Challenges to Creationism

[Kirran]

Our average brain size actually did peak in the Upper Paleolithic. It's been in decline since we started farming.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no such thing as devolution. One may suggest that Tyrannosaurus Rex to common Chicken would be a devolution. But in reality that is false. The only way to devolve would be by removing genetic information and this usually does not happen.


Many of our surviving weak due to compassion and technology has increased the amount of defective genes in our population yes but that would not be devolution. I have terrible eyesight for example. A thousand years ago I would be useless and probably dead. But now I have glasses and am just as functional as the next guy.

What numbers? The only calculations I have seen is that it is supported that it is highly probable there is intelligent life in the universe. And the "silence of our galaxy" is a myth. We haven't really been capable of listening to the other side of our galaxy much less the one hundred billion galaxies in our known universe which is only a tiny fraction of the total universe. If you wanna bet that there is no other life out there then that would be like assuming that because you have seen one rock on the moon vs the entire galaxy. Actually even that isn't up to par.

It's interesting how few of us would be alive, or have reached reproductive age without modern compassion and technology, already many of our failing parts can be artificially enhanced- including the reproductive ones!

Intelligence is trickier though, it's not so clear how susceptible it is to 'devolution' (even if it's not really a word) especially since measuring differences among populations is obviously and rightfully a taboo.

our galaxy is only a 100k light years across. versus billions of years old- any powerful enough signal sent at the right time could have reached us from what is a relatively recent slice of time- i.e. in terms of the odds of scoring a hit, it's no different than listening to the entire galaxy today- and nothing.

Any alien civilization with technology little better than ours, has had time to colonize the entire galaxy many times over, yet this has apparently never happened.

Ours is a remarkably large orderly beautiful galaxy, it does not bode well for others if we are alone here. The universe all came from the same place- so it's all made from the same stuff- there is no reason to expect other galaxies to be fundamentally different in their ability to support life?

 

[Ouroboros]

Our average brain size actually did peak in the Upper Paleolithic. It's been in decline since we started farming.

Going forward, we probably will de-evolve further. All the augmentation like artificial limbs, organs, eyes, and probably at some point even brain implants, we won't need the biological anymore. It's a little spooky, but I don't think I'm against it as long as I am me (whatever that is in the metaphysical sense).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

our galaxy is only a 100k light years across. versus billions of years old- any powerful enough signal sent at the right time could have reached us from what is a relatively recent slice of time- i.e. in terms of the odds of scoring a hit, it's no different than listening to the entire galaxy today- and nothing.

Any alien civilization with technology little better than ours, has had time to colonize the entire galaxy many times over, yet this has apparently never happened.

Actually we have to be listening from the right direction. We wouldn't simply pick up something from all directions.

Ours is a remarkably large orderly beautiful galaxy, it does not bode well for others if we are alone here. The universe all came from the same place- so it's all made from the same stuff- there is no reason to expect other galaxies to be fundamentally different in their ability to support life?

Our galaxy is somewhat small actually. Incredibly so compared to some of the larger ones. Our spiral shape also isn't uncommon.

 

[Kirran]

Going forward, we probably will de-evolve further. All the augmentation like artificial limbs, organs, eyes, and probably at some point even brain implants, we won't need the biological anymore. It's a little spooky, but I don't think I'm against it as long as I am me (whatever that is in the metaphysical sense).

Only if there's a selective advantage.

 

[Ouroboros]

Only if there's a selective advantage.

Of course.

 

[Kirran]

Of course.

Although I suspect that design by humans will take over from evolution.

Or from design by God, whichever you prefer.

 

[Skwim]

This reminded me of evolutionists claiming "junk" DNA and that the human eye has "design flaws" (none of which is true, of course).

Boy it flows from your keyboard just as if you knew what you're talking about. Might want to take a look at the following and access the source link I've provided.


