selection.
Whoever made the statement #3 wasn't thinking.

> there is never an instance of one species becoming a totally other species altogether.

False. Corn isn't its teosinte ancestor. A mini-dachshund isn't a wolf. See also the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Answer 10

no

Answer 11

Where did you get this nonsense that that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser. How does an oak tree come from an acorn? and how does a 6 foot man come from a 1 millimeter egg cell? And as to transitory species, how do you explain neanderthal man and cro-magnon man if not transitory between apes and humans? As to one species becoming a toally other species. It has happenned often, but not in 1 step; rather in a series of steps.