Some personal reasons I don't believe Evolution

[Noogah]

This is to be my last post in R/S. Possibly forever. If not forever, then for a very long time. I cannot continue here. There is simply to much to do, and too much to respond to. I have some things I would like to pick up, and it would be very nice to drop my debating here. However, as promised, here is my thread on things that I find disturbing in Evolution. This will not list each and every fall in the theory, obviously, but to prove that I have reasons to find Evolution unscientifically sound, I have made this thread. If I were to post every complication the the theory poses, I would be going on for a very very long time. I will not be around to respond, so please do not be alarmed when you do not receive one. Missing Fossils Evolution. When the scientific voodoo is removed from the equation, it's basic fibers go to tune of: A one celled creature to a multi-trillion celled human. Naturally, this all took a great deal of time. Seventy trillion cells were added to the package in only 700 million years. Those were the days when genetic mutations occured at 100,000 positive genetic mutations per year, which is 260 per day! The Earth was a very busy place back then. Of course, the factories have slowed down considerably since then. Pity too, because now we can't see all the glorious creatures that would take rise from the process. So, what can we do? Well, naturally, we can search for fossils. If we can't see Gorrilas turn to humans, then we can at least go look for them underground. And, that's exactly what we do. In our visits underground, we have unearthed many natural wonders. Such as Dinosaurs, extinct fish, and even plants. We have also unearthed many un-natural wonders. Such as, the ancient city of Pompeii, and Solomon's Temple. In these excavations, many new creatures have been discovered that we would never have known about otherwise. Things die, and get buried under the earth. Some of the luckier specicmens get the chance to become fossils, so that future generations may take them and observe their ancient and natural beauty. Of course, fossils don't easily or quickly occur. It takes time, and chance to fossilize any creature. (unless, of course, super extreme circumstances are involved) But, we have seven hundred million years to work with, so that's no problem. An ancient race of half humans and half apes once roamed the earth, a hybrid of natural processes. Through the countless eons and decades they survived. Creating the first cave paintings, and intentional fires to provide light and warmth. Many lived on to bring about more offspring - some weren't so lucky. Many unfortunate cave men died. Whether it was by some starved animal who happened upon the relatively defensless bunch, or whether it was by some gale that cought the the poor half-man off guard. However it happened, many bodies were left to fate under the ancient sun, or to sink under water or tar. Most would rot, or get eaten by other animals. Some would decompose to provide fertile soil for plants to come. But, others were chosen by circumstance to be fossilized like the many other plants and animals that came before them. And, considering the large sums of time they had to do it, there had to be a HUGE ammount of fossils. And now, we come to our own day, where we excavate in almost every country in the world. Our mission is to find these many ancestors who came before us. But, a mystery has puzzled many scientists for years - where are they??? With all the ancient animals we have unearthed, why can't we find our prehistoric cousins? Afterall, we have found the fossils of creatures who came long before them. Science believes it may have found the first life to tread our wonderful planet under hundreds of feet of rock and soil. The ones that came hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years before the first primates began to tread soil. So where are the hybrids? Where are the animals that connect humans to apes? Where lie their fossils and bones? Why have we not found them? Nature has freely yielded many secrets of the times that came before us, and yet, our ancient ancestors remain nigh unfindable. Why are they so elusive? Now, this is problematic. We can't find any shreds of ancient evidence that suggests our forefathers are apes. Well, as frustrating as it may be, another question is even more disturbing: Where are any of the hybrids? Where are the legged fish which brought our kind from sea to dry land? Where are the apes that look like humans, and the humans that look like apes? Well, obviously, there have been beliefs in the past that these HAVE been found. Almost every creationist and Evolutionist knows of the many "missing links" that have been thought to show the piece that links us with the apelike creatures that Evolution suggests we came from. But, there is not one that has not exhibited one of the following traits: (a). It was a fraud (b). It WAS an ape/chimpanzee (c). All aspects of the creature were found to be human in every manner, so, that pretty much destroys their credibility of being a "missing link". The missing link argument has gained infamy due to the very heated conflict that remains between Creationists and Evolutionists on the matter, and occasionally Scientists suggest that they may have found it yet again, and the same cycle repeats itself. But, the problem summarized is this: Why is it that we can find SO many different animals burried beneath the soil (some that apparently appeared millions of years before any primates) and yet cannot find more than a few debunked fossils that link supposedly Evolutionary related animals together; specifically primates? A bad answer: A bad answer that is often used to this problem is that Evolution occurs in "growth spurts". There are extended periods of inactivity that do not appear in the fossil record due to their short lived span, which makes it appear that there is a skip from one generation to the next. I.E, directly from humans to apes. 1. There is no Scientific reason to believe this. No mechanism should suddenly be able to trigger a huge increase of genetic mutation in a species. 2. This makes Evolution all the more unrealistic; In the first paragraph, we see the bare minimum of POSITIVE genetic mutations that would be necessary to create a human being in a span of seven hundred million years, which is about 100,000 a year and 260 a day. Keep in mind that while mutations occur relatively frequently, they rarely ever induce results, much less positive results. Considering that the current rate of genetic mutation is around fifty a day, there would have to be at least 260 a day back then in order for Evolution to be possible. For it to be realisitc, there would have to be on beyond a thousand genetic muatations a day. I can only IMAGINE how agonized those poor creatures were. Because, if you're having 260 positives, your bound to have well over a hundred negatives. Seems like extinction would be inevitable. But, anyways: with reduced periods of time, that only means that the genetic mutations would have to work even FASTER. In the end, it gets reallllyyy messy, so this answer only further demonstrates another fallacy of Evolution, which is the rate of genetic mutation. Irreducible Complexity Irreducible complexity has gained infamy for it's human eye argument, which people have decided to belittle. As such, I won't bother to pain you with it. I shall only breifly mention it, as the problem speaks for itself. The people reading this already understand Evolution, so I sahll not re-explain the whole messy process of natural selection. However, specifically, the aspect of natural selection that shows things becoming gradually better and better on a microscopic scale is the issue here. The human body is a delicate, yet durable thing. Obviously, the human body can endure physical sport and injury, yet is balanced on a very delicate momentum that if disturbed, can prove fatal to the entire body. Everything in the body is dependent on eachother. The body depends on oxygen, which depends on the lungs, which depends on the blood, which depends on the heart, which depends on the pace maker. Everything works together to safely run the body. One shifted clockwork can result in an entire system failure. If the heart stops, the rest of the body is dead. If the lungs stop, likewise. If the stomach stops working, then again, everything is doomed. However, Evolution states that each organ individually evolved. It would be a miraculous coincidence if a tiny organism had been evolved with cropped down versions of EVERY dependency in the human body. Even more miraculous that almost every creature runs in a very similar way, what with the respiratory system, the brain, etc. The fallacy is also evident in sexual reproduction in mammals. Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why should sexual reproduction that require complex processes in both the male and female to be finely tuned. Organs, sperm, eggs, etc. It is all so complex and dependent on so many factors, that it certainly does NOT seem that sexual reproduction should have been favored over asexual reproduction. So, in short, the problem is, how did genetic mutation create organs that depend on other organs? Nothing's New Right, so, Evolution happens, right? Well, why has it not been observed in anything? On rare occasion, natural selection has benefited bacteria (a fact that any creationist will not be allowed to forget) but where are the new things? Take fruit flies. Fruit flies are a favorite toy of scientists, because they are easy to study: They spawn a new generation every nine days. Now, fruit flies are wierd things. They are often being born with genetic mutations. There is much variation of fruit flies through there many generations, and they have been bred for many many years now. Question: Where are the vegetable flies? Why are there no new creatures that have stemmed up from the whole messy business of breeding fruit flies? Afterall, a generation every nine days is forty generations a year, which is four hundred five generations in a decade. That is the equivalent of about 13,000 human years. Surely SOMETHING should be different in the fruit flies. Maybe a tweaked nose? Maybe larger wings? More attractive face? But, no. Still fruit flies, and pretty much the same as they were fifty years ago. The same goes for bacteria. We see immuned bacteria, but nothing new. It's still the same immuned bacteria as was found in frozen bodies hundreds of years older than the first antibiotics. Now, I shall procede to briefly list some of many opposing factors of Evolution: The mind boggling complexity of protein cells Trees running through layers apparently millions of years old. Repeated patterns in nature (E.g, Fibonacci in sunflowers, galaxy spirals, and even molecules; such patterns have no reason to be evolved through a random process like Evolution; on the contrary, things like plants should be disorderly) Non-living things never turn to living things - doesn't happen, and never has happened in all the countless experiments which attempted to duplicate such a process. Right, now as said before, I could keep this thread going on for quite a long time, but do not intend to. Good bye R/S!

