A definitive reply to Evolutionist Propaganda

The fossil record is actually very poor in its support for evolution. We have had about 3 or 4 high profile 'missing link' fossils to account for the evolution of humans. Even these have been disputed or shown to be false.

Here's a few of reasons why I don't believe in this theory:

- The theory of evolution is very bad science. Science is about observation and repetition. We can boil water and note that it always seems to boil at 100 degrees. We can repeat this experiment and observe the results. This isn't the case with evolution (unless we have millions of years to carry out each experiment)

- Where are all the missing links? Why do we have such 'discrete' creatures? why aren't there half apes walking around?

- Poor/non-existant fossil record to support the hypothesis.

- How did certain elements evolve? How did an eye, a wing or an ear, for example, evolve? A half evolved wing, or ear is useless, and would be a hinderance to the creature concerned. The mutation would die off before it got a chance to fully develop.

- It's not 'survival of the fittest', it's 'death of the weakest'. Ever watched nature programs? A subtle, but important point. which throws doubt onto the whole mechanism of evolution.
 
How did certain elements evolve? How did an eye, a wing or an ear, for example, evolve? A half evolved wing, or ear is useless, and would be a hinderance to the creature concerned. The mutation would die off before it got a chance to fully develop.
Click to expand...

Read Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" for an comprehensive answer to this "problem" often posed by creationists. But in a nutshell, 1/2 an eye or even 1/1000th of a fully functional eye confers more selective advantage than no eye at all.
 
Shanks, I was referring to eyes with zero functionality.

How does evolution 'know' what an eye should look like? Do you have any comments on the other points?
 
I'm not an expert on evolution and have absolutely no knowledge on the fossil record so I'll just explain my understanding of how complex organs could have evolved.

How does evolution 'know' what an eye should look like?
Click to expand...

During evolution, selection is always based on short-term reproductive success not on long term goals. Imagine a population of simple multicellular organisms swimming in a sea 2 billion years ago, if a mutation in one member of this population resulted in the development on its surface of a small group of pigmented cells capable of being stimulated by light. This small random alteration would confer slight reproductive advantage to its holder as it can, perhaps, now move towards light where food might be more abundant. This spot of pigmented cells does not have zero functionality to the organism in terms of increased reproductive success so it spreads through the population over successive generations.

Now because of random mutations over eons, slight changes to this spot occur which successively improve its light sensing properties. Each new slight improvement confers increased reproductive advantage on it holder so it also spreads through the population. Eventually we arrived at the modern day eye not as a result of a long term project or goal but as a result of a long series of individual (each successful in the short term) small steps.

Compared to a modern day eye, the pigmented cells may only have had one millionth of its functionality but that was still enough of an advantage over the remainder of the population who had "eyes" with zero functionality.
 
Moral

This reminds me about the old story of the scientist who meets God and says "God we can make life , we can make planets , we can explain all things living and their evolution" ,
God says "OK , show me" ,

the scientist then picks up a handful of clay

, then GOD says , " STOP ! GET YOUR OWN CLAY!".


QED
 
Here's a few of reasons why I don't believe in this theory:

A general question...to XXXAPXXX and others.
If you don't believe in evolution what do you believe in?
 
Evolution

I believe in a superior, omnipotent being which made everything in seven days. Oh, yeah, and there's no proof of the existence of the being and no one has ever seen it.

I also believe in santa Claus.
 
Re: Evolution

I believe in a superior, omnipotent being which made everything in seven days. Oh, yeah, and there's no proof of the existence of the being and no one has ever seen it.

I also believe in santa Claus.

Cynicism aside, while I understand where you're coming from, this is a rather simplistic argument to back up the lack of scientific evidence for God.

Let's just suppose God made the universe for a second. Why do you suppose there would be hard scientific evidence for that fact?

Belief in a supreme being does not necessarily have to be tied in to earthly religions and stories, designed as they were, to allow the people of the day understand the concept of God creating the universe.
 
evolution

Evolutionary agents are forces that change the genetic structure of a population. The known evolutionary agents are mutation, gene flow, non random mating and natural selection. Of all these agents though, only natural selection results in adaptation. There are factors that contribute to the speed of adaptation though, the most primary of which is population size - the larger the population, the longer it takes for a change to become "fixed" in the population (where every member of the population has that change). This may take thousands of generations if the change confers a minor advantage to its bearer, but in the case where the possesion of this change means survival (or death without it) the change can become fixed in a single generation. In this case, everyone else that didn't have the change has died off and so the change become fixed by default. An example of this is antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which can sweep a population of bacteria with astonishing speed.

The effects of evolution range in intensity, from cases like this to completely random processes that cause changes by random chance. Weekly, there are many papers published in the scientific literature which describe examples of evolution that is happening or has happened.
Fossil records, while being the building blocks for the formation of evolutionary theory, have been superceeded in most examples by the overwhelming evidence the genetic age has produced.

