Thread: Do You Believe That Evolution Is True ?

Originally Posted by ^R^ed-$py

I posted this thread after my reaction of looking at Seismosaur,s thread

Do You Believe That Evolution Is True?

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this
context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

1. Something from nothing?

1.The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

2. Physical laws an accident?

2.We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles just like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?

3. Order from disorder?

3.The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists say that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly, the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

4. Information from Randomness?

4.Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent
observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The
generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.

5. Life from dead chemicals?

5.Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?

6.The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

7. Life is complex

7.We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

8. Where are the transitional fossils?

8.If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!

9. Could an intermediate even survive?

9.Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited toeither its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

10. Reproduction without reproduction?

10.A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? A sexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

11. Plants without photosynthesis?

11.The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?

12.There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?

13.It's no good unless it's complete

13.We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

14. Explain metamorphosis!

14.How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?

15. It should be easy to show evolution

15.If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change
to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

16. Complex things require intelligent design, folks!

16.People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to, one day, design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

This is NOT evolution, you obviously know NOTHING about ANYTHING you just stated here. Dude, go HERE and get an education, because this post just made you look like an ignorant asshat.

1. This is not the big-bang theory. The big bang theory only comments on the expansion of the universe, not it's origins.

2.STRAWMAN. This is a common "Fathomability" strawman often used by creationists. Humans cannot fathom 10 years, yet we're pretty sure that the time incrument exists, no?

3.There is no order in the universe, period, and evolution does not suggest the universe is attaining order.

4.BLATANT LIE. This is another LIE, the theory of information does not state this.

5.Evolution does not state this. Abiogenesis is a completely seperate theory.

6.The only "nessecity" of those two to exist at the same time is to create organisms. STRAWMAN. And again you throw out the "Fathomability" strawman.

7.The planning to land on the moon was 15 years in the making. The evolution of man is +1mil years. Oh, and you seem to insist on using the "Fathomability" strawman.

8.BLATANT LIE. This is another blatant lie. LOOK AROUND YOU! Every organism is a transitional one, because evolution is a constant process.

9.Two points on this one:
...A. There are no "intermediates" persay. Evolution is completeley constant, and therefore does not have A organism -"B organism"-> C organism Just:
A organism --> B organism --> C organism
...B. ALL skin cells are light-sensitive, some more than others. And you ask, "What is the point of a light-sensitive skin patch?"
........1. To dectect the environment
........2. To avoid predators

10.You're misreading evolution, these mutaions aren't "Selected" they just happen, randomly. Natural selection describes that "helpful" mutations will pass on to offspring, because they help the organism survive, whil "unhelpful" ones, may not be passed on as much, because they do not help the organism.
Oh and, you forget, cells reproduce asexually, along with most of the precambriads.

11.The photosynthetic process now wasn't the same when the first plants appeared because: There was a less-developed atmosphere that:
........1. Let in roughly 32X UVA & UVB rays than now
........2. There was almost no oxygen
So... That means that this process evolved, and changed as the atmosphere did. Plants who's photosynthetic processes did not work well died out, and the ones who's processes did survived. This also lead to the appearance of oxygen-breathing eukaryotes, animals.

12. The changes made by evolution:
.......1. Forced the animals to co-encide

13. Evolution didn't "make" them, a seris of mutations that coincidently helped the animal in it's environment caused these things to happen and, since every anima is related to each other, these features may pop up everywhere.

14......A. The caterpillar doesn't "evolve" into a cacoon, it makes the cacoon to hybernate.
.....B. Metabolistic changes cause the caterpillar to "re-form" itself, and grow wings.
.....C. How does evolution explain it? That is simply how the animals evolved.


15. Are you slow, or just a total moron? You just proved yourself wrong by saying that scientists made the fruitflies mutate, and mutation is evolution.

16. I have heard many strawman arguments, but this one beats them ALL . Mabey you are forgeting that the parts sitting next to each other are inanimate, thus evolution CAN'T work onto them, because evolution is the mutation of DNA.

