What is the case against Evolution?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
1. Each species was created separately.
2. Each species has been given a certain amount of genetic variation that has been present within that species since that species was created.
3. It is impossible for random changes in the nucleotide base sequence of animal to turn that animal into a new and different animal.
4. Millions or billions of nucleotide bases that creates an animal can only come from the mind of a genius.
5. The intelligence behind millions or billions of nucleotide bases that creates an animal has an IQ so high it isn't even measurable.
It is impossible for evolution to occur because offspring are new combinations of pre-existing genetic information. There is no new information coming into existence thereby rendering evolution as an impossibility.
2. Each species has been given a certain amount of genetic variation that has been present within that species since that species was created.
3. It is impossible for random changes in the nucleotide base sequence of animal to turn that animal into a new and different animal.
4. Millions or billions of nucleotide bases that creates an animal can only come from the mind of a genius.
5. The intelligence behind millions or billions of nucleotide bases that creates an animal has an IQ so high it isn't even measurable.
It is impossible for evolution to occur because offspring are new combinations of pre-existing genetic information. There is no new information coming into existence thereby rendering evolution as an impossibility.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
lol
Last edited:
Mutations.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
our luca was much like a bacterium
it's name was mcgill, but it's friends knew it as nancy
................................
darwin was a gradualist, ok, most likely he was wrong
however we now have punctuated equilibrium............and a tad more radical catastrophism
(radical extinction events) which allow different lifeforms to flourish.
it's name was mcgill, but it's friends knew it as nancy
................................
darwin was a gradualist, ok, most likely he was wrong
however we now have punctuated equilibrium............and a tad more radical catastrophism
(radical extinction events) which allow different lifeforms to flourish.
Last edited:
Did she call herself Lil?
"Her name was Magill, and she called herself Lil
But everyone knew her as Nancy"
Song : "Rocky Raccoon" - Songwriters: John Lennon / Paul McCartney
The mechanism is that of Darwinian evolution, for both of them.
Darwin just underestimated the relative role of chance, luck, in selection. That an organism can evolve to be lucky, can take advantage of chance as well as competitive or cooperative superiority, was maybe alien to the culture of the times; but his theory outlived him and incorporates it smoothly, without major adjustment.
They didn't play baseball.
While a scientific theory always remains a scientific theory, and is the highest accolade for any scientific scenario, they do grow in certainty as they continue to make successful predictions and match observations. The theory of evolution is as certain as we can hope for and beyond reproach.
Because the genetic code of complex organisms is interpreted in part depending on neighboring and connected code, recombination of existing code can and does create new information.
There are many attempted arguments against evolution. They are resolved against the facts by showing either that the arguments aren't in accordance with the facts, or else that the facts are at least equally consistent with, or better explained by, the theory of evolution.
Even if evolution turns out to be false it doesn't mean that creationism is true.
There could be many other natural explanations besides evolution and genetics.
Life could turn out to be a physical or chemical process that we don't fully understand yet because we don't yet possess the technology and the intelligence to figure it all out.
There could be many other natural explanations besides evolution and genetics.
Life could turn out to be a physical or chemical process that we don't fully understand yet because we don't yet possess the technology and the intelligence to figure it all out.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It turned out that evolution is true and that creationism is false. I don't know why this should be an item of debate. Anyone still arguing this case is beating a dead horse.
No there aren't. There is no need. Evolution is sufficient to fill the necessities of gradual adjustment to environmental requirements.
Life is a chemical physical process of and we really do have the intelligence to figure it all out. See Youtube link to Robert Hazen lecture at Carnegie Institute for Science. Start viewing @ 25:00 to avoid lengthy introduction.
I do find it unreasonable to expect humans to have solved all 14 billion years of universal evolutionary processes in the short span of time and laboratory space available since Darwin.
During it's 4.5 billion years, the earth itself has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillin, quadrillion chemical experiments all without the help of humans.........
The beauty lies in the fact that universal chemistry doesn't need any assistance at all.
Chemistry is a universal self-referential function. Chemistry is the causal origin of life.
Last edited:
There is no case against evolution.
Only some modern day creationists debate evolution for unscientific reasons.
Critical mistakes they make:
1)They use arguments against abiogenesis to debate Darwins theory of evolution, while they are totally different things.
2)They ignore tons of evidence (fossils, DNA trees, etc).
3)They use the bible to explain natural phenomena.
4)Although most of them accept medicine, biology, biochemistry, they support the notion that natural laws stopped for a while, creation magically happened, and after that you can study again the regularities that are the basis of medicine, and predictably interfere with the biochemistry through pharmacology. You cant have naturalism a-la-carte.
5)They think that they support religion, while in fact they are killing religion. Not even atheists cause so much harm to the picture regular sensical people have on religion.
Only some modern day creationists debate evolution for unscientific reasons.
Critical mistakes they make:
1)They use arguments against abiogenesis to debate Darwins theory of evolution, while they are totally different things.
2)They ignore tons of evidence (fossils, DNA trees, etc).
3)They use the bible to explain natural phenomena.
4)Although most of them accept medicine, biology, biochemistry, they support the notion that natural laws stopped for a while, creation magically happened, and after that you can study again the regularities that are the basis of medicine, and predictably interfere with the biochemistry through pharmacology. You cant have naturalism a-la-carte.
5)They think that they support religion, while in fact they are killing religion. Not even atheists cause so much harm to the picture regular sensical people have on religion.
This is demonstrably wrong to anyone with the integrity to actually learn about the subject they are supposedly refuting.
The processes of DNA replication and cellular division are not infallible. They can go wrong. In so doing they have produced countless instances of partial gene duplication, whole gene duplication, partial chromosomal duplication, whole chromosome duplication, partial genome duplication and whole genome duplication. On top of that, plasmids integrate into genomes, viruses and bacteria transfer DNA between organisms. These processes have been occurring throughout the 4 billion years of evolution of life.
Each one of these occurrences creates new genetic material that is free to undergo substantial evolutionary change as it is mostly functionally redundant. Thus, new genes and new traits are created.
Bingo! That's it folks!!!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To clarify:
Evolution is not a theory; it is demonstrable fact. It can be directly observed, by anyone, in any fish-breeding shop or dog kennel.
What is a theory is evolution by natural selection.
It is extremely hard to "prove" that a population is changing "because" natural survival factors are favouring one variant over another. We can build models, and those models can be very accurate, but those models will always be open to modification.
Evolution is not a theory; it is demonstrable fact. It can be directly observed, by anyone, in any fish-breeding shop or dog kennel.
What is a theory is evolution by natural selection.
It is extremely hard to "prove" that a population is changing "because" natural survival factors are favouring one variant over another. We can build models, and those models can be very accurate, but those models will always be open to modification.
Also scientists in the lab can manipulate cells by simply exposing them to the conditions that will lead to natural selection of the desired properties. And this works. And its a part of everyday practice. DNA analysis show that the resulting strains have humongous differences from their predecessors. Telling those people that evolution and natural selection doesn't exist is like telling IT people that electricity does not exist.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Formal definitions:
Evolution: a gradual change in the inherited traits of a population over many generations.
(Notice, the definition makes no mention of how the change is being driven.)
Natural selection: a mechanism where the members of a population best suited to their environment have the best chance of surviving to pass on their genes. The natural environment selects for these members over others in the population.
We can drive evolution by artificially selecting for desired traits. So there's no doubt about evolution as a fact.
What is theorized is evolution by natural selection. It is much harder to demonstrate such selectivity in a wild population, which is why it is a topic for active debate.
Many generic sources out there make no distinction - and will happily provide a layperson's definition of what most people are talking about when they talk about evolution. But in a discussion about how animals are changing in nature - that distinction is critical.
Last edited: