1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

50 Reasons I Reject Evolution (stolen from another forum)

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Celtkin, Apr 15, 2009.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The gain of function is the gaining of complexity.

    If you're looking for us to turn soup into man in one step, then you're not arguing against evolution.
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  2. Jimi

    Jimi Active Member

    127
    73
    28
    Jan 17, 2009
    There has never been evidence of new DNA being created. DNA has been altered, mutations have cut some out but new DNA has not been found to be created. That is the fundamental problem with evolution.

    Anyone who acts like evolution is a 100% fact is not looking at the other side of the coin. Personally i believe in micro-evolution just not macro. I believe God created us just as he said, and that from there creatures began to change.

    The fact is, no one can explain reasonably how something came from nothing. This is what makes me believe in God.

    Uniformitarianism is also a big problem i have with science. If Noahs flood was indeed real, there is no way to say what earth was like before the flood. The whole geological column that ties in so closely with evolution is based off of this concept.
     
    padre31 and adamprez2003 like this.
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't think you understand what constitutes "new" DNA.

    When DNA is altered, whether some is "cut out" as you put it, or there's a mutation, that's new dna. Every time a child is born there's new DNA. If there wasn't, then we'd all be exactly the same.

    Also, you cannot be for micro-evolution and not be for macro-evolution. All things "macro" are made up of micro organisms and micro structures.

    Since you haven't heard an explanation that you choose to agree with, and that makes you believe in god, then may ask which god?
     
    Stitches and Celtkin like this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    In fact, that we are not exactly like our parents, because our DNA is different, really, pretty much proves evolution, in and of itself.
     
    Stitches likes this.
  5. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    The plasmid I mentioned sole function is to encode enzymes and transcription factors to break down a man made molecule. The plasmid is extra-chromosomal DNA -- not mutations. How much more "new" or complex does something have to be to fit the standard?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  6. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well, you touch on one of the reasons for my skepticism Jimi.

    As a man who like reason, I look at biodiversity, upwards of 3 million if not more separate and distinct species have existed, each one requiring multitudes of mutations to reach their existance, each mutation requiring a factor of millions of tiny decisions at the molecular level to come out positively, each then requiring the small variations to be positive mutations and not ones that lead to early entropy.

    The odds of such biodiversity happening by mere random chance are not sustainable:

    And that must occur across millions of species at random, with each decision being a positive one leading inevitably to Evolution as the sole source of such odds defying creation?

    Well, okay, the odds that a man was dead for 3 days don't seem so impossible in the light of that...
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    First of all it doesn't take millions of changes. Sex, for example, only requires one, and depending on the species, environmental temperature can make that happen by a single degree. They don't need to come out positively either. They are neither a positive or a negative.

    I would say that such biodiversity is only sustainable by chance. Especially considering, all the variables that are natural or man-made, it would be impossible to plan for.

    I suppose. However, if a man can be dead for three days than rise, I also suppose its possible for a fish to spontaneously grow from someone's head, therefore, we should all wear fish tanks as hats?
     
  8. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts

    Not so, the theory requires a two track evolution, and with some flies they live an hour or less. And it does require literally millions of minute changes on a DNA/RNA level, and they all must be positive changes and not ill forming ones, a cell does not simply "happen" there are millions of tiny processes that occur to make a change or to even function, life is incredibly complex Finascious.


    That is not reasonable, becasue there is such diversity it can only happen via Chance?

    Stacking logs and hoping they will spontaneously become a house with several staircases and windows seems a stretch indeed.



    I suppose you've never seen some of the misfires at Semipalatansk?
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Not really.

    When a cell is formed, it is essentially formed with all its possible "reactions" to change in place. Its similar to binary. One change, whether chemical, mutation, temperature, etc, will effect that cell in a specific way. On a human level, its why we have the ability to diagnose an ailment for example. One change, can cause a series of events.


    Its not the same thing. A house is an inanimate, non-living structure. Children don't even follow their parents plans. They grow and become their own person, sure they may have traits and similarities, but they are not exactly their parents, and are less suited for somethings and more suited for others. That is a more accurate analogy, and it shows that a plan can only do so much.
     
  10. DrAstroZoom

    DrAstroZoom Canary in a Coal Mine Luxury Box

    9,033
    9,005
    113
    Jan 8, 2008
    Springfield, Ill.
    Well, I don't have much more to contribute, except that it is disingenuous to pit creation vs. evolution, because they don't address the same issues, and are thus not diametrically opposed.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Look at a chihuahua. Look at a wolf.

    Yes, man interfered. How though? We didn't breed small bug-eyed wolves to get a chihuahua. They were bred from other dog breeds that were all bred from the wolf.

    All man did was create the instances that could easily have happened in nature. Isolation. Which is a main catalyst in the theory of evolution.
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    True enough.
     
