Skip to comments.Are there any other "agnostic" types here who look at evolution as an extremely dubious theory?
Posted on 08/05/2008 4:13:42 PM PDT by big black dog
Look, I apologize, this is a self serving vanity post. I want this to be short -- I am not driven by any religious viewpoint. Yes, I was raised that way and can still point out the arguments they make.
I don't want to do that right now. I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.
There is no getting around the "privileged planet".
Perhaps you can answer this question then.
What is the mechanism that prevents all of those micro-evolutionary mutations from adding up to macro-evolution?
How does an organism know when to stop micro-ing in order to prevent a macro? What is the specific mechanism to account for that?
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I also asked for your proof and you said lots of stuff, but you didn’t answer my question. We will get nowhere fast this way. It’s just as easy for me to believe that God created everything as it is for you to believe that there was a big explosion, actually easier for me because I don’t have to have a scientist prove anything to me. How can you create order from chaos? Because, to a simpleton, like myself, an explosion is chaos. If everything happened by chance then how does an oak tree reproduce an oak tree? I don’t need proof that God exists because everytime I go outside and observe nature I am humbled and awed at His creation. Call me a fool, whatever. You believe what you like but please let me believe what I like, ok?
Science relies on evidence, while belief is irrelevant in science.
When you make claims contrary to established fact and common sense on an open discussion thread why should I not point out that there is a mountain of scientific evidence contradicting, but no evidence supporting, your position?
Put simply, please take a good University-level class in Thermodynamics before repeating these claims.
If it had always been in effect everywhere, there would be nothing but entropy.
Can you *define* entropy? Can you tell me the difference between closed and open systems? Can you tell me the *rate* at which entropy increases? And what is a Carnot cycle?
Evolutionary theory all falls under the second law of thermodynamics, but alas, requires a starting point which falsifies the second law of thermodynamics.
This simply does not make sense. Perhaps if you included more details, people would be able to comment on it in a meaningful fashion.
Therefore, evolution as an all-encompassing theory to explain life on earth is hopelessly flawed.
Here you are on a little bit better ground -- half the time evolutionists claim that evolution is not about abiogenesis, however it happened, but merely about observed changes in allele frequencies within populations; other times great detail is given to explain how one must accept evolution because Creation is 'unscientific'. [But if evolution is not about how life began, then, as far as that goes, Creationism is a non-sequitur -- you have to get into corollaries and predictions to distinguish the two.)
Again, you didn’t answer my question. What does science say about that chicken and that egg? Simple question deserves a simple answer. Our points of view are derived from different sources. Is it not an established fact that an oak tree is going to produce an oak tree? But where did that oak tree come from and how does it know how to reproduce itself and stay an oak tree? Please bear with me, I am not a scientist obviously.
The existence of any closed system in the universe requires that there have been a net increase in entropy. It is an ordering.
Also, "an ordering" is rather vague -- entropy is defined in thermodynamics as dS = dqrev/T, but it only applies to systems in equilibrium (hence the requirement of 'reversibility' or rev, which is an idealization).
If you want to go all stat mech, then S = kB ln (omega) where omega is the number internal states of the system.
The reason I mentioned the Carnot cycle is that a Carnot cycle transfers heat from a higher-temperature region to a lower-temperature region, which would seem to violate thermodynamics: but it does so via the input of external energy. So it demonstrates that entropy of a particular subsystem can decrease, given the right conditions, but without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
One just has to be careful of he defintions.
Incidentally, speaking of definitions, what is the difference between a closed and an open system?
There is simply ZERO evidence that a one celled creature could ever evolve into a multi-celled creature.
Your questions have no meaning.
The topic was a young earth and the scientific evidence that showed that that idea was incorrect.
I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.
Yes that is the best way to look at it. Look at the evidence, each piece, & the story of the man behind it, and common themes emerge.
Nice trick. You can't explain a "mechanism" that doesn't exist in the first place.
There is no example of any one kind of thing changing into another kind of thing. Period. The Coelacanth was said to be an example of a fish with "vestigial limbs" - and they thought it was extinct for 30+ million years, as I recall. And then...WOOPS!...they find them still living off the waters of Madigascar. (Yes, I know that evolutionists argue that evolution of one thing into another thing doesn't necessarily mean the original thing disappears.) Then they haul out the so-called "Darwin Fish" as transitional between land and water...yet I can show you "walking fish" and mudskippers that are alive today. But they haven't turned into anything else.
Irreducible complexity broke it, for me. And I should qualify that I am not at all of the belief that evolution discounts faith or vice-versa. I simply use my intellect to sift the evidence and decide what best fits - what seems most compelling. Something like the eye does not work without all the components involved. "Light sensing" cells of some kind on the surface of some early water-dwelling life form need a connection to the brain. There is no benefit to such a mutation in any early stage without all the follow-on - the neural connection to the brain, etc. It's crap theory, and there's crap evidence, though I have read some scientific papers about it that wreaked of desperation, to the point of inducing belly-laughs.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. And I don't need to be expert in all the sciences involved to form an opinion based on a survey of the literature that I've read anymore than a person watching football needs to be a player or a coach to know when some a@@hat ref makes a bad call.
"Who Moved The Stone?", "The Case for Christ", and a number of other deeper, more scholarly tracts led me to re-examine the Christian faith. On the flip side, sifting the evidence for "macroevolution" and arguments that sometimes fall under what is now called "intelligent design", led me to the conclusion that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea that one thing changes into another thing no matter how many iterations it goes through. The things evolutionists point to can be found living today. That would tend to belie the evolutionist argument.
Oh, and I'm not a "Young Earth Creationist" who thinks the planet is six thousand years old, either, nor do I believe that Noah's Flood literally covered the entire earth up to and above Mt. Everest. I don't discount science, I just want everyone to play fair and be honest.
Nice trick. You can't explain a "mechanism" that doesn't exist in the first place.
You are correct, there is no mechanism to halt the micro-evolutionary mutations before they reach the level of macroevolution. You have supported my original contention.
But the rest of your post is incorrect. There is evidence of macroevolution (speciation), both in nature and the laboratory.
The simplest example is ring species. While simple, this one example by itself is enough to document macroevolution. And, as an additional benefit, all of the transitional populations are intact for study as well.
Here is some information on ring species:
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
My question has no meaning because you can’t answer it? How very evasive of you. Radiometric dating (or whatever they call it) is flawed, so you have no concrete evidence to substantiate your position about the big bang, or the single cell amoeba, or by accident. If radio dating is flawed it could well be the earth is younger than you think. People will swallow a camel and strain at a gnat.
Another unsupported statement. You still haven't supported your original statement, but now you're making another one. It is hard to keep up!
I happen to do a lot of radiocarbon dating, one of several methods of radiometric dating.
I have visited most of the major creationist websites, and read what they say about radiocarbon dating. It consists largely of fabrications, misrepresentations, silly mistakes, and little that can be regarded as accurate science. I would not be to eager to accept what they say as accurate.
Sorry to have to break this to you, but radiocarbon dating disproves the notion of a young earth all by itself.
Here are some good links. Let me know if you have any questions:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)Tree Ring and C14 Dating
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
I didn’t say I didn’t know anything about science, I said I was no scientist. If you read everything as well as you read my post I can see why you believe in evolution. And your chicken and egg debate unscrambled is pure speculation with no scientific proof. If I said I was the president of the USA and believed it with my whole heart and told others I was, still doesn’t make it so unless I have irrefutable proof. You are right though, I’m not as smart as alot of other people on these threads, but it doesn’t make me stupid either. Evolution is a belief system just the same as religion, and if you deny it, you are lying to yourself. What is it that makes people so scared of someone who believes that a supreme being created everything? Because then you would have to admit that there is another life after this one? And you might be left behind? Go ahead and believe we came from apes, I DON’T CARE. But don’t presume to look down your noses at those of us who do believe that God created everthing. Isn’t it democrats who try to make you feel inferior because you don’t agree with them all the time?
The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not belief. Religions are based on belief, not evidence.
Go ahead and believe we came from apes, I DONT CARE.
That is what the evidence shows. The genetics confirmed what the fossil evidence had suggested. By comparing the different primates, you can see when specific mutations occurred. A good example is the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C. There are a lot of fascinating stories, such as that one. You should take a look some time.
I have another question about the chicken and the egg. Where did the zygote come from? Where did the gametes come from? Why can’t we just admit that no one knows which came first?
If we evolved from primates, why are there still primates? I still fail to see what evidence you have.
And don’t those mutations occur inside that species? At least that’s the gist of what I understood from what I’ve read.
Your theory of evolution is still just a theory, and scientists don’t have any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.