To the OP: Since you did nothing more than copy and paste a page of questions (from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm , for the curious) instead of coming up with your ideas, I will reply in kind. Here is an answer to that page of questions a quick search turned up:

Answering "Wonderings about Evolution"

Turnabout is fair play.

1.Something came from nothing from OUR point of view. We might be some strange anomaly in another universe. We say nothing because we can't comprehend what is beyond space. We can't comprehend anything, we just are.

2.I don't know what people keep saying that the universe was an accident. What kind of statement is that? What kind of accident, relative to what...
Why would the laws of this universe be an accident, it is an event of some sort, we don't know why, where, how, and if such a "place" which would answer any of those question exists, because those words are used to describe this universe.

Some of the questions can't be explained from such a point of view you seem to have. No matter how impossible it seems to you, a robot certainly can pop into existance. You also give intelligence some unnatural origin, which is the reason gods were made in the first place. The nature of humans is to think. We started thinking too much and so we made gods, because we couldn't comprehend anything. Gods are a natural thing made by us.

Here's an even meatier answer to the question page:

Answers About Evolution - by Russell Stewart

Originally Posted by ^R^ed-$py

1. Something from nothing?

>> We will probably never be able to answer this question, because we can't look that far back in time.

2. Physical laws an accident?

>> The laws didn't happen. Just like your god, they were always there.

3. Order from disorder?

>> It a complete coincident.

4. Information from Randomness?

>> I can not answer this question.

5. Life from dead chemicals? &
6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?

>> There first kind of life to ever exist, was so simple, that it was almost impossible to tell, that it was alife. It was nothing more than a non-cell bacteria, that just split into two, everytime it was big enough. It lived from whatever atoms, that were similare to itself. Slowly, it would become millions, and some of them would slowly pick up different stuff and evolve. Then one-cell bacteria came, and then evolution started. The transition from non-cell to one-cell took a long time. When one-cell bacteria spawned, DNA and RNA also spawned.

7. Life is complex

>> There didn't just come a little smoke, and then "PLING!", humans were there. It took more than 4,4 billion years, before the first intelligent primals started to pop-up.

8. Where are the transitional fossils?

>> They are there, we just haven't found them yet. Some of them are also destroyed, melted, burned, pulverized, rotten and so on. You can just expect them all to be preserved. You should know that.

9. Could an intermediate even survive?

>> We're always in the trasition phase. We evolve all the time, even from generation to generation. We evolve, so that we're resistent to new disceases, we get used to differences in the atmosphere and temperature. It doesn't work, like we just suddenly change, and during the "transition" we're valnurable to almost everything.

10. Reproduction without reproduction?

>> The reason we have two sexes, is because two sexes advance more, than one sex can alone. By that I mean, that everytime to reproduce, the new human is what the two reproducing humans have "found out" and advanced to.

11. Plants without photosynthesis?

>> The photosynthesis has evolved aswell.

12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?

>> Symbiotic relationsships are rather new, compared to much other living stuff. It is also a product of evolution.

13.It's no good unless it's complete

>> Some fish do not have eyes. Some animals can't hear. Some insects can't taste. We all have different properties, though humans have them all. Atleast, those we know of.

14. Explain metamorphosis!

>> Metamorphosis is like a second birth. Your entire mass is changed into a mass, from which a new body can form.

15. It should be easy to show evolution

>> Evolution is very easy to show. People like you are just too stubborn, to accept the current facts. We can't go back in time and make a movie of an evolving specie. That is, and I'm terrible sorry, not possible.

So there.

I think i hit the nail on the head with my last post, Marvo .

Meh, when I began writing, nobody had replied.

Ok guys i got it , i just wanted 2 see what you all think about it thats all .

Of course evolution is true. You take two dogs, breed them, and the offspring are random mixes of the parents. That's evolution. It doesn't require any giant essays discussing it, just look at some parents and their children.

Natural selection is Darwin's theory that the environment shapes which parents will survive, and therefore what their children will be like. The system is beautiful, perfect, and immediately obvious.

My Christian biology teacher told me all of this and scorns any fellow Christians who reject it.

I understand how hard it is though to imagine that these laws seem to come from nowhere and how would an explosion just happen, but just because( for now at least), we cannot answer questions about our Universe's origins, doesn't mean we should turn to a God to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

But like i always say, if God can have existed forever without a creator. Then the Universe can continue to go:

1) Big bang

2) expand

3) Energy is out

4) Contract

5) everything back to one single space

6) loops back to 1

For future reference, Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. I don't know if that has been mentioned yet.

"Evolution" is a descriptive word. It is the answer to "how", but not the answer to "why". Christians need to start accepting that evolution is a truth, be it brought on by God or not.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

For future reference, Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. I don't know if that has been mentioned yet.

"Evolution" is a descriptive word. It is the answer to "how", but not the answer to "why". Christians need to start accepting that evolution is a truth, be it brought on by God or not.

Read my post, it is the second one in this thread.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

"Evolution" is a descriptive word. It is the answer to "how", but not the answer to "why". Christians need to start accepting that evolution is a truth, be it brought on by God or not.

Do Christians need to accept that fish and elephants and humans all originated with the same single-celled cyanobacteria? Or just that microevolution is an observed, verifiable phenomenon? Because the first one isn't - it's accepted by extension and by faith.

Do Christians need to accept that fish and elephants and humans all originated with the same single-celled cyanobacteria? Or just that microevolution is an observed, verifiable phenomenon? Because the first one isn't - it's accepted by extension and by faith.

LoL
99.9999% of biologist except evolution.

Originally Posted by wendylove

LoL
99.9999% of biologist except evolution.

First, it would help if you cite your statistics so others can verify them. I think the number is actually a bit lower. Unless you're talking about microevolution, or natural selection, which is observable and verifiable, and which I accept as well.

Second, "accepted" doesn't mean "proven."

Originally Posted by SilverZero

First, it would help if you cite your statistics so others can verify them. I think the number is actually a bit lower. Unless you're talking about microevolution, or natural selection, which is observable and verifiable, and which I accept as well.

Second, "accepted" doesn't mean "proven."

Natural selection: 56% of the theory of evolution.

Microevolution: Hand-in-hand with Macroevolution, and is a subsection of the field. So... You believe micoororginisms evolve, but it is impossible for large one to because...?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Natural selection: 56% of the theory of evolution.

Microevolution: Hand-in-hand with Macroevolution, and is a subsection of the field. So... You believe micoororginisms evolve, but it is impossible for large one to because...?

No, I believe that all organisms evolve, but not far beyond speciation. Microevolution, as I use the term, occurs through natural selection and random genetic mutations. It leads to populations of moths becoming black and gray instead of white, and back again, because those with an advantage in their coloration survive better and reproduce, leading to a larger proportion of those coloration genes in the pool.

But it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe that life arose where there was no life before (on a planet made of material where there was no material before) because of a random electrical stimulation of organic matter eons ago, and that life randomly mutated and changed, even through one-in-a-billion non-lethal gene changes, deletions, even duplications, and that those genes then independently and randomly mutated to become different genes with different functions, eventually bringing about the vast spread of life on our planet, all without any intelligence or purpose behind the entire process at any point along the way. Everything we see is a great stroke of luck. Is that really so easy to accept over the idea that there is a God behind everything?

First, it would help if you cite your statistics so others can verify them. I think the number is actually a bit lower. Unless you're talking about microevolution, or natural selection, which is observable and verifiable, and which I accept as well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved.

http://skepdic.com/creation.html
Oh, it is in one of the videos and here, however if you want me to look through all the videos

Second, "accepted" doesn't mean "proven."

Evolution is fact and theory.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzE...related&search=

I can go into the prediction made by evolution and how it is tested. Again Einstein theory of gravity is accepted by 99% of the people in physics. However this is kind of pointless as you would proberly not even read a book on evolution in your life, so yeah I pretty much leave you to your ignorance.

But it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe that life arose where there was no life before (on a planet made of material where there was no material before) because of a random electrical stimulation of organic matter eons ago, and that life randomly mutated and changed, even through one-in-a-billion non-lethal gene changes, deletions, even duplications, and that those genes then independently and randomly mutated to become different genes with different functions, eventually bringing about the vast spread of life on our planet, all without any intelligence or purpose behind the entire process at any point along the way. Everything we see is a great stroke of luck.

