[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

[Vaccine]

The "reality" is that God's Word tells us all we need to know about creation. That is reality and the reality that I know is true. God didn't "kick start man" to evolve from something lower to what we are now, He created man that we are now. Either Gods Word is true or it isn't, the Genesis account. I believe that what it tells me is true. That I don't believe is extreme, when what I defend is what is written in Gods word. That's being faithful to my Creator.
A Christian.

@Free Christian
Well said!

 

[jasoncran]

I would argue that ere the fall, adam was much more of perfect man then after the fall and his descendents.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

God didn't "kick start man" to evolve from something lower to what we are now, He created man that we are now.

Well, you have to accept that God didn't create you and I in the fashion that Genesis says He created Adam. This is because you know that babies come from parents having sex-- whether you are talking about humans or other animals. So, you have to already accept that God doesn't just "poof" us into existence, but instead He created a natural system for the reproduction of animals. Once you realize that you already accept a natural explanation, accepting the Theory of Evolution isn't that big of a step.

Time is relative to the observer.

To God, ever-changing life forms over millions of years is no different than a fetus developing in the womb over 8 or 9 months.

 

[Sparkey]

To God, ever-changing life forms over millions of years is no different than a fetus developing in the womb over 8 or 9 months.

This speculation here does not speak to the truth or the falsity of a completely different concept. If I were to say that to God, every hair of your head is counted, would that necessarily mean that He had a hand in the planning of something that I only imagine happened? God performed as declared. I need no stretch of the imagination to say that I am uncertain exactly how He did what He did because I was not there to witness it. Neither was Job and he was born considerable before me. "Where were you when I stretched out the heavens...?"

Who? Me?

 

[Barbarian]

Saying it's “thought toâ€happen like this an inference, not evidence.

Inferences are conclusions based on evidence. Remember, I suggested that you'd do better if you learned a bit about it.

Did anyone else notice this: “The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyesâ€. "would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form'.

The answer, as you probably know, is in the part you deleted.

I'd agree it seems to be a good explanation of how that eye might arise, if they were basically the same and not distinctive. Where is the phacopid trilobiteembryo with an holochroal eye? That's a critical piece to theargument, and where is it? It's an assumption.

It's a prediction, based on the evidence. Moreover, the prediction was later confirmed:

Phacopida had 8 to 19 thoracic segments and are distinguishable by the expanded glabella, short or absent preglabellar area, and schizochroal (Phacopina) or holochroal (Cheirurina and Calymenina) eyes. Schizochroal eyes are compound eyes with up to around 700 separate lenses. Each lens has an individual cornea which extended into a rather large sclera.

The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is an example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phacopida

This is why I say evolution is bad science.

Evidence is the way it works. If you don't know the evidence, this is going to happen to you again and again.

For arguments sake, suppose this made-up embryo did exist and the holochroal eye was kept in one organism.

See above.

For what reason would this trait be passed on?

So long as it didn't harm the organism, it would be inherited like any other trait.

The article doesn't even address the fact that a mutation like that would be lost within a few generations

Show us that. Numbers will be necessary.

(DNA doesn't like mutations)

Every human has a few of them, that weren't present in either parent. You've been badly misled about that.

and return the organism to the original phacopid schizochroal eye.

Show us your evidence for that.

Natural selection would select against it and return to the normal eye.

Unless it was a neutral or advantageous change.

The idea an intelligent designer designed the eyes for both makes more sense to me.

Comes down to evidence. "Space alien" designer or omnipotent God who didn't need to design anything and created nature to proceed as He intended. God sounds more likely to me.

 

[Free Christian]

Yes Jason I would agree that Adam was more perfect before than after. What I mean is that we didn't evolve to anything physically different. But true what you say.
A baby developing in the womb though VSC develops into a baby each and every time, "after its own kind". They don't evolve into something new!

 

[Barbarian]

There are many genes in human populations today that did not exist even a few millenia or centuries ago. So we are different today that people in earlier times. Over a very long time, that leads to speciation.