From the Journal of Optometry The Optical Design of the Human Eye: a Critical Review

Abstract
Cornea, lens and eye models are analyzed and compared to experimental findings to assess properties and eventually unveil optical design principles involved in the structure and function of the optical system of the eye. Models and data often show good match but also some paradoxes. The optical design seems to correspond to a wide angle lens. Compared to conventional optical systems, the eye presents a poor optical quality on axis, but a relatively good quality off-axis, thus yielding higher homogeneity for a wide visual field. This seems the result of an intriguing combination of the symmetry design principle with a total lack of rotational symmetry, decentrations and misalignments of the optical surfaces.


Conclusion
"In conclusion, the optical system of the eye seems to combine smart design principles with outstanding flaws. figure 3 is especially illustrative. The corneal ellipsoid shows a superb optical quality on axis, but in addition to astigmatism, it is misaligned, deformed and displaced with respect to the pupil. All these “flaws” do contribute to deteriorate the final optical quality of the cornea. Somehow, there could have been an opportunity (in the evolution) to have much better quality, but this was irreparably lost. Until now, such a modest quality could not be improved by surgery; indeed, any attempt of modification, and ageing itself, only yields a reduction of the optical performance."
SOURCE​

As to the giraffe, see here. These claims are simply part of the big lie of evolution, IMO.

Re. your "see here." Ah yes, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, one of Germany's leading anti-evolutionists. They're always an unbiased sort aren't they.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

This all doesn't bother me. The challenges presented here were asking: how do creationists solve x, y, z that is found in nature and points away from a divine origin to the world. I've answered these challenges based on my religious texts. The challenge was not about proving one's religious texts' divinity or accuracy. That's all I've done here.

You did indeed. It shuts down the conversation I wanted to have with you perhaps, but I can't argue there.

Another thread perhaps, someday. Take care, and thanks for your time.

 

[Tumah]

You did indeed. It shuts down the conversation I wanted to have with you perhaps, but I can't argue there.

Another thread perhaps, someday. Take care, and thanks for your time.

Sorry about that. I wanted to establish that the challenges here are not proofs against a divine origin of the universe. They are questions, sure, but there can be answers.
I feel its important to establish that questions should not be conflated with disproofs. Whether the religion is contrived or not, these type of questions may have answers. That's why I wanted to remain within the parameters of the OP.

But I'll be happy to pick it up somewhere else if you like.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no such thing as devolution.

I'm not so sure about this. Think of an eagle, with fantastic eyesight. It has that eyesight (in evolutionary terms) by the rite of passage its forebears and predecessors entered - being the best suited to survive because they could see the clearest - thereby passing those traits onward to the eagle himself.

In our current world, those of us with poor eyesight only need a pair of glasses or contacts and we survive quite handily (me among them). I have gone on to set my mark in the world by producing my own progeny - all of whom will likely also need glasses/contacts to survive.

Our gene pool IS becoming sullied. Heart disease/defects, pre-disposition to things like diabetes, etc. The strongest of us are not the only ones that survive, and that has some effect, certainly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm not so sure about this. Think of an eagle, with fantastic eyesight. It has that eyesight (in evolutionary terms) by the rite of passage its forebears and predecessors entered - being the best suited to survive because they could see the clearest - thereby passing those traits onward to the eagle himself.

In our current world, those of us with poor eyesight only need a pair of glasses or contacts and we survive quite handily (me among them). I have gone on to set my mark in the world by producing my own progeny - all of whom will likely also need glasses/contacts to survive.

Our gene pool IS becoming sullied. Heart disease/defects, pre-disposition to things like diabetes, etc. The strongest of us are not the only ones that survive, and that has some effect, certainly.

De-evolution would be regression. Even if the progression is to an ultimately less fit gene pool it is progression none the less. I used the Chicken and the T-Rex example already. I also already used the eyesight one as well. What people meant to say is that the overall fitness of the gene pool may be decreasing as more and more people with less fit genes are reproducing. This is not the same thing as de-evolution and I wasn't going to debate the point but correct those who are misusing the vocabulary.