That said, the theories surrounding evolution are continuously changing, being modified to try to explain the evidence being uncovered. Most of these modifications are peripheral though and the central tenements first espoused by Darwin in the 1800's have hardly changed in over 150 years.


T.
 
Re: evolution

Piggy - I simply don't believe in the theory of evolution, it just doesn't seem credible. I'm far too sceptical.

I don't know wht the origin of the species is, and won't hazzard a guess. If someone comes up with a better theory, I'll be pleased to listen.

(Note the use of the word, 'believe'. Remember, like religion, that there is no scientific basis for this theory. People have to believe in it.)

Shanks - I would suggest that the ability to sense light, and analyse it is indeed complex. This trait would have to happen all at once, and also be successfully passed down from generation to generation. How many of these organisms acquired this trait? If it was just one, that might limit the gene pool.

If people evolved from apes, why do apes still exist? Where are all the missing links? - why don't these creatures exist?

I'd be more inclined to believe in Adam and Eve, or the aliens theory!
 
re;

Hi Another person, some repies to your comments;

'Here's a few of reasons why I don't believe in this theory:'

"- The theory of evolution is very bad science. Science is about observation and repetition. We can boil water and note that it always seems to boil at 100 degrees. We can repeat this experiment and observe the results. This isn't the case with evolution (unless we have millions of years to carry out each experiment)"

No arguement there. Thats not really an arguement against the theory of evolution

"- Where are all the missing links? Why do we have such 'discrete' creatures? why aren't there half apes walking around?"

Half apes probably do not fill any ecological niche. We're not actually that discrete either. Most living organisms share 90%+ of DNA.

"- Poor/non-existant fossil record to support the hypothesis."

Fossils contain only a small fraction of organisms once living. Also plate tectonics has destroyed (folded, distorted) a large amount of evidence. Also a unique set of events has to happen to turn you into a fossil, you usually need to get immediately get covered in sediment or volcanic ash. You're much more likely to get scavenged or eaten. True there are many gaps, but there are a few remarkably complete fossil lineages (example link from replites to mammals)

"- How did certain elements evolve? How did an eye, a wing or an ear, for example, evolve? A half evolved wing, or ear is useless, and would be a hinderance to the creature concerned. The mutation would die off before it got a chance to fully develop."

Example eye;
Photosensitive organs have developed independantly in different organisms at least 40 times, facilitated by a gene common to all 'Pax 6', which regulates the nervous system. In molluscs the evolution of the eye started with a pigmented spot (which became the retina) linked to nerve fibres. Then developed a cup which became a water filled cavity (becoming the lens). Complex eyes since developed involving the iris and cornea also. You can go out and take a look for yourself at these various stages of complexity in currently living organisms.

"- It's not 'survival of the fittest', it's 'death of the weakest'. Ever watched nature programs? A subtle, but important point. which throws doubt onto the whole mechanism of evolution. "

Not quite sure of you're point here. Natural selection is a 2 step process.
1. Chance or random mutation
2. The 'goodness' of this mutation is tested throughout its lifecycle (survival / elimination).
 
Re: evolution

> If people evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?

This is a common mistake made when looking at evolutionary theory - and probably largely due to those Victorian "ascent of man" pictures purporting to show how man evolved from apes. We did not evolve "from" apes. We share an evolutionary line with these and ALL other creatures. Apes are simply are nearest living relatives in the genetic sense. At some point the evolutionary lines split to leave three main surviving and related (proven by DNA analysis so there is scientific proof) groups - old world monkeys, new world monkeys and homonoids (including apes and humans). Along the way different genetic variants emerged and many of them followed different evolutionary paths and died off. One of the better known would be the Neanderthal. While it is possible that Neanderthals could have interbred with homo-sapiens (Cro Magnon), as a group they basically represented an evolutionary dead end who, when they could not compete with the arrival of Cro-Magnon in Europe and with the changing environment died out. Evolution is all about adaptation, chance and trial and error. It is wrong to think of it as some sort of continuous process which only gives rise to new surviving species or genetic variants. The vast majority of new variants don't survive. Humans only survive and prosper due to serendipity. Given the right circumstances it could just have easily been Neanderthals who dominate the earth these days. Or dinosaurs.
 
Re: evolution

If people evolved from apes, why do apes still exist? Where are all the missing links? - why don't these creatures exist?

According to the evolutionist theory (and in my own words) many different species of humans evolved from ape-like creatures millions of years ago. Some of those species died off or did not evolve (survival of the fittest etc). We are now left with one group...Homo Sapiens (who originally evolved in Africa I believe).

I understand that there are holes in the evolution theory, but that has more to do with the limitations of our understanding of natural history rather than the whole thing being a sham in my opinion. You only have to look at the evidence of early humans to understand that we evolved from them.
 
re; evolution

"If people evolved from apes, why do apes still exist? Where are all the missing links? - why don't these creatures exist? "

We didn't evolve from apes. Both us and apes evolved from a common ancestor; 'the missing link'.

If we did theres no definitive reason why we could'nt co-exist. For evolution to occur its not necessary for the parent species to become extinct. Example; We're also decended from sponges, which still exist.

Natural selection has eliminated extinct species (or what you call the missing links), or else 'selection pressure' due to environmental conditions e.g. asteroids. Theres already been around 10 mass extinctions each time killing 80-90% of all organisms. The dinosaurs has only been one.
 
Re: re; evolution

okay, so the theory states that we didn't evolve from apes but from a missing link. This still doesn't detract from my original point.

Why aren't there a huge array of different animals, at various stages of evolution, walking around? Yes, we have had many mass extinction events, but so what? Were the extinctions that selective?

Photosensitive organs have developed independantly in different organisms at least 40 times, facilitated by a gene common to all 'Pax 6', which regulates the nervous system. In molluscs the evolution of the eye started with a pigmented spot (which became the retina) linked to nerve fibres. Then developed a cup which became a water filled cavity (becoming the lens). Complex eyes since developed involving the iris and cornea also. You can go out and take a look for yourself at these various stages of complexity in currently living organisms.
Click to expand...

This doesn't prove that one evolved from the other. This just shows that different creatures have different types of eyes, or photosensitive organs. I would regard the phrase 'various stages' as being very misleading.
 
Re: re; evolution

Why aren't there a huge array of different animals, at various stages of evolution, walking around?

Can you explain what you mean? I think it's fair to say there's a huge array of animals on the planet. We don't even have a definitive count on how many, the number's that big!!!
Aren't all creatures evolving? Right now, we're in our current evolutionary state.

Yes, we have had many mass extinction events, but so what? Were the extinctions that selective?

I'm not sure I understand this point either. The dinosaurs all died out (in one fell swoop) bar a very small number of creatures that survived and evolved.
 
Genetic evolution

I actually take the opposite viewfrom Brendan. Evolution through natural selection and genetic inheritance is an observable fact. Why do Arabs and Irishmen spend so much on racehorses which happen to win races and force them to breed with their equals - because it clearly gives rise to baby horses more likely to win races.

Why are most women today prettier than the Mona Lisa? Natural selection enhances prettiness and other mating attributes, including being fit to survive in our environment.

But to extrapolate from this and say we are descended from sponges is wildly irresponsible to say the least.
 
Re: re; evolution

> Can you explain what you mean? I think it's fair to say there's a huge array of animals on the planet. W

This is another fallacy - that organisms inexorably work towards some predetermined perfect evolutionary state and then stop. Again that "ascent of man" chart is pertinent suggesting, as it does, that our own species followed some predestined evolutionary process towards our current "perfect" state as homo-sapiens. This is not true and as explained above all species, including ourselves, are currently undergoing change and adaptation. Humans have an advantage in that we are better able to change and control our environment in order to suit our needs rather than depending on evolutionary changes per se so much. The fact that some species have thrived relatively unaltered for millions of years simply means that they have adapted to their environment and it hasn't changed sufficiently for them to need to adapt further.

The books I mentioned earlier in this discussion explain this stuff much better than I can to be honest and are well worth reading. While reading them I too found that there seemed to be gaps and large leaps of faith involved in the theories presented (these were, after all, simply popular scientific synopses of the subject matter and not academic treatises) but most of it does make sense and in line with objective scientific thinking on the matter.
 
Re: Genetic evolution

Why are most women today prettier than the Mona Lisa?

That would depend on what your view of the Mona Lisa is, wouldn't it? Is it a woman, or a man, or both?

But to extrapolate from this and say we are descended from sponges is wildly irresponsible to say the least.

Why so? If you believe that life started off in it's simplest form on the planet billions of years ago, it was bacteria. Eventually it evolved into stuff like sponges. Life began in water...not on land.
 
Genetic evolution

> But to extrapolate from this and say we are descended from sponges is wildly irresponsible to say the least

Genetic archaeologists (the application of genetic analytical techniques to the field of archaeology - a relatively new field of expertise and one that has helped supplement and refine the previously palaeontological only evidence) have constructed taxonomic diagrams illustrating the genetic and estimated evolutionary timeline differences between many species which show that, while we may not be descended from sponges (for example), all organic life on earth does share a common ancenstry. These are the same diagrams which illustrate how we are extremely "close" to chimps in terms of our DNA an evolutionary timelines. In fact the Gribben book mentioned earlier deliberately uses the title The FIRST Chipanzee in contrast to Diamond's The THIRD Chimpanzee to summarise the recent theory which suggests that rather than our (homo-sapiens) evolutionary line splitting off from that of chimps up to 20 million years ago (as was generally accepted based on purely palaeontological evidence) in fact we split off much more recently c. 4 million years ago (as suggested by the genetic evidence). Anyway - these taxonomic diagrams do show that we are at least RELATED to sponges in a genetic evolutionary sense if not DESCENDED from them. This is far from irresponsible and is, in fact, generally accepted theory on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top