Seriously you don't know nothing about evolution, I suggest you read a book on it.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Seriously you don't know nothing about evolution, I suggest you read a book on it.

Well said.

Do my textbooks from college (genetics, microbiology, evolutionary theory, etc.) count? I read those. I read Darwin's "Origin of the Species," too. Heck, they're right here on my bookshelf. I've read many books on evolution.

And that says that 99.99% of scientists believe in speciation. I do, too. But "evolution" doesn't just mean "speciation." I agree that anybody who doesn't believe in speciation is uninformed. There is observable, testable proof for it. I also think that quote is very much a straw-man argument. It says that speciation is proven, and then says that creationists disagree with evolution, as if they are the same thing.

"Evolution is fact and theory." It can't be both. Either it's a fact, or it's a theory. If something is proven as a fact, it ceases to be a theory.

Finally, does the theory of evolution propose that all life on Earth has arisen from one single-celled organism that came into existence where there was no living organisms before, millions and millions of years ago, or does it not?

Originally Posted by wendylove

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

http://skepdic.com/creation.html
Oh, it is in one of the videos and here, however if you want me to look through all the videos

Evolution is fact and theory.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzE...related&search=

I can go into the prediction made by evolution and how it is tested. Again Einstein theory of gravity is accepted by 99% of the people in physics. However this is kind of pointless as you would proberly not even read a book on evolution in your life, so yeah I pretty much leave you to your ignorance.

Seriously you don't know nothing about evolution, I suggest you read a book on it.

Go wendy

Originally Posted by SilverZero

Finally, does the theory of evolution propose that all life on Earth has arisen from one single-celled organism that came into existence where there was no living organisms before, millions and millions of years ago, or does it not?

Yes, evolution DOES say that. But as to how they got there, well, that's Abiogenesis. So much for all of those books .

Originally Posted by SilverZero

But it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe that life arose where there was no life before (on a planet made of material where there was no material before) because of a random electrical stimulation of organic matter eons ago, and that life randomly mutated and changed, even through one-in-a-billion non-lethal gene changes, deletions, even duplications, and that those genes then independently and randomly mutated to become different genes with different functions, eventually bringing about the vast spread of life on our planet, all without any intelligence or purpose behind the entire process at any point along the way. Everything we see is a great stroke of luck. Is that really so easy to accept over the idea that there is a God behind everything?

The first portion is NOT a part of evolutionary theory. That's abiogenesis. Whole other ballgame.

The second part: I don't know what your major is, but if you ever study in depth the processes of biological organisms, the systems in place are indeed very inefficient, repetitive, and pretty damned random.

The reason that creationism is 'hard' to accept is because it's so unsupported. I mean, is that so easy to accept over the idea that a giant purple tomato made everything? There is simply no evidence for a greater being. There is plenty of evidence, however, for evolution - early organisms are aplenty in the earth, fossilized for all to see. Dinosaurs obviously existed long before us, which makes no sense with a creator. The whole thing is just shoddily put together.

Dinosaurs obviously existed long before us, which makes no sense with a creator.

http://neworleans.metblogs.com/archi...s_christ.phtml

It's a Jesus horse!

So, who believes in abiogenesis, then? Isn't that the starting point of evolution? Or do evolutionists just believe it back to the first reproducing organisms, and then don't worry about what was before that?

The second part: I don't know what your major is, but if you ever study in depth the processes of biological organisms, the systems in place are indeed very inefficient, repetitive, and pretty damned random.

My major was Biology. What was yours? Cell division and chromosome replication seem very ordered and non-random to me. I find it very difficult to accept that the first cells on Earth randomly developed the capacity to reproduce successfully. I wouldt think they would have had to come into being with that capacity, or else they would have died out before reproducing and passing on the genes necessary to commence the replication of their genetic information (however that got there).

Dinosaurs obviously existed long before us, which makes no sense with a creator.

How is it obvious that dinosaurs existed before humans? It's only obvious if that's how you interpret the evidence.

It's a Jesus horse!

LOL!