 

[Vaccine]

God didn't "kick start man" to evolve from something lower to what we are now, He created man that we are now.

Well, you have to accept that God didn't create you and I in the fashion that Genesis says He created Adam. This is because you know that babies come from parents having sex-- whether you are talking about humans or other animals. So, you have to already accept that God doesn't just "poof" us into existence, but instead He created a natural system for the reproduction of animals. Once you realize that you already accept a natural explanation, accepting the Theory of Evolution isn't that big of a step.

Time is relative to the observer.

To God, ever-changing life forms over millions of years is no different than a fetus developing in the womb over 8 or 9 months.

I see nothing wrong with accepting people being made the way described in Genesis. If I understand your position, Adam came from an ape, which came from, a ???, from a ???, until we get back to a single celled amoeba, which seems more believable to make than a fully formed human. But is it? Take alook at this:

View attachment 3253

Protozoa (single celled life) have the most genes. Flat worms are more evolved than mammals. Based on the complexity of the genome it would seem amoebas would have evolvedfrom humans, not the other way around.

If I had to choose between a)God said poof there man is with 45000-60000 genes, or b) nature produced asingle celled life with 300,000 genes, which produced a ???, which eventually made an ape, which made a human.

I find A is much easier to believe.
I'm no scientist, but given the fact we see asexual reproduction in nature, external embryo development in nature, and both these functions can be broken down to genetic information stored in DNA it might seem more reasonable. Suppose humans had that information in their DNA, suppose they developed from a single cell,which we all do in utero, but just once it happened ex utero. It may be fantastic but at least it's based on known, testable, observable, repeatable process we see in other species, I'm just guessing they existed in humans a long time ago. Neither evolution, ever changing life forms over millions of years, or ex utero human embryo development has been observed. I just find Adam developing from an embryo to an adult ex utero with young earth conditions similar to an incubator much easier to believe than evolution.

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

 

[Vaccine]

Inferences are conclusions based on evidence. Remember, I suggested that you'd do better if you learned a bit about it.



The answer, as you probably know, is in the part you deleted.



It's a prediction, based on the evidence. Moreover, the prediction was later confirmed:

Phacopida had 8 to 19 thoracic segments and are distinguishable by the expanded glabella, short or absent preglabellar area, and schizochroal (Phacopina) or holochroal (Cheirurina and Calymenina) eyes. Schizochroal eyes are compound eyes with up to around 700 separate lenses. Each lens has an individual cornea which extended into a rather large sclera.

The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is an example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phacopida

This is why I say evolution is bad science.

Evidence is the way it works. If you don't know the evidence, this is going to happen to you again and again.

For arguments sake, suppose this made-up embryo did exist and the holochroal eye was kept in one organism.

See above.

For what reason would this trait be passed on?

So long as it didn't harm the organism, it would be inherited like any other trait.

The article doesn't even address the fact that a mutation like that would be lost within a few generations

Show us that. Numbers will be necessary.

(DNA doesn't like mutations)

Every human has a few of them, that weren't present in either parent. You've been badly misled about that.

and return the organism to the original phacopid schizochroal eye.

Show us your evidence for that.

Natural selection would select against it and return to the normal eye.

Unless it was a neutral or advantageous change.

The idea an intelligent designer designed the eyes for both makes more sense to me.

Comes down to evidence. "Space alien" designer or omnipotent God who didn't need to design anything and created nature to proceed as He intended. God sounds more likely to me.

Are you saying natural selection would select an inferior eye to pass along?
Without any DNA it really doesn't matter.
Your eye argument is moot since:
"most species exhibit no directional change...appear all at once and 'fully formed'."

 

[VirginShallConceive]

A baby developing in the womb though VSC develops into a baby each and every time, "after its own kind". They don't evolve into something new!

I'm just trying to get you to notice how God created a natural process that you do accept.

Male and female get together.

Female becomes pregnant.

Fetus develops through a natural process.

Female gives birth to baby-- just like other female mammals.

Female has milk in her breasts to feed baby-- just like other female mammals.