[Xei]

There are plenty of hybrid fossils. Alopatric speciation is one way well established which evolution could be sped up. There are no examples of irreducible complexity. Evolution of new species with new metabolisms has been observed. There's no such thing to my knowledge as a 'protein cell'. Patterns are repeated because they are efficient and benefit their organisms. Abiogenesis requires millions of years. I think that addresses every coherent point. Good luck with your further education, and goodbye.

[Xaqaria]

Do some research into the fruit fly business. There have been many documented cases of speciation, and the differences observed usually pertain to different populations with different diets that are not able to interbreed.

[Darkmatters]

Not everything that dies fossilizes... conditions have to be pretty much perfect for it to happen... so OF COURSE there are big gaps in the fossil record! *sigh* must I actually say this? ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE ... I feel so dirty now.

[Photolysis]

Missing Fossils Because the process of fossilisation is a rare one. To have detailed step by step movements in the evolutionary chain would require the entire planet to be made of fossils. The funny thing is, is that if someone does find the missing link, people like you will also assert that there are twice as many gaps now. which people have decided to belittle Because it's a hallmark of creationism: ignorance, stupidity, lack of curiosity, blind assertions. Nothing's New If only people on this forum had already provided countless examples of speciation, which is also a simple google search away. The rest of your post can be responded to with "do some proper research" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Your problem Noogah is that you go along to your idiotic and biased Christian sources, and you read stuff there. Sometimes it might be on Evolution (or rather a hilariously wrong version of it with basic errors that should be known by 12 year old science students), sometimes it's on other subjects. And you buy in to it hook line and sinker. If that shitty source says X, it must be true. And you waddle off and start spouting it yourself, regardless of how many people take time out of their day to inform you that it is wrong, and why. Your problem is you don't know anything to know that these sources are terrible, nor do you actually know how to identify a good source. Neither do quite a few people here on DV actually, given that plenty link to any old crap and start using it to back up their claims.

[SnakeCharmer]

This thread should be titled 'Some personal reasons why I don't understand anything about Evolution'

[Universal Mind]

[juroara]

would there be any other reason to post in this thread except to make one feel better?

[youssarian]

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"? Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution. Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods).

[Darkmatters]

We rational types dont rely on faith so much... we have confidence in the self-correcting and constantly updating process called science. It's not necessary for each one of us to actually BECOME scientists and rediscover every step along the way (it would take many lifetimes to do that). Those steps have already been taken.. the evidence gathered and evaluated, the conclusions drawn, and the results recorded for other scientists to challenge or verify. See, that's what makes science so different from religious dogma... scientists submit their reports to the scientific community where other scientists hungrily pore over it and try like crazy to find even one chink in the armor... disproving evolution after all would make some scientists' career if he could do it!! But so far no-one has been able to do it. The evidence is clear. When's the last time Christian dogma was submitted to be weighed and checked against known facts to make sure there are no flaws in it? Oh wait... that's right... christian dogma asserts that the world is only a few thousand years old, is flat, and that we were made from a ball of mud! At least the fundie version does. It's funny to hear people who are willing to believe stories like this LITERALLY talking about how the theory of evolution isn't factual...

[juroara]

My post doesn't matter, and neither does yours!

[Bonsay]

Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods). Great... according to you, everything one can ever think of has the same level of probability of truthfulness? If that is so, how amazingly pragmatic. Hate to say it, but without this "faith of science" you wouldn't be using the computer right now, proboably many of us wouldn't even be alive. There is a massive difference between the "leap of faith" we all take which is: Reality exists, we can define it with science; and the subsequent useless leaps others like to take, like: There is a Flying Spaghetti monster. I know people like to defend their beliefs by taking a hard core agnostic stance on everything that exists and then saying that we all have to put faith in something, basically to equalize everything people can believe in. The only problem is that playing these games has no practical value whatsoever, other than perhaps in philosophy and of course as a defensive mechanism for those who have irrational beliefs. No matter how many times you say how we all have faith, "our" faith will be advancing our civilization, while yours will delay its progress. If you really have to say that I have faith in the fact that the moon exist after I see it, then have fun with that.

[youssarian]

the world is only a few thousand years old, is flat Wait, are you being satirical with that statement about the world being flat? Because I think it's been observed enough to realize it's pretty darn round. I don't think the Bible ever says the world is flat. It talks about the winds in the four corners in Revelation, but of course that is an allegorical statement. And juroara, yeah, maybe I shouldn't have opened this can.

