Evolution flaws which proves it fallacy.

[savagewind]

If evolution was guided by God, then parasites were part of that design. Take eye-inflating flatworm, zombie wasp, tongue eating seaworm, and more. They were designed by God's guidance through evolution or by creation or by random chance from the DNA "falling" in sin?

No. (Troll Thought) God designed heat, light, gravity, energy, solid matter, radiation, ect ect. Then God created life. Life moves IN those things. It is THOSE things that determine what will be. Who is telling who to read something about it?

Disclaimer- Man is different. Mankind is a real reflection of The Creator so in Man's case it is true "they were designed by God's guidance".

 

[Ouroboros]

OK. But how many thousand year periods have come and gone since the first living cell appeared? It's simple division.

Bacteria double every 20 minutes.

Even in beer brewing if you reuse yeast from the trub, you have to consider that after a number of generations the yeast won't produce the same flavors anymore or behave exactly the same. The reason is that the yeast mutates. It still does the work, but produce other flavor profiles. The guideline is only reuse yeast 7 generations.

The reason we have different kinds of yeast for beer brewing today is because of artificial selection. The yeast mutates and you select the yeast the fits the profile. High or low flocculation is an example of this, or low temp ale, or high alcohol yeast. The highest alcohol in beer is 60% which was developed by generations of selecting yeast that could survive higher alc.

Basically the high alc yeast is a new species of yeast. Micro to macro.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. (Troll Thought) God designed heat, light, gravity, energy, solid matter, radiation, ect ect. Then God created life. Life moves IN those things. It is THOSE things that determine what will be.

Sure. Some religious people believe that. I believe all things are God and that this is how Nature God did create life, good and evil.

My argument was against Creationists, not pantheists or naturalists.

Creationists deny evolution, specifically macroevolution, which means that God would have created parasites, not by evolution or macro-evolution since they're argument is that it's impossible. Even if God did intentionally use evolution to create parasites, it was God's will.

 

[savagewind]

Sure. Some religious people believe that. I believe all things are God and that this is how Nature God did create life, good and evil.

My argument was against Creationists, not pantheists or naturalists.

Creationists deny evolution, specifically macroevolution, which means that God would have created parasites, not by evolution or macro-evolution since they're argument is that it's impossible. Even if God did intentionally use evolution to create parasites, it was God's will.

Good point. I like the beer contribution. I fruballed you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good point. I like the beer contribution. I fruballed you.

I saw that. :bow:

Here's another tidbit. Have you heard about Lenski's E-Coli experiment?

Short summary:
It's one of the longest experiments done. Some 20-30 years now, I think. Basically they were growing E-Coli bacteria (two kinds with distinctive differences). They grow them and save every 5,000 generations or something like that. E-Coli replicate extremely fast, that's why they picked it.

Now, the interesting part is that they started to change the nutrition. They added more citric acid (I think it was). And E-Coli can't use that for food. But after some 50,000 generations, a new strain of E-Coli could use it as food and exploded and dominated the petri dish.

The strange part was that it takes two genes to utilize this new food. The bacteria didn't have it when they started. Two genes, which means an "irreducible complex" mutation must've happened.

They checked back in their saved batches and found that one part of the mutation happened many, many generations earlier, before the second mutation happened and made it work. The first mutation, I can't remember if it was useful or not, but most likely it was just a harmless, "useless" mutation that neither improved or hindered reproduction.

In other words, beneficial irreducible complex mutation, macroevolution, documented. Was it God? Was it guided? Was it Nature? Yes, yes, yes. Nature is God and it guides evolution through natural selection.

I think I got that largely right. Anyone with more details can correct or complement it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, just to make sure I give you a source for the beer yeast thing: Wyeast Laboratories : Commercial : Breweries : Technical Information : Yeast Harvesting

Yeast Generation: Always select the youngest generation of yeast available for harvest. Using fewer generations will minimize opportunities for mutation or contamination.