Baby grows into an adult with the ability to reproduce-- just like other mammals.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

God didn't "kick start man" to evolve from something lower to what we are now, He created man that we are now.

Well, you have to accept that God didn't create you and I in the fashion that Genesis says He created Adam. This is because you know that babies come from parents having sex-- whether you are talking about humans or other animals. So, you have to already accept that God doesn't just "poof" us into existence, but instead He created a natural system for the reproduction of animals. Once you realize that you already accept a natural explanation, accepting the Theory of Evolution isn't that big of a step.

Time is relative to the observer.

To God, ever-changing life forms over millions of years is no different than a fetus developing in the womb over 8 or 9 months.

I see nothing wrong with accepting people being made the way described in Genesis. If I understand your position, Adam came from an ape, which came from, a ???, from a ???, until we get back to a single celled amoeba, which seems more believable to make than a fully formed human. But is it? Take alook at this:

View attachment 4291

Protozoa (single celled life) have the most genes. Flat worms are more evolved than mammals. Based on the complexity of the genome it would seem amoebas would have evolvedfrom humans, not the other way around.

If I had to choose between a)God said poof there man is with 45000-60000 genes, or b) nature produced asingle celled life with 300,000 genes, which produced a ???, which eventually made an ape, which made a human.

I find A is much easier to believe.
I'm no scientist, but given the fact we see asexual reproduction in nature, external embryo development in nature, and both these functions can be broken down to genetic information stored in DNA it might seem more reasonable. Suppose humans had that information in their DNA, suppose they developed from a single cell,which we all do in utero, but just once it happened ex utero. It may be fantastic but at least it's based on known, testable, observable, repeatable process we see in other species, I'm just guessing they existed in humans a long time ago. Neither evolution, ever changing life forms over millions of years, or ex utero human embryo development has been observed. I just find Adam developing from an embryo to an adult ex utero with young earth conditions similar to an incubator much easier to believe than evolution.

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.†Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

When you think about the people who do believe that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, can you understand why they do believe this, or do you think these people are way off?

 

[Vaccine]

When you think about the people who do believe that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, can you understand why they do believe this, or do you think these people are way off?

Oh, I can understand why they do and don't think they are way off. I might be out in left field here, but I think it more believable chimps came from humans. Something drastic happened to our DNA when we stopped living 900 years old, why not chromosome fission instead of fusion? The hard part for me to believe is they checked the DNA sequences where the fusion/fission took place and they don't match up. Another reason I find fusion or fission hard to believe is reproduction. Miscarriage rates are positively correlated with DNA damage levels, fission or fusion would be serious damage. If the egg didn't cessate on it's own, implantation isn't possible, the immune system would kill it.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

When you think about the people who do believe that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, can you understand why they do believe this, or do you think these people are way off?

Oh, I can understand why they do and don't think they are way off. I might be out in left field here, but I think it more believable chimps came from humans. Something drastic happened to our DNA when we stopped living 900 years old, why not chromosome fission instead of fusion? The hard part for me to believe is they checked the DNA sequences where the fusion/fission took place and they don't match up. Another reason I find fusion or fission hard to believe is reproduction. Miscarriage rates are positively correlated with DNA damage levels, fission or fusion would be serious damage. If the egg didn't cessate on it's own, implantation isn't possible, the immune system would kill it.

Interesting.

Cupid Dave, move over, and make room for a fourth opinion! :toofunny

 

[Narwhalist]