[Scatterbrain]

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. The principle behind evolution is very simple, this fact is something creationists tend to skip/ignore. We know for a fact that species pass down their characteristics (DNA) to the progeny, we also know that there is a slight variation of those characteristics in the progeny (mutations in the DNA, etc). It's also a fact that those more apt to survive are also more likely to pass down their characteristics, which in turn will vary again in their progeny, and so the cycle repeats. The end result of this is the species gradually changing, with the direction that change takes being dictated by the environment the species lives in.

[Xei]

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"? Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution. Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods). Evidence. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Universal Mind]

Bacteria and viruses have evolved in front of our faces, and humans have forced marijuana and wolves (into domesticated dogs like basset hounds and chihuahuas), among other things (like wild cats), into evolving. The fact that humans can force evolution proves that evolution can happen, and for it to happen without humans it only takes natural survivability of genes instead of preference of genes.

[cygnus]

Bacteria and viruses have evolved in front of our faces, and humans have forced marijuana and wolves (into domesticated dogs like basset hounds and chihuahuas), among other things (like wild cats), into evolving. The fact that humans can force evolution proves that evolution can happen, and for it to happen without humans it only takes natural survivability of genes instead of preference of genes. yeah, that one really blows my mind. how did we co-evolve so obviously with canines and still have all these doubts about the very process unfolding right in front of us? we would be a significantly different species without that relationship. the social/religious resistance to evolution has always been stronger than that of actual evidence.

[Odd_Nonposter]

Even in the past 100 years, we have been able to observe the effects of humans on the evolutionary path of organisms. A certain bacterium was discovered recently (actually, 35 years ago) that could metabolize Nylon and only Nylon. Nylon is entirely synthetic and has not existed anywhere before 1935. We have also recreated and observed the evolution of Nylon-eating bacteria in the laboratory, for those who insists that evolution cannot be directly observed. As stated earlier, domestication provides evidence for evolution. It's no different than evolution anywhere else in nature, except for the fact that humans are the evolutionary pressure. For those doubting that new species can arise through evolution, maize is a cross between grasses that occurred through human intervention and is its own separate species. It's been inbred to the point that it would be difficult for it to escape cultivation, but because it has a symbiosis with humans, the species persists.

[Darkmatters]

Wait, are you being satirical with that statement about the world being flat? Because I think it's been observed enough to realize it's pretty darn round. I don't think the Bible ever says the world is flat. It talks about the winds in the four corners in Revelation, but of course that is an allegorical statement. And juroara, yeah, maybe I shouldn't have opened this can. When the discovery was made that the earth was round, guess who was the last group to accept it? The church. Because their official doctrine said it was flat. And I've read that many of the actual church officials understood perfectly well that it's round, but they refused to acknowledge that publicly because it was the official stance of the church that the earth was flat. I'm not sure why that was their official stance... if it comes from some passage in the bible or whatever (that's what I always thought). But to me that story illustrates exactly why dogmatic religions hold back the progress of humanity. New discoveries are made and the church refuses to acknowledge them. EVEN THOUGH the individual people who comprise the upper echelons of the church know better... their dogma doesn't allow them to accept new ideas. Youssarian, if you accept the bible as allegory and metaphor, then I have no problem with that. But wait... do you accept evolution? Im a little lost here...

[Maria92]

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"? Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution. Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods). Storm to her credit despite my derision Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition “You’re so sure of your position But you’re just closed-minded I think you’ll find Your faith in Science and Tests Is just as blind As the faith of any fundamentalist” “Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit. Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. If you show me That, say, homeopathy works, Then I will change my mind I’ll spin on a fucking dime I’ll be embarrassed as hell, But I will run through the streets yelling It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it! You show me that it works and how it works And when I’ve recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That" on the side of my cock. Welcome, new fundie target.

[SpecialInterests]

Jesus, why would you even bother posting this? I'm sure a lot of people would have taken some time to genuinely reply to your post and debunk your bullshit. But to admit that your just going to dump this garbage and flake? Hurray for Noogah.

[Sornaensis]

Fuck yes, Noogah is never coming back in here.

[hawheehawhee]

Mario, I was just listening to that, how very strange Also Noogah, you say that we excavate in almost every country in the world but that still leaves a lot of places left to look. Perhaps if we excavated everywhere we would find these "missing links" but I have a strange feeling that that's not going to happen.

[drew]

You forgot to list 'ignorance' as a reason.

[SKA]

Well looking at fish, frogs and salamanders I really do see a resemblance. Ever taken a good look at a salamander? It really DOES look like a crawling fish. It's arms and legs really DO look like fins that separated into fingers and toes to form the first crude amphibious limbs.