Evolution, one more argument against

[Job 33:6]

The OP is like saying there is only 1 habitable planet in 100,000 therefore the Earth is the only habitable planet in the universe.

It fails to take into account the grand quantity of mutations and species and individuals of a species that exist today and have existed in the past billion years.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

You will note (I hope) that I said that the article is one more argument against evolution. How many do you want? Bombardier beetle? A parasitic wasp that's learned how to bypass a spider's protective defence network? How many wasps died in an attempt to attack the spider? How did that learned behaviour get passed onto the next generation of wasp? My dad was a boxer. I could not fight my way out of a paper bag.

How about fruit trees that are fertilised by just one kind of wasp? How did the tree survive until the wasp somehow realised that it was supposed to burrow into the fruit? If there was no fertilisation, there would be no tree. If there was no tree, there would be no wasp.

I've pasted links to my sources from time to time. There is a vast amount of information available that destroys the evolution myth.

Those are great questions. Though they do showcase a gap in knowledge concerning coevolution. Coevolution is not a mystical brain buster. Also, we see clear evidence of instincts being handed down.

I’m heading out to hike but I can respond more detailed later on.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best available scientific explanation for the fossil record, but I think it's certainly flawed and certainly a long way from the truth. I don't even think it's a good theory ... for starters, its claim of universal common descent is contradicted by the fossil record, namely the Cambrian explosion.

Mutations and natural selection may well go a long way to explaining evolution within "kinds", but I believe the overall history of life on earth defies scientific explanation ... because it involves God performing miracles.

I think the theory of evolution is basically a pseudo-scientifc story invented by atheists that aims to explain life on earth without any need for a Creator. Unfortunately it's been very successful in fooling a great many souls.

im curious why would the Cambrian explosion undermine LUCA? Using “kinds” is just a attempt to exclude technical thinking.

Consider whales. Are they mammals? If so then the same way you logically work to that conclusion is the same way you see that s whale is also a tetrapod. It’s the same way we see that a whale is also innthe Whippomorpha suborder.

 

[loveofourlord]

I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best available scientific explanation for the fossil record, but I think it's certainly flawed and certainly a long way from the truth. I don't even think it's a good theory ... for starters, its claim of universal common descent is contradicted by the fossil record, namely the Cambrian explosion.

Mutations and natural selection may well go a long way to explaining evolution within "kinds", but I believe the overall history of life on earth defies scientific explanation ... because it involves God performing miracles.

I think the theory of evolution is basically a pseudo-scientifc story invented by atheists that aims to explain life on earth without any need for a Creator. Unfortunately it's been very successful in fooling a great many souls.

You guys still using cambrian period as if our understanding of it and the pre cambrian hasn't expanded to where the so called explosion kinda vanishes. We have plenty of pre cambrian fossils by now.

Creationists really need to update their arguments after new evidence comes about while you guys are still making long debunked arguments science continues to grow.

Ahh yes that creationist that thinks that most scientists are atheists or just lying or what ever. Does it ever get old having to attack and demean scientists because your pet belief has long since been left behind?

 

[Buzzard3]

Creationists really need to update their arguments after new evidence comes about while you guys are still making long debunked arguments science continues to grow.

It seems to me that theory of evolution is a simplistic nineteenth-century idea that fails in its attempt to explain the history of life on earth. It adequately explains evolution within a species, but when it comes to explaining the appearance of new phyla, new organs and new body plans, ToE strikes me as far-fetched and quite unconvincing.

I believe the history of life on earth is the result of God's miraculous power, therefore science has zero chance of explaining how it happened.

Ahh yes that creationist that thinks that most scientists are atheists or just lying or what ever.

"Nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline." (Where Darwin Meets the Bible (2002), pp. 271-273)"

My opinion is that scientists (esp the atheist variety) are unwittingly being used as pawns in a global demonic deception that aims to convince the masses that life on earth is not the result of a Creator God, but is the result of a purely natural process that is now understood by science. In other words, its aim is to promote atheism.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." (William Provine)

Does it ever get old having to attack and demean scientists because your pet belief has long since been left behind?

