More Holes in The Arguments Against Evolution…

I remember a conversation with a Christian friend of mine a few years ago.

It was one of the many (and lengthy) conversations we had about evolution vs. creationism.

One interesting point he raised that made me think hard about evolutionary theory was (and I’m paraphrasing here, it *was* a couple of years back and my memory aint what it used to be)…

“If you change DNA even a little bit, it dies. Therefore the random changes required by evolutionary theory cannot happen.”

Now, I’m no genetic biologist (and neither is he as it happens), but…

If that’s true, why am I not physically identical to my father or mother?

Combining DNA to make a new offspring is how reproduction works (apart from Meiosis). If you can’t alter the structure of DNA without it perishing, how can you combine two to make an offspring?

-=<>=-

I’ve started examining the science and concepts behind the theory of evolution and natural selection in a lot more detail recently. How come, so far, everything I’ve read and watched supports this theory? Even the so called ‘Evolution Busters’ are easily and rationally explainable using without breaking Darwin’s evolutionary model.

Most of the Evolution Buster argument seem to stem from a deep misunderstanding (either deliberately to obfusticate the truth for some personal agenda, or through a blindness to investigate properly) about how evolution and natural selection work. For example: “How can such ordered complexity (such as an eye or an ear) come from random changes?”. Answer: the changes may be random but the selection process for success is not.

Also, why haven’t I found a single (and believe me I’ve looked), piece of evidence or experiment to support the hypothisis (it certainly isn’t a theory) of Intelligent Design that can’t be explained evolutionary theory?

What we do find, are arguments made by the ID crowd as to why evolution is wrong. So far, no one seems to have found evidence as to why ID is right or, more worryingly why it should be tought as a science in our schools.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts, one way or the other. I’m more interested in somone showing me any evidence that refutes evolutionary theory and promotes ID.

Advertisements

Software developer by day, scale model builder and wargamer by night.

Posted in Creation vs. Evolution, Evolution
11 comments on “More Holes in The Arguments Against Evolution…
  1. When a scientist unearths a dwelling from centuries ago, how do they determine which objects were created by the dweller, which may have possibly been parts of the dweller themselves, and which are neither? Deductive reasoning is what we use to allow us to accept conclusively what we cannot see first hand as fact.

    Just as there aren’t any real experiments that could be done on a rock to conclusively say that human hands fashioned it into a spearhead or a corn grinder, deductive reasoning proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on known values.

    We know there’s no scientific evidence to support the theory that animate life can be created from inanimate objects.

    We know there’s no scientific evidence to support the theory that DNA/RNA can be created unassisted, without an actual living host and vice-versa.

    Based on just those 2 known values alone, which would make more logical sense, that life was generated spontaneously on it’s own even though it’s scientifically impossible? Or that life was created by a means far more advanced than we can understand, by an external source?

    Now regarding evolution itself, this is actually scientifically proven to a point. Animals do evolve, but they do not change into completely different species. There isn’t any evidence to support this theory? We have hundreds of thousands of bones from different species from several different time periods, yet none show stages between species? Example: Where are all the bone evidences of an elephant up to it’s current form? From its earlier fossil records as mastodons, it has always been a large mammal with a small tail and a long nose. Where is the evidence of the hundreds of fossil records showing successive smaller variations with shorter noses? There aren’t any, the closest you get is a palaeomastodon, and an almost hippo looking animal before that. Just about every animal today can be traced back to different variations of the same basic animal in the past, but no fossil records have been found that conclusively tie one species to another. They are all simply educated guesses.

    Last, we have to look at our Ecosystem. It’s a scientific fact that life on our planet would not survive without it’s balanced ecosystem. There has to be a perfect balance between carbon dioxide producing life-forms with the oxygen producing ones. A planet wide amount of one without the other would mean one would die out, thus killing the other. And let’s not even get into the fact that we have an abundance of water on our planet. If our planet started off as a spinning condensed molten mass before our crust started to cool, where did all the water eventually come from? Scientists have proven that we are moving away from the sun. Since this is true, shouldn’t the water have evaporated long before we got to this position in our current planetary system? If our water came from large deposits of meteors after moving away from the sun, how (large/many) would it take to produce the amount of water we have today? How did this meteor shower of water miss all the other planets in our solar system. Like Haley’s comet, remnants of these meteors should still be passing through today, yet they don’t?