 

[Kirran]

I'm not so sure about this. Think of an eagle, with fantastic eyesight. It has that eyesight (in evolutionary terms) by the rite of passage its forebears and predecessors entered - being the best suited to survive because they could see the clearest - thereby passing those traits onward to the eagle himself.

In our current world, those of us with poor eyesight only need a pair of glasses or contacts and we survive quite handily (me among them). I have gone on to set my mark in the world by producing my own progeny - all of whom will likely also need glasses/contacts to survive.

Our gene pool IS becoming sullied. Heart disease/defects, pre-disposition to things like diabetes, etc. The strongest of us are not the only ones that survive, and that has some effect, certainly.

But devolution implies that evolution has some set goal, which it moving away from.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

De-evolution would be regression. Even if the progression is to an ultimately less fit gene pool it is progression none the less. I used the Chicken and the T-Rex example already. I also already used the eyesight one as well. What people meant to say is that the overall fitness of the gene pool may be decreasing as more and more people with less fit genes are reproducing. This is not the same thing as de-evolution and I wasn't going to debate the point but correct those who are misusing the vocabulary.

Agreed on the "progression" point. Though "evolution" would tend to be taken as a progression toward something in particular. Whereas a the gene-pool degeneration we have going on is basically random detriments that are, virtually, ALL supported by our level of medicinal knowledge and care. It's a bit like preparing for battle by just scrounging around for random "warriors" the day before you march vs. training and honing your forces in preparation for confrontation. We're not becoming better suited to ANYTHING under current circumstances - and with no evolutionary pressures in play upon us.

So yeah - we're not "moving backward", necessarily. But forward is not the direction either.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Agreed on the "progression" point. Though "evolution" would tend to be taken as a progression toward something in particular.

False. We can look at the track that it took to get to where we are right now at this moment but it doesn't mean it was ever headed here as if it had a plan or inevitability. So no.

Whereas a the gene-pool degeneration we have going on is basically random detriments that are, virtually, ALL supported by our level of medicinal knowledge and care. It's a bit like preparing for battle by just scrounging around for random "warriors" the day before you march vs. training and honing your forces in preparation for confrontation. We're not becoming better suited to ANYTHING under current circumstances - and with no evolutionary pressures in play upon us.

This may be a problem. Who knows. Though ethics states that we aren't supposed to do anything about it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

False. We can look at the track that it took to get to where we are right now at this moment but it doesn't mean it was ever headed here as if it had a plan or inevitability. So no.

However you look at it, though, there was a change significant enough to be called "evolution" at some point. And usually that means what you are "moving toward" is becoming a thing better suited to your environment. Granted there is no "goal" in evolution, necessarily. But what a being becomes is "what it was supposed to become". And again - no pressures means no more evolving.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

However you look at it, though, there was a change significant enough to be called "evolution" at some point. And usually that means what you are "moving toward" is becoming a thing better suited to your environment. Granted there is no "goal" in evolution, necessarily. But what a being becomes is "what it was supposed to become". And again - no pressures means no more evolving.

This is I can agree to. There will be random mutations and there will be moderation of these mutations via natural selection. So the "goal" of evolution as a mindless act will be the best possible survival rate of the species at large. The variation will go unchecked within the population if the limiters are not present.

 

[dust1n]

The period can be described as lasting millions of years, which in itself is a geological blink of an eye and difficult to account for, but within that, in the fossil record, highly 'evolved' organisms appear instantaneously, from utterly absent to covering the globe with zero intermediates. That's what the record shows- of course we are free to imagine that intermediates might have existed and propose reasons why evidence for this cannot be found- but this does not stand in lieu of that evidence.
'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade even if its true

similarly with changing predictions, this does not meant he theory is wrong, just that it does not demonstrate predictive ability.