It's from Wyeast Laboratories. They supply beer yeast to brewers.

---

Correction to my earlier statement: The highest alcohol for fermentation with yeast is around 20%, not 60%. You have to distill or complement with other distilled alcohols to take it above that. Around 20% seems to be where it can't go above.

---

And here's a list of Wyeast Lab yeast strains: http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_yeaststrain.cfm

Doubt that God created these yeasts for the only reason to enjoy beer... or maybe he did?

 

[camanintx]

hello! i have few questions if you guys have the time to reponse to them.

Not another argument from incredulity.

 

[jmn]

Creationism is based on false premises, and special pleading. That's what i see in this thread.:yes:

 

[JamesYaqub]

hello! i have few questions if you guys have the time to reponse to them.

is evolution a sentient thing? is it self-aware? is the process conscious?

if the answer is no! then...

is your stomach self-aware? is it conscious ?

when your stomach produce a mucous lining to protect itself from being digested by the acid, that's not because it can understands the risk of the acid, but because it was taught to operate that way.

If you swallow a liquid which is a poison, your stomach will absorb that liquid, because that's what it meant for it to do and from there it goes to your blood stream and once that poison is inside the body
it will be used. It's not the fault of your stomach that made you get poisoned and it's not it's responsibility to check what your throw in it, but it's you who has a consciousness to understand that this is wrong.

how does a tree knows what it's fruit should taste like to humans? so it makes them so sweet with tempting smell, looks and colors? why the fruit supply us with important nurtrients and it's not posionous?

is the tree a sentient thing? is it self-aware? is it conscious? if the answer again is no! then...

if an it " evolution" doesnt know and an it " tree " doesnt know then who does?

Please stay on the topic and don't try to explain evolutoin to me. if you disgree with my points then....

you are telling that evolution is capable of desiging us without having a consciousness or thoughts or knowledge or even a reason for it ?

you are telling me that evolution understand when to start evolving an organ and it knows when to stop?

you are telling me that evolution finished evolving living parts and it wrote a full set of instrctions on each specific part, so that a heart will be reproduced as a heart and a lung will be reproduced as a lung
and a stomach will be reproduced as a stomach, but in another human body? and it designed the female body to be capable of receiving and understanding those instructions?

all of this from mindless evolution without...

Any understandings of it's surroundings, brain, thoughts, without knowing what it's actions are, and without realizing what the reasons are.

That is quite a lot to respond to.

My belief is that at the moment of creation God instituted a system of change and growth wherefrom all else would be derived. This is what evolution is. It is no more than evidence of God's Intelligent Design at work.

In your post you posit a few things which are of interest. Here are some answers.

How does evolution work? The simplistic view is that God will personally sit and direct each atom in it's association with others. If this is the way it works then every change in the world would be a positive and timely one. That is not the way God works. God places in His creation the rules which, all of them, fall within the rules of physics. Let's not forget that God is responsible for all aspects of the physical universe, not just the mystical ones.

So God sets things up in such a way that the fires of His processes continually work in the world. Natural selection is God's handiwork. When nature tries various forms, rejects some and allows others, what we are seeing are the outer workings of God's great evolutionary directive.

Sometimes when we consider God we suppose that He does everything is a very direct sense. Certainly those men who wrote the OT were of that opinion. It just plain isn't that simple and clear. God's mechanicisms are many and complex. In evolution we see dead ends for instance. These are not because God was incapable but rather because the earth was. It is the earth, considered as a dynamic whole, that responds to God's directives then finds ways to move forward. Evolution is all about trial and error and trial again to see what works. This procedure is evidence of the earth following God directives. Nothing more.

There is a lot more to this storyline. The question is asked, "How does a tree know that it's fruit....etc". The tree does not. The form of the tree is following the rough design mandated by God. It takes time for the end result. Creation may have begun in a blinding moment but evolution, because the material universe simply cannot move fast enough, provokes us to doubt if God is involved. He is.