As for me, I'm not a YEC and I don't have a "pet belief" that "has long since been left behind" - I don't think the history of life on earth can even be known, much less explained by science.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Those are great questions. Though they do showcase a gap in knowledge concerning coevolution. Coevolution is not a mystical brain buster. Also, we see clear evidence of instincts being handed down.

I’m heading out to hike but I can respond more detailed later on.

Please don't waste your pixels on me. I've not studied evolution in depth. I do read articles that debunk evolution from time to time. Of course instinct is handed down. It was programmed into the creature when God created it. How else would arctic terns migrate impossible distances with impossible accuracy in impossible conditions? They had built in navigation systems when mankind was still living in caves. They use prevailing strong winds to help with their journey.

I was not raised a Christian. My dad was an atheist. He "helped" me understand evolution. Except it was implausible to me even at the age of 10. I'm 70 now and it's even less plausible now.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The OP is like saying there is only 1 habitable planet in 100,000 therefore the Earth is the only habitable planet in the universe.

It fails to take into account the grand quantity of mutations and species and individuals of a species that exist today and have existed in the past billion years.

The age of the earth cannot be proven. The moon is moving away from the earth. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon would no longer be close enough to interact with the earth's surface and so we would have no tides. Evolution is based on guesswork, speculation and false assumptions. It's also dishonest. It is not true that adaptation is evidence of macro evolution. It's an intellectual trick to deceive the unwary.

 

[Job 33:6]

The age of the earth cannot be proven. The moon is moving away from the earth. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon would no longer be close enough to interact with the earth's surface and so we would have no tides. Evolution is based on guesswork, speculation and false assumptions. It's also dishonest. It is not true that adaptation is evidence of macro evolution. It's an intellectual trick to deceive the unwary.

As a geologist, I disagree.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As a geologist, I disagree.

Feel free to disagree. Most people do. It does not bother me at all. Activity in Jupiter Moons Defies Long Ages – CEH

 

[BPPLEE]

As a geologist, I disagree.

I read articles like this and and was always looking for evidence of evolution being false and the age of the earth being exaggerated. Most of what I was reading was wrong and in the case of some YEC it seems to be deliberate. I don't know how old the earth is but what I really can't explain is the fossil record. Most of what I have read about it was wrong and now I think something like the gap theory must have happened. Most people arguing against evolution have not studied it and I've found what I really don't believe in is abiogenesis. Life doesn't come from non life and abiogenesis cannot be proven or replicated. Life comes from life biogenesis is what we observe. Most people arguing against evolution are arguing from ignorance and I don't want to be one of them. I don't just blindly accept every article I read debunking it because there is a lot of dishonesty out there

 

[Job 33:6]

I read articles like this and and was always looking for evidence of evolution being false and the age of the earth being exaggerated. Most of what I was reading was wrong and in the case of some YEC it seems to be deliberate. I don't know how old the earth is but what I really can't explain is the fossil record. Most of what I have read about it was wrong and now I think something like the gap theory must have happened. Most people arguing against evolution have not studied it and I've found what I really don't believe in is abiogenesis. Life doesn't come from non life and abiogenesis cannot be proven or replicated. Life comes from life biogenesis is what we observe. Most people arguing against evolution are arguing from ignorance and I don't want to be one of them. I don't just blindly accept every article I read debunking it because there is a lot of dishonesty out there

I think that it's important not to start with the Cambrian explosion when investigating the fossil record for example. You would be better off starting with the easy parts, then working backwards.

So, starting with abiogenesis is kind of like working from hard to easy, rather than easy to hard.

In my opinion, if people are familiar with post Cambrian fossils (let's say ordovician through pleistocene), and I know almost every other geologist and paleontologist would agree, the the question of what caused the Cambrian explosion, I would say is an easy one to answer, as described above. But if people start with ediacaran fossils and try to work from there forward, they're going to be in a tighter position.

And I think that the opponents of the theory know this, which is why they tend to harp on the absolute oldest time of the history of animals. Digging as deep as they can for the most complicated subject that they can possibly get to to make a case against the theory. Meanwhile the next 600 million years to the present day gets far less attention.

