You certainly have given evolution very serious thought, and I will never be able to convince you to change sides. You write in a very intellectual manner, so I am surprised that you have not given evolution more consideration. My main question for you is whether or not you accept that the earth and universe are both billions of years old. If you do not, we will have to agree to disagree.
If you do, than the points you have raised are insignificant because our existance could be explained on mathematics, ie. Chaos theory:
Creationists say that order cannot come from chaos. If you shuffle a deck enough times you will statistically end up with the order you started with eventually. It has to. Nuclear reactors are designed by engineers to reduce the chance that neutrons will not miss all the uranium atoms and fail to cause the chain reaction needed. They accomplish this by increasing the amount of the core material so that there are more atoms for the neutron to hit. The same is true of evolution. In the early 1900s scientists tried to make life in a lab mimicking the conditions that the first cell would have needed to be created. This of course failed, which they went on to say that it couldn’t be duplicated so it wasn’t true. However, if you take those conditions and increase the size of the conditions infinitely and the time infinitely, it is mathematically impossible for life not to form. There are infinite numbers of chemical reactions happening all over the planet all the time. For all we know a whale has popped into existence and died instantly in conditions that didn’t work for it. If life has a potential conditions it will form.
Once you understand chaos theory and realize that it is a purely mathematical proven science, evolution is a lot more difficult to disprove or dismiss.
The reason chaos theory works is because of the extraordinarily long periods of time required; the billions of years of time that evolution needs is something humans will never be able to comprehend mentally, thus presenting the problem with many people not understandng evolution.
As for the points you raised, I will not be able to explain the specific biology to the extent of an evolutionary biologist, however, I will make an attempt.
“The outright failure of laboratory tests intended to prove the idea of macroevolution, particularly the tests involving fruit flies.”
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Creationists attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“The problems involving mathematics and probability theory. The biggest single group of evolution non-believers appears to be mathematicians and not Christians.”
I highly doubt that is the case, especially since chaos theory cannot be logically disproven.
“The problems which arise from the realm of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through large herds of animals.”
Haldane’s dilemma has never been a barrier to evolution, despite some misrepresentations by creationists. Recent work from the Human, Chimpanzee and Macaque genome projects underlines the fact that Haldane’s dilemma does not prevent evolution. Some creationists claim that 1,667 beneficial mutations are too few to make an Einstein from an ape, therefore Haldane’s dilemma shows evolution cannot account for humans. The recent genome results directly address this argument. While the majority of variation is neutral, the question remains exactly how much variation is due to selection, and does it break Haldane’s “speed limit”. Recent comparisons of Human and Chimp genomes, have given a good idea of how many genes have been fixed since the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, 154. Given that we have around 22,000 genes in our genome, then if the same percentage of beneficial mutations holds for the rest of the genome, no more than 238 fixed beneficial mutations is what separates us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0701705104v1)
“The total lack of undisputed intermediate fossils.”
This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight. Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.
“The logical failure of the supposed new variant, PE.”
I assume you are talking about punctuated evolution? Scientists have scrutinized the fossil records of many organisms looking for evidence of punctuated evolution. One group of coral sea organisms called bryozoan, shows this kind of pattern. The well-preserved fossil record of bryozoans shows that one species first appeared about 140 million years ago and remained unchanged for its first 40 million years. Then there was an explosion of diversification, followed by another period of stability for vast amounts of time. Thats just one example. There is no real logical failure here. (Evolutionary Analysis, by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron. Copyright1998 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.)
“The emerging indications that the age of dinosaurs was a few thousand years in the past or a few tens of thousands at most, leaving no time for evolution.”
There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils (except birds, which are descended from dinosaurs; out-of-place human traces such as the Paluxy footprints do not withstand examination). Furthermore, there is an approximately sixty-four million year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them.
“The information code which is DNA/RNA, and the fact that information codes do not exist other than for being created.”
There are many many hypotheses that are currently still being tested as to why “junk” DNA exists. Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not “junk” at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called “non-coding DNA” influences the behavior of the genes, the “coding DNA”, in important ways. Below are some examples I have found just by some quick research:
A 2002 study from the University of Michigan showed that segments of junk DNA called LINE-1 elements, once thought to be “leftovers from the distant evolutionary past” now “deserve more respect” because they are capable of repairing broken strands of DNA.
A 2003 study from Tel Aviv University found crucial uses for “junk” sequences in human DNA.
A 2004 study from the Cell Press suggests that “more than one third of the mouse and human genomes, previously thought to be non-functional, may play some role in the regulation of gene expression and promotion of genetic diversity.”
A 2005 study from the National Institutes of Health found that social behavior in rodents (and, possibly humans) was affected by portions of the genetic code once thought to be “junk.”
A 2005 study from University of California-San Diego suggested that junk DNA is “critically important to an organism’s evolutionary survival.”
Findings from Purdue University in 2005 stated that “many DNA sequences previously believed to have no function actually may play specialized roles in cell behavior.”
Researchers at the University of Illinois Society for Experimental Biology found an antifreeze-protein gene in a species of fish which “evolved” from junk DNA.
In 2006, University of Iowa researchers documented segments of RNA (previously considered “junk”) that regulated protein production, and could generate microRNAs.
A 2007 study from Stanford University School of Medicine found that “Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections.
The overwhelming complexity of the simplest life forms and the failure of all attempts to create any such from scratch or raw materials in labs.
In 1953 Urey and Miller performed their famous expirement. Starting with some elements presumed to be present in the primordial atmosphere (carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, etc.), Miller and Urey were able to produce some amino acid precursors. From the Urey/Miller experiment it has been hypothesized that random combinations of chemicals present in the atmosphere of the primordial earth, helped along by lightning, produced the chemicals which are the building-blocks of the amino acids.