  13. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Not at all, a binary reaction gattaca does not account for the formation of reproductive organs on a lower philum species, IE, a fly that lives for an hour first needed a male and female of the species, and 1 hour evolution seems a stretch.

    Added to that, the odds only increase:



    Generalizations will not make up for the holes in a spontaneous anti entropy theory, RNA and DNA are at odds with one another, life has left side only recptors, even then, that does not mean in a massive pool of left side only receptacles they will spontaneously form even the most basic of building materials for life.

    A folded protein for example:

    [​IMG]

    Requires that the folds be perfectly made across the organism, misfolding proteins mean the organism is fatally flawed and will not successfully procreate over the billions of years Evoltuionary Theory requires.
     
  14. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    well no. thats just breeding certain characteristics to be enhanced or not but we are talking about evolving the DNA strands from simple single cell organisms (500,000) to human being (3,000,000,000) thereby there should be proof that DNA can go from 500,000 to 1,000,000 lets say.

    Also saying a wolf and a dog prove evolution is false. Show me all the in between animals that should be in the fossil records showing the transformation of dinosaurs to birds or of a wolf from a fish or whatever it evolved from
     
  15. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Yet it is easier to believe that God devised the same 3,000,000 process, mistakes and all.

    If I were God, and I am certainly not that smart or worthy, I could have devised simpler ways to regulate genomes, proteomes, etc and would have done so without including transposable elements or the need for DNA repair systems to fix mutations. With everything perfectly designed, not of those would be necessary.
     
  16. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    you assume God is perfect. Could have been a Godchild that created us. We could be God's ant farm, a school project nothing more
     
  17. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well, perhaps, "if" God be the creator of all of this, and "we" are meant to set forth and subdue it, then it is "our" job to question and search and study and rely upon God's greatest creation...man..and His Word....to discern the answers no matter the locked doors put in front of us, locks that "we" must pick.


    If I may put a Hawkingism before us, mankind is destined to explore and colonize the galaxies IMHO, being sentinent, it is our job to be what we are, champions of life, His greatest Creation, apes cannot do it, whales cannot, only us, "we' can break the bonds of gravity, we can introduce algae into a hostile environment and slowly change it, "we" alone on this planet can do this, nothing else on this planet even has the thought of doing so Only "us" can look at the stars not in a brutish manner, but in an understanding one.

    IMHO, this is why we are "here" Celtkin, Earth is merely a way point in mankind's destiny.
     
    Jimi likes this.
  18. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    This, evolution does not explain how life came to be, just how life came to be as it is now. True, evolution by its nature goes against the christian god, if one follows the Bible literally, however the possibly of a divine creator of sorts is not out of the question if you go on evolution alone.
     
  19. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Brother, we have investigated the processes and came to the conclusion that evolution is a fact of science. Now, we need to figure what role God played in the whole process. ;)
     
    padre31 likes this.
  20. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    We rely on the same bible that tells us that God is not flawed and that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

    "As for God, His way is Perfect," 2 Samuel 22:31

    The same phrase exactly, Psalm 18:30

    "His work is perfect" from Deuteronomy 32:4
     
  21. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Disagree Bro, there are millions of questions...but consider...if they are solved, mankiind could colonize via self replicating DNA/RNA millions of light years away...fire the rocket loaded with the materials that produce life, and long after we are gone...mankind continues...

    In my mind though, mankind is meant to tread on planets far beyond what we think of as distance or time, Einstein's ordered universe and the speed of light making time somewhat irrelevant and mankind's eventual full understanding of it all, the progression of knowledge (but sadly not of wisdom) means it is possible.
     
  22. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    [​IMG]

    this was taken by the hubble telescope
    every single one of those lights is a galaxy . About 10,000 in all. and that, is 1 ten millionth of the sky. in terms of significance, the milky way galaxy is a spec. and we are merely a spec within that spec.
     
    padre31 likes this.
  23. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts

    The difference is, mankind "knows" we are speck, if we also learn how to spread life and to ignore time then we fulfill our destiny.
     
  24. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I am not sure why you would want self-replicating RNA. RNA is coded from DNA, though you might argue that there is no need for DNA if you have transcript and all you are making are proteins but you would not want to build a genome purely off of RNA.

    That said, science is very close to creating even more complex self-replicating molecules and have already created self-replicating RNA enzymes. That was necessary to disprove one basic "intelligent design" argument - that you could not get self-assembly of less complex molecules to form higher complexity bio-molecules. Not only are is the enzyme able to self assemble, function properly, it also spontaneously evolved in the process by rearranging subunits of itself to form new enzymes.

    Pretty cool, yes :)
     
    Dannyg28 and padre31 like this.
  25. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Indeed, however even a old Earth theory does not give Evolution enough time to create higher philum life in the scale of millions, especially in the face of several massive die offs.

    And your post seem a bit of subtefuge Bro, self assembling..in a laboratory, not in the vagarieties of nature of the period..

    If mankind does cross that threshold, single cell organism can be created in controlled conditions, there is a huge gap between that and colonizing other worlds with organisms that can eventually become man.
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  26. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    The Demiurge is considered the creator of this world by Gnostic Christians. He is many things but perfect isnt one of them
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  27. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    See, you keep raising the bar.

    Skeptics first asked: Why no evolution of higher function? Answered and a example provided.

    Second question: Self assembly? Yes, it has been done. Have we found it in nature? No but we can't find Bin Laden either and we are certain he is there. This is a much more laborious search.

    As to the length of time it takes for diversity -- I am not sure who calculated the time it might take but I bet it wasn't anyone with a science background or anyone who has worked with bacteria. Mutation rates are very high, yet the organism continues to thrive, adapt and evolve.

    As far as showing some commonality between transitions species - that has been shown in the homology in 16S sequences of all organisms and the homology in related proteins. In fact, you can often purify proteins form one organism and express then in another with no loss of function.
     
  28. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    I thought it was to make beer and vodka. In the entire universe, only men have invented beer and vodka. Thats why we have UFOs. We are the 7-11 of the Milky Way. They're just stopping off to pick up a few cases
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  29. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    You seem less then convinced Bro Celtkin.
     
  30. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Misere nobis.
     
  31. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    yes lol
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The problem is your assuming that the 1-hour fly, evolved from single cell to its current state in one step. For all you know the 1-hour fly evolved from the 2-hour fly, that one from the 10-hour fly, so on and so forth. Its an argument that sounds good when said fast but doesn't really hold up.

    I really think you're looking at A changes to Z in a one step process.
     
  33. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That is evolution though. Certain characteristics are, in fact, bred in and out, of species. The only difference is that in the wild it is done for any number of reasons like isolation or food source, where with dogs it was accelerated because man controlled the situation.

    The proof is in the "between" species. The problem is, you are looking at this as a "Step 1 plays all the way out from start to beginning", then Step 2 happens. Evolution is not a straight line. There were/are times where in between species live for awhile alongside their more successful species. There are plenty of in between fossils however, a simple google search or (Celtkin post) can probably lead to some. There was just an ancient fish fish found last year (I believe) that had legs.
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    To the ID crowd,

    How do you explain the dinosaurs? Now, I don't mean their existence. I mean that they were here and the majority of today's animals weren't. Then the dinosaurs stopped, and then we had lots of mammals. Then a lot of those animals died out (cave bear, mammoth, saber tooth tiger, giant sloth, etc.) then their modern day counterparts popped up. This last step happened during man's tenure. Is it your contention that your god kept starting over?
     
  35. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    And one's problem is you have to explain the evolution of the one hour fly scientifically and through the lense of evolution.

    INOW...you have to prove there was a 10 hr fly before you can deal with the 1 hour fly...:lol:
     
  36. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    That's natural selection which is one of the components of evolution but not evolution per se. In all the thousands of years of dog breeding not one addional strand of dna has been added
     
  37. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I believe in Evolution myself, and I'm a Christian. :knucks:
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  38. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    That is absolutely what evolution is and you can't "add strands of DNA" to organism that don't have have extra-chromosomal DNA but I did show you earlier a very good example of DNA being added.

    In eukaryotes, the entire genome is contained on the chromosome. On that chromosome, there can be gain and loss of function -- changes in the DNA that allows that animal to survive in a new environment or that takes away from that individual's ability to survive in the environment. Animals less fit to survive, fail to reproduce at the same rate (or not at all) and become the minority species in that habitat. That is selective adaptation -- that is evolution as described by Darwin and modern science.

    Our DNA -- that of human, contains remnants of our ancestor's DNA, including genes the have been activated that code for a tail and phase variations that, while coding for the same number of hairs as you find in lower primates, the hair is less course and shorter. There are tons of examples that point to the fact that even out species has evolved from or, at least heavily borrowed from lesser primates.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  39. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Maybe we're debating two different things here. I dont think anyone, Christians, Muslims, skeptics have a problem with natural selection. To simply restructure your already existing genetic code to make the species have certain advantages has been observed and exploited for thousands of years. Thats not evolution but simply redoing your wardrobe. What needs to be proved however for evolution to go from theory to proof is to have one single example of an animal giving birth to a child that has a a different genetic code than the one he inherets. A more complex one. We need a dog with 2 billion strands to give birth to a pup with 2.5 billion strands. For evolution to work a mouse must be be able to evolve into a horse. You can't do that by simply rearranging the existing genetic information but rather you need to be able to add and create new gentic information. If humans start growing tails next year that wouldnt be evolution since we have a tail in our gentic code. If we grew wings that would be evolution since I dont believe thats in our gentic code at the moment.
     
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm sorry bro, but that is evolution. Eventually the genetic code changes. Eventually new species are formed. They change even further when their current changes have them expanding or redefining their diet or adapting to new climate changes. That is evolution.
     

Share This Page