    What should be taught in schools is the truth, which is clearly defining what is scientifically provable, as well as clearly defining what is not proven. The areas that are not scientifically proven should be open for equal amounts of teaching, to discuss varying theories and/or hypothesis, explaining both the pros and cons for each. I honestly don’t understand why that is such a difficult pill for the scientific community to accept.

    Here is an interesting read I came across: http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html

  2. Michael says:

    I don’t know if the following will help or not.

    I think that evolutionists have checked their math and have realized for some time that the impersonal plus time plus chance simply can’t produce or improve living things.

    So they’ve gently corrected sceptics like me by asserting that Natural Selection is anything but chance.

    I doubt that the intention is to deliberately mislead, but if Natural Selection is anything but chance, then it must be posessed of some intelligence or drive or will or something like these characteristics.

    Terminolgy has been used (once again, I believe unwittingly) to obfucate this, but it’s inescapable. Natural Selection is often spoken of as “testing” and “working on a problem”. Both of these activities require intelligence – and well beyond rudimentary intelligence.

    So the evolutionists have resorted to their own version of Intelligent Design. The intelligence in this case is somewhat akin to the Life Force proposed by the Christian Socialists around the turn of the 20th century. Or more recently “the force” a la Star Wars.

    The Force makes for good entertainment because you suspend your disbelief and simply enjoy the story. But it makes for insipid and impoverished religion.

    “Modern” science was founded on a belief in a creator and thus a logical (however complex) universe that could be apprehended by reason.

    “Modern modern” science (read Francis A. Schaeffer for more on this) has abandoned its roots in a persistent belief in naturalism.

    That is, nothing beyond the natural universe – that which can be sensed or experienced through human senses however augmented by instrumentation – exists. So the whole universe consists of nothing but the impersonal plus time plus chance.

    We are all confronted on a daily basis by the form of the universe and by the personal. So this sets up a whole set of contradictions and paradoxes for the “modern modern” scientist who needs to find a way out of his predicament and therefore invents a god (Natural Selection).

    Does this help?

  3. ibbo says:

    Ok.. I’m really on a displacement activity now. Rich: “I’m interested to hear your thoughts, one way or the other. I’m more interested in somone showing me any evidence that refutes evolutionary theory and promotes ID.”

    help me out.. whats the question you’re looking to answer with these two alternate (I won’t go so far as to say irreconcilable) theories?

  4. Warren says:

    These responses are filled with ignorance. None of the refutations presented by these voluntary idiots reveal faults in evolution, rather they reveal faults in the speakers research methods (reading only anti-evolutionary materials?).

  5. sam says:

    “Also, why haven’t I found a single (and believe me I’ve looked), piece of evidence or experiment to support the hypothisis (it certainly isn’t a theory) of Intelligent Design that can’t be explained evolutionary theory?”

    Disqualification of one theory is no basis for an inference to another. That is called a non-sequitur and it’s a well known logical fallacy.

    Evolutionary theory is based on circumstantial evidence and infers its conclusion. It can only be observed and tested on a very small scale. To be a valid scientific theory, macro evolution should be able to be tested and observed. This is the definition of science.

    Yet the very theory of macro evolution is something that, by definition, cannot be directly observed. This leads to big problems in that it can no more be proven by scientific experimentation then “creation science” or whatever they call it these days.

    All they can do is find fossil records and infer a conclusion. This is not direct observation, but it is the best we have. However, again, just because it’s the best evidence we have doesn’t mean it’s as good as direct observation.

    One could just as easily say “living organisms are similar because they came from eachother” as “living organisms are similar because they were created by god/alien race/intelligent agent using a common code base.” Two models of legos can be wildly different yet they all use the same building blocks.

    I’m not proposing either theory as true, I’m just saying neither one has been or indeed can be fully tested by science.

    If we didn’t know where Unix distributions came from, we might infer the same conclusion on them. That through random mutations during installing them (ever had a bum operating system install?) they eventually became better and better through the process of natural selection. You could “prove” this by showing that they share common code – or by finding “missing links” between distributions (Unix -> Minix -> Linux).