There is one last aspect to God's creation. The religious mind will want to believe that there is but a single entity in spirit which is God. If scripture speaks of angels and a few others they will accept it but only because it is plainly written in their books. There are other forms in God's heaven though. God does not act directly upon the universe when implementing evolution.

I mean no offense but in religions things are simple to understand. Finding God in His creation is less so. Yet the Hand of God is always nearby.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Being Self aware doesn't mean that something that is self aware is required for it to work. Does that make sense? Does a rock need to be self aware to fall down? No. It requires gravity. Basic forms of natural processes create a more complex system overtime.

So evolution is a process. It isn't a "thing". If you understand what it is then that should be evident. Evolution doesn't start or stop. It doesn't happen to a single organism within its lifetime. It will happen when a single gene gets mutated.

I don't fully understand where you were going with all of this. I won't lecture you what evolution is (though it pains me to leave out information) but simply your reasoning is not sound.

 

[JamesYaqub]

When you consider evolution do you think of biology only? That would explain why you mention genetics. When I say "evolution" I refer to, not only the plant and animal kingdoms but the mineral as well. There are no genetics in minerals yet they change (evolve). Example: Heavy elements are the result of star processes. This is why I say that evolution began at the moment of creation (the big bang). It is, perhaps, this difference in definition of the word that separates our views.

I do believe in God but I do so outside the context of any religion. This leaves me free to speculate freely. And.... I see the hand of God in every aspect of creation.

I have never met any kind of scientist who claimed there was no god. Never. Brother Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."

If you don't understand "where I am going with all of this" then how can you be of the opinion that my reasoning is not sound?

You say you "won't lecture me on what evolution is". Well you might just answer my question on line one of this. If you think evolution is biology only then say so. That would explain a lot.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It depends on what you mean. Yes there is plenty of room for both disagreement and speculation but only if it has a basis. For example we constatly dispute the exact origin of Humans in terms of which early homonid (if any) are our direct ancestors. We have a fairly conclusive conclusion that most people agree with but there are those that still provide new evidence each year and re-open the case.

But saying that evolution required (I'm not sure if your saying it required or just "does") to have an intellegent creator. No reason brings us to that conclusion without the prior axiom of "god exists".

So we may discuss things but unless you place under the argument that we shall proceede with the idea that "god exists" as a basis. Otherwise its hypothetical during conversation. And a hypothetical doesn't provide any sort of argument just because the proposed hypothetical situation doesn't conflict.

Not really relevant but I am compelled to ask what you mean specifically by searatist views of science and religion. I don't think I've heard that term used often.

 

[JamesYaqub]

I do believe firmly in God though I am a follower of no religion. So the opinions that I posit are based upon that baseline.

Science and religion are traditionally held separate. One is the realm of logic based on following various evidences. Science goes where evidence leads. Religion begins with beliefs and seeks to justify them using "science". Now belief and faith are not so bad. The scientist uses those too. They become burdensome, though, when a book of scripture (that makes little sense) is placed before the man and when he is told "here is God's truth".

I believe as I do because most questions are answered in my portrait. For instance with no God if the universe began in a moment of a big bang there would still have to be a cause. This cause could not have been anything material because no material universe yet existed to support it. I choose to believe in God and that God exists in a non-material spiritual universe. With purpose God directs His mind upon spiritual matter. It reacts by slowing, congealing and turning into physical matter bringing with it a primordial physical universe. Hydrogen and gravity (God's willful design) do the rest. Later. Much later when plants and animals appear on various worlds the process of evolution expands to include them. This is where Darwin comes on the scene in South America.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Yes I agree that the baseline of some some sort of assumption should be present since what I say is not scientific. Well it might be except that science has not yet identified any spiritual universe. I hope that someday they do.

I am open to other explanations of what a cause of the universe was and exactly how the universe moved from clouds of hydrogen to humans with Toyotas. Mine is the most all encompassing I've read. Like the scientist I'll set it aside when something more appealing comes along.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do believe firmly in God though I am a follower of no religion. So the opinions that I posit are based upon that baseline.

Science and religion are traditionally held separate. One is the realm of logic based on following various evidences. Science goes where evidence leads. Religion begins with beliefs and seeks to justify them using "science". Now belief and faith are not so bad. The scientist uses those too. They become burdensome, though, when a book of scripture (that makes little sense) is placed before the man and when he is told "here is God's truth".

I believe as I do because most questions are answered in my portrait. For instance with no God if the universe began in a moment of a big bang there would still have to be a cause. This cause could not have been anything material because no material universe yet existed to support it. I choose to believe in God and that God exists in a non-material spiritual universe. With purpose God directs His mind upon spiritual matter. It reacts by slowing, congealing and turning into physical matter bringing with it a primordial physical universe. Hydrogen and gravity (God's willful design) do the rest. Later. Much later when plants and animals appear on various worlds the process of evolution expands to include them. This is where Darwin comes on the scene in South America.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Yes I agree that the baseline of some some sort of assumption should be present since what I say is not scientific. Well it might be except that science has not yet identified any spiritual universe. I hope that someday they do.

I am open to other explanations of what a cause of the universe was and exactly how the universe moved from clouds of hydrogen to humans with Toyotas. Mine is the most all encompassing I've read. Like the scientist I'll set it aside when something more appealing comes along.

Your obviously free to believe whatever you want. Though I shall say for the sake of argument that just because a modle theoretically works doesn't make it correct.

If ideas were to clash I wouldn't be able to accept your hypothosis because it holds no support for your claims. It "fits" but so can any immesurable number of things. My question I suppose is what brings you to the conclusion of god instead of other theories? There are more than just "god" and "I don't know". A popular scientific one as aformented in a previous post was the multiverse theory. That somehow our universe was born in the destruction of another. Or perhaps another universe was sitll responsible for our creation without disrupting itself.

But why specifically god when other things fit just as well?

 

[JamesYaqub]

Your obviously free to believe whatever you want. Though I shall say for the sake of argument that just because a modle theoretically works doesn't make it correct.

If ideas were to clash I wouldn't be able to accept your hypothosis because it holds no support for your claims. It "fits" but so can any immesurable number of things. My question I suppose is what brings you to the conclusion of god instead of other theories? There are more than just "god" and "I don't know". A popular scientific one as aformented in a previous post was the multiverse theory. That somehow our universe was born in the destruction of another. Or perhaps another universe was sitll responsible for our creation without disrupting itself.

But why specifically god when other things fit just as well?

We are in agreement. The fun of these forums is through having the opportunity to voice our opinions. I never suppose to convince others that what I say is true but only to say that I currently believe it. I don't like debating because I don't like arguing. As for evidence? How could I possibly provide evidence for the wild things I say? I can't. Most readers go off on a tangent telling me I'm nuts because I cannot support what I claim. Maybe I am nuts but i'm having lots of fun.

Cheers....

 

[jmn]

A popular scientific one as aformented in a previous post was the multiverse theory. That somehow our universe was born in the destruction of another. Or perhaps another universe was sitll responsible for our creation without disrupting itself.

But why specifically god when other things fit just as well?

It takes faith to accept things outside of tested scientific verification.

 

[JamesYaqub]

It takes faith to accept things outside of tested scientific verification.

I agree but since this is a "religious forum" that should not be a problem.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It takes faith to accept things outside of tested scientific verification.

Yes it does. But "tested" doesn't necessarily have to be true to hold a theory in high regard. Evidence however is necessary.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Yes it does. But "tested" doesn't necessarily have to be true to hold a theory in high regard. Evidence however is necessary.

What form, I wonder, would evidence of a spiritual universe take?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What form, I wonder, would evidence of a spiritual universe take?

So far zero and thus no real evidence for existence. Though I specifically wanted to make it clear about the science that we can't test in a lab.