But if you start from present day and work backwards, the logical deduction is what it is.

I think it's fine to be a skeptic of abiogenesis, but I certainly don't think skepticism of abiogenesis is justification for rejection of evolution.

 

[BPPLEE]

I think that it's important not to start with the Cambrian explosion when investigating the fossil record for example. You would be better off starting with the easy parts, then working backwards.

So, starting with abiogenesis is kind of like working from hard to easy, rather than easy to hard.

In my opinion, if people are familiar with post Cambrian fossils (let's say ordovician through pleistocene), and I know almost every other geologist and paleontologist would agree, the the question of what caused the Cambrian explosion, I would say is an easy one to answer, as described above. But if people start with ediacaran fossils and try to work from there forward, they're going to be in a tighter position.

And I think that the opponents of the theory know this, which is why they tend to harp on the absolute oldest time of the history of animals. Digging as deep as they can for the most complicated subject that they can possibly get to to make a case against the theory. Meanwhile the next 600 million years to the present day gets far less attention.

But if you start from present day and work backwards, the logical deduction is what it is.

Most of the arguments I see are that there are no transitional fossils or not enough transitional fossils

 

[BPPLEE]

I think that it's important not to start with the Cambrian explosion when investigating the fossil record for example. You would be better off starting with the easy parts, then working backwards.

So, starting with abiogenesis is kind of like working from hard to easy, rather than easy to hard.

In my opinion, if people are familiar with post Cambrian fossils (let's say ordovician through pleistocene), and I know almost every other geologist and paleontologist would agree, the the question of what caused the Cambrian explosion, I would say is an easy one to answer, as described above. But if people start with ediacaran fossils and try to work from there forward, they're going to be in a tighter position.

And I think that the opponents of the theory know this, which is why they tend to harp on the absolute oldest time of the history of animals. Digging as deep as they can for the most complicated subject that they can possibly get to to make a case against the theory. Meanwhile the next 600 million years to the present day gets far less attention.

But if you start from present day and work backwards, the logical deduction is what it is.

I think it's fine to be a skeptic of abiogenesis, but I certainly don't think skepticism of abiogenesis is justification for rejection of evolution.

Thank you for your reply. I don't know enough about the subject to argue with anyone I am just trying to learn. Like I said I have been the victim of a lot of false information

 

[Job 33:6]

Most of the arguments I see are that there are no transitional fossils or not enough transitional fossils

Sure. Critics will forever argue that there aren't enough fossils. So even if 100 more fossils were discovered linking major groups tomorrow, they'd still just call for more fossils between those links.

The reality is that every single time a fossil is found linking two groups, even if it's just of one single species, it completely defies all odds that such a thing would even exist if not for common descent. Consider a single tetrapod transitional of the Devonian. You have billions of years of rock layers in which this animal could be found. An entire planet of rock where it could be found. And yet, it just so happens to be in just the right layer of just the right period of time, of just the right lithology, of just the right morphological traits. 99% of possibilities would prove evolution wrong, and yet, in just a single find, we observe that 1% chance that vindicates the theory. And this happens over and over and over again. And so to get around this, we end up in this strange situation where we have to deny the age of the earth, or move toward the mysterious position of intelligent design, which doesn't really have any clear evidence behind itself but rather is based souly on an alleged lack of fossils. But of course, an argument against one thing has never been an argument for something else.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. Critics will forever argue that there aren't enough fossils. So even if 100 more fossils were discovered linking major groups tomorrow, they'd still just call for more fossils between those links.

The reality is that every single time a fossil is found linking two groups, even if it's just of one single species, it completely defies all odds that such a thing would even exist if not for common descent. Consider a single tetrapod transitional of the Devonian. You have billions of years of rock layers in which this animal could be found. An entire planet of rock where it could be found. And yet, it just so happens to be in just the right layer of just the right period of time, of just the right lithology, of just the right morphological traits. 99% of possibilities would prove evolution wrong, and yet, in just a single find, we observe that 1% chance that vindicates the theory. And this happens over and over and over again. And so to get around this, we end up in this strange situation where we have to deny the age of the earth, or move toward the mysterious position of intelligent design, which doesn't really have any clear evidence behind itself but rather is based souly on an alleged lack of fossils. But of course, an argument against one thing has never been an argument for something else.

Here's a simple video to explain.

No matter how hard deniers of the theory may try, they will never have an explanation for how such predictions, as described in the video above, could possibly occur if not as a product of common descent.

As if a paleontologist were to throw a dart in pitch darkness, at a dart board the size of a football field, and with precision, were to hit an inch-wide target. That's what it's comparable to, to suggest that the fossil succession does not exist. Because that's what kind of odds it would take to pull off these predictions if evolution were not true.

The best critics have done is have argued that tetrapod tracks exist in the Devonian before tiktaalik. However, upon close examination by Spencer Lucas in "thinopus a critical review", we find that such claims are contested as fish feeding traces. Well, maybe we can look at the bones to settle the dispute? Oh, there are no tetrapod bones predating tiktaalik. But wait, there is more, even if said polish traces were hypothetically from tetrapods, they'd still vindicate the theory anyway by demonstrating that tetrapods first appeared in the Devonian, right where the theory predicts after Silurian fish and before carboniferous amphibians.

And all the while, no explanation is given by critics for how Shubins prediction was even made in the first place beyond just pure blind luck, like throwing darts in the darkness.

 

[SkyWriting]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

Life is designed to change constantly, but the repair process is like the bumpers at a bowling alley. They keep the changes within the parameters that God designed. WHen things need to change, they do. When they need to remain the same, they do. Evolution is awesome design, by God. He planned for life to be exactly as we see it.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Someone mentioned that they think “evolution” is the greatest tool of atheism. But that’s not true. Science does not make someone become an atheist. What leads to someone becoming an atheist is being told that the only interpretation of the Bible is the interpretation of young earth far right Christians. So they know science and decency undermines that view and so they are lead to falsely believe the choice is accepting science or accepting pseudoscience. But the reality is that there are more choices. Such as accepting science and faith like Evolutionary Creationist vs science and atheism. Thank God literally for the biblical
Scholars and scientists who are dedicated Christians and out there writing books, blogs and videos based on faith and academia to showcase theistic evolution.

Also macroevolution and adaptation is the same process. Microevolution refers to the evolutionary studies of microorganisms.

Roughly 1/3rd of scientists are Christian in America.

As stated the only answer for the fossil record, and genetic tree of life, is speciation. The reason why dolphins are aquatic tetrapods is because they use to be land animals. It’s why if you look at the skeletal system of a dolphin vs a shark you’ll notice their convergence is really just the general form. Their bones and organs look quite different.

 

[Buzzard3]

Of course instinct is handed down. It was programmed into the creature when God created it.

According to the theory of evolution, beavers didn't always build dams, but then one day a really brainy beaver must have come up with the brilliant idea of cutting down trees with its teeth and building a dam with a nest inside. Then all the other beavers must have copied it.

And as luck would have it, all these beavers just happened to have teeth that could munch through tree trunks.

Maybe a "mutation" occured in a beaver's brain that made it cut down trees and build dams.

 

[Buzzard3]

Thank God literally for the biblical Scholars and scientists who are dedicated Christians and out there writing books, blogs and videos based on faith and academia

Why are they promoting acceptance of ToE? Faith doesn't need it - a Christian can accept an old earth and a fossil record spanning millions of years without accepting ToE.

Furthermore, theistic evolution cannot offer a sensible explanation for what happened to the (supposed) race of "souless humans" from which Adam was (supposedly) taken. That race apparently disappeared from the earth ... what happened to them?

 

[Buzzard3]

Life is designed to change constantly, but the repair process is like the bumpers at a bowling alley. They keep the changes within the parameters that God designed. WHen things need to change, they do. When they need to remain the same, they do. Evolution is awesome design, by God. He planned for life to be exactly as we see it.

... except science promotes evolution as a purely natural process ... no need for a Creator. That amounts to a demonic lie, imo.