To those of you that don't believe evolution occurs I have a question and I would like to see how you answer it.
The order of genes along a chromosome is often the same in humans and mice, though the spacing between genes varies. Also, since complete genomes of mice and humans are available, it is possible to identify in the spaces between genes the remains of many "jumping genes." These are transposable genes that can insert themselves at random in the genome. By DNA sequence analysis, some of these genes have acquired many mutations compared with the original jumping gene, and are seen to be very old. Interestingly, these transposable genes are often found in similar locations in the mouse and human genomes. Some of these are truncated at a particular base pair, producing an error, which acts like a fingerprint for the chance of the same error occurring again is very low when you consider the billions of base pairs that make up the human and mouse genome.
So here's the question. Why do we find exactly the same error (the transposable gene truncated) in the same place on the chromosome on genes in mice and humans?
Only 2 possibilities exist -first either every human and mice existing at a certain period of time underwent the same exact truncation of a gene (think about how difficult it would be to get just 2 transposable truncations to match, imagine entire populations. The other possibility is that some common ancestor of mice and humans underwent the truncation and passed it of to it's offsprings. If you can come up with a 3rd possibility, I'm all ears.
By the way, I do believe evolution occurs, micro and macro (macro-evolution is nothing more than many micro-evolution events happening over a period of millions or billions of years).
I also believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like the Bible says. If you want to know how I reconcile this with evolution, I have my opinions, but they are just that. Ask and I will share.

 

[Sparkey]

If you can come up with a 3rd possibility, I'm all ears.

Something best understood as (hmmmm... can we find the right adjective?) 'mysterious' happened. Essentially my premise, "I don't know what happened," is proven yet again. I also don't know how God did what He did. There are many conundrums that spring from the assumption that men must be able to propose a theory, let's call it Theory A, and in the absence of another theory more highly valued, Theory A must be right. I'm not sure that this line of reasoning holds up against the rigors of unbiased scrutiny as a proof.

 

[Vaccine]

The order of genes along a chromosome is often the same in humans and mice, though the spacing between genes varies. Also, since complete genomes of mice and humans are available, it is possible to identify in the spaces between genes the remains of many "jumping genes." These are transposable genes that can insert themselves at random in the genome.

The idea it was random was based on the junk DNA theory. They recently discovered (2012) they don't insert at random. “ENCODE project has concluded 80% of the genome is reproducibly transcribed, bound to proteins, or has its chromatin specifically modified.†The C-Value paradox, junk DNA, and ENCODE by Sean R Eddy HHMI Janelia Farm Research Campus Ashburn, VA

By DNA sequence analysis, some of these genes have acquired many mutations compared with the original jumping gene, and are seen to be very old. Interestingly, these transposable genes are often found in similar locations in the mouse and human genomes. Some of these are truncated at a particular base pair, producing an error, which acts like a fingerprint for the chance of the same error occurring again is very low when you consider the billions of base pairs that make up the human and mouse genome.
So here's the question. Why do we find exactly the same error (the transposable gene truncated) in the same place on the chromosome on genes in mice and humans?

I'm no scientist but here's my explanation. The recent discovery they aren't jumping at random is a HUGE piece to this puzzle. Now we know most jumping genes are intentional, they predict that figure will approach 100% as they learn more. These mutations are not random, but rather an intentional attempt to fix a mutation. Since all life uses the same gene coding (programming language) and a checksum to maintain the integrity of the genome, any similar gene sequences in humans and mice would also have the same checksum. This checksum would control where genes could and could not be inserted. Any random placement would lead to a genetic instability, which would result in self sterilization of that cell. They also discovered a tiny string of protein is guiding these jumping genes to a specific location on the genome. Think of it this way, if we looked at two different computers running MS Office, even though they are different MS Word, MS Excel, MS Outlook share a lot of code. Since these programs all use the same scandisk, defrag, and debuggin utilities we would expect to see matching corrected lines of code even on two independent computers. Many species use insulin. The DNA sequence to make insulin is the same across species. Since DNA uses the same error protection, any fixes to this sequence would look the same in mice and humans.

By the way, I do believe evolution occurs, micro and macro (macro-evolution is nothing more than many micro-evolution events happening over a period of millions or billions of years).
I also believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like the Bible says. If you want to know how I reconcile this with evolution, I have my opinions, but they are just that. Ask and I will share.

We probably have a lot in common if you believe Adam was created as the bible says. I still wonder about death in the animal kingdom at least, before Adam. I guess my opinions are kinda out there, so I am curious how you resolve evolution and Adam made from dust.