    Yet we know that Linux distributions were “intelligently designed.” In our hypothetical situation of not knowing where they came from, this wouldn’t be a testable theory just as creationism isn’t a testable theory.

    I am a big advocate of continued testing, continued scientific exploration, and increasing our understanding of the world around us and where we came from. However, I’m not a big fan of simply accepting one theory because it appears to be the best one using only circumstantial evidence and testing on an infinitesimal scale.

    For me, science is is just a big part of the more important search for truth.

    p.s. I’ll poke holes in whatever theory someone throws at me whether it be intelligent design, evolution, or whatever. So the fact that I try to see the holes in evolution doesn’t mean that I don’t also see the holes in creationism or that I subscribe to one or the other.

  6. suzi says:

    @sam – I think you’re right about keeping an open mind, I think intelligent design might just require a mind that’s a bit too open.

    > If we didn’t know where Unix distributions came from, we might infer [that they’d evolved]

    Thing is, that’s a really big *if*. It’s really easy to find evidence that Unix was designed, more-or-less intelligently 😉 If there was no evidence that Bell Labs ever existed, just a series of badly-translated books that gave often contradictory descriptions of something like it… if the whole myth was perpetuated for thousands of years by a bunch of bearded men who had forsworn relationships with women (wich is closer to the truth, I’ll grant you)… then you might have something.

    > For me, science is is just a big part of the more important search for truth.

    For me, science provides a set of tools that help us get a bit closer to the truth. If there are better tools out there then that would be great.

    (With apologies to Unix users … you’re better people than me – I’m ashamed to say I run Windows, despite the fact that even my mum uses Ubuntu)

  7. Jonny says:

    “Combining DNA to make a new offspring is how reproduction works (apart from Meiosis). If you can’t alter the structure of DNA without it perishing, how can you combine two to make an offspring?”

    You can mix and match chromosomes because they’re a discrete unit of information. Only working copies get passed down because if there was a defect it would (hopefully!) be eliminated from circulation through the death of the zygote.

    -J. Tweed

  8. N Hughes says:

    “You can mix and match chromosomes because they’re a discrete unit of information. Only working copies get passed down because if there was a defect it would (hopefully!) be eliminated from circulation through the death of the zygote” That comment seems to me to be representative of the over simplification that evolutionists employ in their assumptions re genetic divergence. So far as I can tell DNA is less like lego blocks which are uniform and discrete units servicable for any number of random combinations and more like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which fit together in a predetermined way affecting the resulting body. Sexual reproduction is not simply some kind of randomized swap of just any DNA but of specified sequences of genes between the gametes to produce another morphologically identical member of their species. This is not evolution. As an openminded searcher I would like to be presented with examples of beneficial and NEW mutations that produce new genetic information and that alter members of macroscopic species to be an identifiably advantaged subset. ie actual Evolution which has supposed to have continuously taken place for billions of years and author bio diversity. As we are undergoing mass extinction events right now we should be observing the opening up of niches and new specie divergence with it.

  9. anonymous says:

    It would most certainly become a difficult task proving evolution to be a misleading scientific theory. It is founded in the best science that has ever existed
    Certainly the biblical assertions for a creator derive from a heart felt desire but none of the apostles of Jesus Christ were required to attain to faith without the observation of miracle’s or some other form of evidence, and most were recorded to being faithless until this time of some one thing sharing proof to themselves.
    Psalms 139:13-19 Seems to assert according to some biblical researcher’s the place of DNA in creation, recorded in verse 15.”My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
    16.Thine eyes did see my substance, and yet being unperfect; and in thine book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when yet there were none of them.”
    The Universe in its mass and the universal function for why it exist is extraordinarily large for a person to overlook the possibilities and ignoring a scientific explanation would seem limited ,but there is a small chance for a spiritual separation from basic science’s into the more bizarre areas of quantum physics, and quantum physics branches way far out to be able to come into touch with our more spiritual feelings.
    Leading geneticist Steve Jones has asserted that evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the west. Fathers he said over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations according to Professor Steve Jones, of university College London. Human social change often changes our genetic future, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced aged in men. This is because cell division in males increase with age. Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error.” He said.
    Unbeknown to many. Does this sound like Abraham having a baby at 80-90 or what?

  10. Dr.Q says:

    dont worry to read the Spanish. go to the videos which are in English

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: