Some questions about evolution.

[Alceste]

Thank you for an intelligent question. As to weaknesses for the ToE, consider the following:

1. Mutations are regarded as part of the evolutionary machinery. After 100 years of mutation research, scientists have been unable to prove that mutations can create new species.

2. Natural Selection cannot produce new species. Darwin's finches are a famous example of supposed natural selection producing new species. In 1999, evolutionist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species pp.317-320)

3. The fossil record does not support macroevolution. Rather, the fossil record indicates major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for long periods.

And of course, there is the ol debil of blind chance creating obviously well-designed plants and animals. Yup, says the evolutionists, it all just happened... Yet they won't say the same thing about a rock with someone's name carved in it.

​

​

None of this is true (but you knew that already, didn't you )

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

To borrow from Autodidact...."Not the who but the How"....

Explain to me the "Hows" of creation. Saying "God did it" til you're blue in the face doesn't help. Explain to me, scientifically, how all was created....Until you can do this your hypothesis will continue to fall short of the accepted theory.

 

[Acim]

If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition,

Wow, that's a really sad day for science if that is ever believe (by many) to be the case.

Ever wonder how dogmas are formed?

 

[Acim]

I'll say it.
Biological Evolution addresses biological changes over billions of years, and the common ancestry of all life.

It does not address the existence or non-existence of God(s).
It does not address the origins of life itself.

Nor does it really address life. Not really. Clearer understanding from first statement would be:

Biological Evolution addresses biological changes over billions of years, and the common ancestry of all resulting changes in form.

 

[camanintx]

Thank you for an intelligent question. As to weaknesses for the ToE, consider the following:

1. Mutations are regarded as part of the evolutionary machinery. After 100 years of mutation research, scientists have been unable to prove that mutations can create new species.

2. Natural Selection cannot produce new species. Darwin's finches are a famous example of supposed natural selection producing new species. In 1999, evolutionist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species pp.317-320)

3. The fossil record does not support macroevolution. Rather, the fossil record indicates major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for long periods.

If any of these were true, taxonomy wouldn't be nearly as subjective as it is.

 

[idav]

If any of these were true, taxonomy wouldn't be nearly as subjective as it is.

If all of life weren't so similar in makeup there would be a more clear cut distinction for creationists to work with. Some of the more blurry lines helps evolution more than it hurts it.

 

[painted wolf]

Viscacha rats?! Don't let them hear you talking like that, PW.
They think they're God's chosen race -- of chinchillas.

LoL.... how thoughtless of me. Clearly I should have used their proper name Tympanoctomys barrerae.

Ps. to be really picky, Vischacha rats are not relatives of the Vischacha (who is a member of the chinchilla family) but are their own group allied with Degus.

I love "common names".... a perfect example of how one shouldn't rely on "common sense" alone when classifying species.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

I didn't know about viscacha rats! I thought you were talking about regular viscachas.

Ya learn something new every day.

 

[painted wolf]

I didn't know about viscacha rats! I thought you were talking about regular viscachas.

Ya learn something new every day.

It's been a good day.

wa:do

 

[Matthew78]

If any of these were true, taxonomy wouldn't be nearly as subjective as it is.

I'm a bit surprised actually. I was expecting to see the arguments from thermodynamics and mathematical probability as well as some argument from design like "specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity". But, I got what I asked for.

 

[Gemini]

Evolution is proven. If you've studied it and still don't accept it, then that's an issue of denial, and no logical argument can reach you in there.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Once upon a time there was an amoeba.
It swam around in a muddy pool of mostly water and was quite happy doing so.

I had many children, all by itself, for it needed nobody to help it with reproduction.
The poor amoeba never had sex, but is wasn't sad because it didn't know what it was missing.

Then one day the amoeba accetently swan into something. First it thought it was food, but then it realized it was another amoeba.
And the two had sex and felt it was good.
They became fruitful, and brought forth abundantly in the muddy pool.
The amoebas children had children of their own, and the amoeba childrens children did too. And so for many many generations the reproduction went on.

And behold the ofspring changed in apperance and function. Some set forth from the muddy pool and colonized the barren earth beyond it.

And so the generations came and went. Untill one day you were born.

Just think...

For billions of years since the outset of time
Every single one of your ancestors has survived
Every single person on your mum and dad's side
Successfully looked after and passed on to you life.

And that is the fairy tale some people call science

What?! How can ameobas that repoduce without sex suddenly start having sex? Are there any known organisims that can repoduce both with and without sex?

 

[Photonic]

What?! How can ameobas that repoduce without sex suddenly start having sex? Are there any known organisims that can repoduce both with and without sex?

Yes actually. Female Komodo Dragons reproduce via parthenogenesis if there are no males available.

 

[Valjean]

Lots of animals!
There are many different reproductive strategies, and many organisms use more than one, depending.

 

[Photonic]

Lots of animals!
There are many different reproductive strategies, and many organisms use more than one, depending.

There is even a species that will change to male (it cannot change back though) if there is a lack of males during mating time. I forget what organism that is though.

I'll try to find it though.

 

[painted wolf]

What?! How can ameobas that repoduce without sex suddenly start having sex? Are there any known organisims that can repoduce both with and without sex?

Most of them actually...
All bacteria can reproduce both with and without sex
Most invertebrates from worms to bugs can reproduce both with and without sex (bees and ants are good examples). A large number of inverts are hermaphrodites and have fully functional sexual organs for both sexes.
Lots of fish can change gender through their lifetimes.
Lots of vertebrates are capable of reproducing via parthenogenesis... that is without males.

We are biased toward the two distinct gender model because that is the one we occupy.... but it's not the reality for the majority of species on this planet. We are rather, the minority.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

We can change our own genders. And arguably in a natural way.

 

[johnhanks]

We can change our own genders.

Only superficially: I don't believe there's ever been a case of a fully fertile woman being converted into a fully fertile man (or vice versa). All we can really change is the external appearance of 'gender'.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

If you or others cant really completely understand the exacting science without quoting sources then do you really know what you are talking about. Do you?

Well, then please explain life without quoting the Bible.
Since you are obviously an acute observer, you should be able to do this without using the Bible as a source.

 

[Valjean]

What?! How can ameobas that repoduce without sex suddenly start having sex? Are there any known organisims that can repoduce both with and without sex?

The turkey you had last thanksgiving, unless someone shot it in the wild, almost certainly originated parthenogenically -- no males required.