 

[Free Christian]

I want to know where all the transitional species are in the fossil record and how we evolved our self awareness, moral's and the likes from. If mutations create something better over time then why move all the residents away from nuke reactor disaster zones? Shouldn't they in time become super human? And why do animals in those zones die or mutate in bad ways? I have no probs with just thousands of years. We are told things took millions, but some of those things we now see can happen relatively rapidly. Like stalactites, or is it the opposite ... mites, growing in disused subways and sewers, or a water wheel here in Aus that in just decades has been virtually covered in lime stone! Things we are told that take millions of years!
The Bible keeps getting proven to be 100% correct. We were told once, I know its not evolution but is an example of the Bible being 100% accurate, that the Hittites were a Bible myth and they never really existed. But time proved them wrong and there are now proofs that they 100% existed like the Bible said they did! I trust what God says, he's proven 100% right every time. Will I listen to a man made theory that keeps moving the goal posts every time they are proven wrong or what they say turns out to be a mistake, like knee caps and animal teeth? Or the ever reliable God of creation who is never proven wrong? Hmm... God every time! I with you Vaccine as to being in wonderment, this isn't exactly what you said but, as to how a Christian can read what the Bible says about creation of man and the creatures and then believe a theory that in reality disputes it or makes it look like a mythical story! Not having a personal go at you all who believe evo but I seriously am in wonderment about that.

 

[Barbarian]

I want to know where all the transitional species are in the fossil record

University collections, private fossil hunter's collections, etc. Let's try something to see how numerous they are. You name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you. If you like, do several. Should be an interesting exercise.

and how we evolved our self awareness, moral's and the likes from.

Frontal lobe development. The Fall, remember was in becoming aware of good and evil.

If mutations create something better over time then why move all the residents away from nuke reactor disaster zones?

It's like oil in your car. You can't operate your car without oil, but putting in more oil than necessary, won't make the car run better. The mutation rate for most organisms is about optimal for the balance between stability and adaptation.

Shouldn't they in time become super human?

No. It's not like X-men.

And why do animals in those zones die or mutate in bad ways?

Massive radiation tends to kill, rather than just mutate eggs and sperm.

I have no probs with just thousands of years. We are told things took millions, but some of those things we now see can happen relatively rapidly. Like stalactites, or is it the opposite ... mites, growing in disused subways and sewers, or a water wheel here in Aus that in just decades has been virtually covered in lime stone!

Rates vary for a lot of things. But you won't find the fine-crystalline stalactites in a rapid formation. Nor will you ever see granite form in less than millions of years. The large crystals don't separate out unless it takes an extremely long period of time.

The Bible keeps getting proven to be 100% correct. We were told once, I know its not evolution but is an example of the Bible being 100% accurate, that the Hittites were a Bible myth and they never really existed.

Show us that. Far as I know, scholars never thought the Hittites didn't exist. Eventually, investigation found their homeland and their language became known.

I trust what God says, he's proven 100% right every time.

Notice, that He never says anything that refutes evolution, but He does deny the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with His creation.

 

[Free Christian]

Ok I might have got this wrong here, but are you saying you believe it was sort of a cave men Neanderthal type that fell at the fall and not a man, Adam, like a person today physically? You believe in "good mutations" and "bad mutations"! To me and millions of others all mutations are bad and degenerative. Where are there examples of good mutations today?
Again I have no problems believing God and find no need to question my creator. Bit like a clay pot questioning the maker of it.
Granite http://creation.com/rapid-granite-formation
Im told there were many sceptics who believed the Hittites were a myth prior to 1876.
Could I ask you who you say denies the young earth creation and what you mean by that? Notice too that the Bible, God never teaches evolution. Its man made.

 

[Vaccine]

I have read the same thing about the Hittites being used as an attack on the biblical authenticity. I can dig up the information later. I don't believe "Life ex Nilo", Adam was made from dust, dust contains Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus and Hydrogen, the elements found in DNA.

You should check out the thread on Neanderthals.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52020



This question is for anyone who believes in evolution:

Why do you think a Professor of Biology would repudiate his own work?



a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.