I think sometimes people get a little polarized, perceiving that criticisms of evolution are meant as proof of creationism, I'm just pointing out that direct evidence is very scant in some crucial areas, where a lot of assumptions still exist

"Highly evolved" is a value judgment when determining whether something utterly absent or not. Before "highly evolved" organisms, there were others. Is a sponge highly evolved? In comparison to other things yes. Is a jellyfish? A flatworm? A sea cucumber? How is photosynthesis not an incredibly highly evolved mechanism?

Again, to confuse several hundred million years with instantaneous is any regards isn't helping.

"Fossils of testate amoeba (or Arcellinida) first appear during the Cryogenian period.[11] During the Cryogenian period, the oldest known fossils of sponges (and therefore animals) make an appearance.[12][13][14] The issue of whether or not life was impacted by this event has not been settled, for example Porter (2000) suggests that new groups of life evolved during this period, including the red algae and green algae, stramenopiles, ciliates, dinoflagellates, and testate amoeba, which have already been mentioned above.[15]"

Cryogenian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rusra02]

Boy it flows from your keyboard just as if you knew what you're talking about. Might want to take a look at the following and access the source link I've provided.


From the Journal of Optometry The Optical Design of the Human Eye: a Critical Review

Abstract
Cornea, lens and eye models are analyzed and compared to experimental findings to assess properties and eventually unveil optical design principles involved in the structure and function of the optical system of the eye. Models and data often show good match but also some paradoxes. The optical design seems to correspond to a wide angle lens. Compared to conventional optical systems, the eye presents a poor optical quality on axis, but a relatively good quality off-axis, thus yielding higher homogeneity for a wide visual field. This seems the result of an intriguing combination of the symmetry design principle with a total lack of rotational symmetry, decentrations and misalignments of the optical surfaces.


Conclusion
"In conclusion, the optical system of the eye seems to combine smart design principles with outstanding flaws. figure 3 is especially illustrative. The corneal ellipsoid shows a superb optical quality on axis, but in addition to astigmatism, it is misaligned, deformed and displaced with respect to the pupil. All these “flaws” do contribute to deteriorate the final optical quality of the cornea. Somehow, there could have been an opportunity (in the evolution) to have much better quality, but this was irreparably lost. Until now, such a modest quality could not be improved by surgery; indeed, any attempt of modification, and ageing itself, only yields a reduction of the optical performance."
SOURCE​

Re. your "see here." Ah yes, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, one of Germany's leading anti-evolutionists. They're always an unbiased sort aren't they.

Interesting that the source you quote mentions "smart design features" along with what they consider flaws. Like so many others, they simply do not understand the reasons the eye was designed the way it is. As to your statement regarding Wolf-Ekkehard, it is typical of evolution propagandists to attack the person rather than the argument. Further, the implication is that all evolutionists are unbiased, and all who reject evolution are biased. Quite the argument from someone who quotes Richard Dawkins as authority.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting that the source you quote mentions "smart design features" along with what they consider flaws. Like so many others, they simply do not understand the reasons the eye was designed the way it is.

Okay, then you tell us exactly why god designed the eye with flaws. And, No, "we cannot fathom the workings of god's mind" ain't going to cut it. You say there are reasons to be understood, so let's hear them.

As to your statement regarding Wolf-Ekkehard, it is typical of evolution propagandists to attack the person rather than the argument.

If the shoe fits. . . . . . Lönnig has a bias against evolution not because he has found it's explanation of species diversity lacking, but because it goes against his religious beliefs. Sure, he has assembled what he believes is a good argument against evolution based on the evidence he's collected, but it's not credible. If it was biology would have taken it into consideration and changed its thinking, but it hasn't---and this is one of the significant differences between evolutionary biology and creationism. Unlike creationism, which seeks out evidence to support its position, biology looks at the evidence and creates a position consonant with it.

Further, the implication is that all evolutionists are unbiased, and all who reject evolution are biased.

And it's a pretty fair implication. A biased "evolutionists" (biologist) would quickly be taken to task for his bias and immediately dismissed, along with his credibility: it's a career killer. Whereas most, I hesitate to say all, of those who reject evolution are indeed biased: biased toward the religious teachings of their faith.