In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography were similar to those performed by Miller. However Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions carbon dioxide and nitrogen create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
In 2006 another experiment showed that a thick organic haze might have blanketed Early Earth. An organic haze can form over a wide range of methane and carbon dioxide concentrations, believed to be present in the atmosphere of Early Earth. After forming, these organic molecules would have floated down all over the Earth, allowing life to flourish globally.
(I have used some online materials including Scientific American Magazine, Animal Genome Size Database, Nature Magazine, as well as the textbook BSCS Biology, A Moelcular Approach in my explanations)
I would just like to address one more thing. I get the feeling that some members here, as well as yourself, feel that evolution is a Satanic viewpoint, placed on earth by the Devil in order to deceive good Christians and lead them away from God. Organized science, therefore, consists largely of atheists and anti-Christians who, whether through design or ignorance, are doing the work of Satan by spreading evolutionism and repressing the true Christian viewpoint of creationism. I would say that the threat to Christianity absolutely does not come from research scientists, rather, it comes from liberalism and radical Islam. The liberals at the ACLU try to take away holy crosses at cemeteries for troops killed in Iraq, thats just one of many examples. Radical Islam’s goal, obviously, is to convert or kill any non-muslim. My argument is that science and religion do not have to conflict. The only threat science poses to Christianity is with regard to moral issues, such as cloning, abortion, genetic engineering, etc. Those issues, dealing heavily in scientific ETHICS, will be left up to politicians and ethicists.
I probably didn’t change your mind about evolution. It is obviously a personal issue. The real question is weather or not it should be taught in school science classes. I stand by the assertion that it should, however, creationism should be discussed in history and/or philosophy classes. The reason that creationism cannot be taught in science class is that scriptures and religion must be factored in, and that would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) as discussed in “Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.”
Creationists say that order cannot come from chaos.... INFORMATION does not arise from chaos. RNA/DNA is an information code. The chance of something like that just sort of happening to arise from raw materials via random events is exactly zero.
However, if you take those conditions and increase the size of the conditions infinitely and the time infinitely, it is mathematically impossible for life not to form...
You do not HAVE infinite time. In fact, you don't even have the tens of millions of years which are commonly supposed. You can do your own google searches on 'tyrannosaur' and 'soft tissue' and read about the blood vessels and collagen found inside the tyrannosaur bone or, in fact, search on 'tyrannosaur', 'soft tissue', and 'chicken' to read about the recent sequencing of proteins from that same tyrannosaur bone and the fact that those proteins were nearly identical to those of a chicken. The tyrannosaur turns out to be a big chicken with sharp teeth which died a few thousand years ago. For those bones not to be totally petrified after even one million years it would have to have never rained in Montana or the Dakotas for that much time.
When you're done reading that, try google searches on 'stegosaur' and 'cambodia'. As in North America where you see stegosaur images (petroglyphs) on canyon walls and around rivers and lakes, they've now turned up a totally accurate image of this creature on one of the column stones at Angkor:
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data....
Not when you cannot replicate it in the lab. That is, the common descent part of it could be the same sort of common descent you see going from a 1920s car to the automobiles of today, i.e. a sequence of small design changes, but macroevolution via mutation and selection has been completely tested in the labs, and the theory failed the test as I noted.
Haldane’s dilemma has never been a barrier to evolution, despite some misrepresentations by creationists.
Sorry, but you cannot hand-wave the Haldane dilemma away like that. The Haldane dilemma is one of the two major motivations for punctuated equilibria, the other being the lack of intermediate fossils, and you can do your own research on that. If the Haldane dilemma were not a problem, Gould, Eldridge, Mayr, and the others would not have gone to the trouble.
In fact when you read through evolutionite literature you will find claims to have "debunked" every argument used against evolution and few of those claims will be more transparant than in the case of the Haldane dilemma. The dilemma is not difficult to comprehend and does not involve higher math. Simplistic versions of it indicate that even if a population of higher animals were to substitute a new genetic change entirely through the population EVERY GENERATION, i.e. at a rate vastly beyond what is possible, they could still never amount to meaningful morphological changes or new kinds of animals in anything like the amounts of time which even standard theories claim are involved.
“The total lack of undisputed intermediate fossils.”
This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature.
The lack of intermediate fossils is well known and undisputed; it is the other major motivation for PE. Again, as in the case of the Haldane dilemma, if there were no problem, then Gould and the others would not have gone to the trouble to devise PE. Think about it.
The basic problem which you DON'T read in evolutionite literature is that classical Darwinism demands that THE VAST BULK OF ALL FOSSILS SHOULD BE CLEAR CUT INTERMEDIATES and, after a hundred and fifty years of searching, all they have is a tiny handful of very questionable cases.
It's as if I had a theory which demanded that all of the world's people were blond and all I could show anybody was four or five dishwater blondes living in Kansas. I wouldn't get very far with such a theory, would I?
“The logical failure of the supposed new variant, PE.”
I assume you are talking about punctuated evolution?
Punctuated Equilibria amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals (i.e. gets them past the Haldane dilemma) and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. As Walter Remine notes, you need a fairly sizeable population of animals before you'd ever see a "beneficial mutation" (the thing the whole business hinges on in theory). PE eliminates this possibility.
2. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the advocates of this theory are climing that the lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
3. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
4. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
5. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
6. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 4 and 6 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's writings:
The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place magically somehow or other.
I mean, I hate to be the party pooper or the person to disillusion everybody, but evolution is basically a dead theory walking as we speak. The problems with it are all major; any one of them would suffice to kill off any normal sort of science theory, i.e. any theory which did not involve ideologies, lifestyles, and yuppie careers.