Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?

Ok, first off I'd like to say this is my first post on this wonderful forum. So, since I've read only a few of the most recent posts, I am going to contribute all of my points into one big one, to try and see if evolutionists can successfully refute them. I know that these are some of the main points brought up by creationists, I just want to hear a face-to-face reply from in defence from them.A.) Mutations-Mutations are what evolutionists rely on for their theory to hold together. It basically works like this (in a nut shell) Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution What amazes me the most, is how mutations hardly benefit the theory of evolution, yet everyone assumes they do. First of all, 99.9% of mutations are NOT advantegeous at all. Good & benefitial mutations are what hold the beaten down theory of evolution together, if the animal/mutant is not given a benifit from his mutation, it will either be nuetral, harmful, or even fatal. So this alone should put the theory to at least some question. But (you are probably wondering) what about the .1% that ARE benefitial? Well, basically I've yet to see a mutation that is TRULY benefitial, and not just a "lucky defect" like having 5 instead of 4 arms. When debating molecules to man evolution, it is the advantegous new complexity mutations we should see happening millions of times in nature to make evolution even a little credible. An example of a lucky defect mutation would be when a beetle looses its wings through a mutation, and somehow happens to be benefitial. That is NOT something that should be used in defense in the theory of evolution, because it is a total dump off of DNA information, and can't explain how one species could possible evolve into another. Evolutionists will often use bacteria as an example also..and they couldn't be anymore wrong. Bacteria often already posess the trait that makes them resist certain things (in a group), and when they DO inherit their resistance through mutation..we have never witnessed evidence that there is information added in the big D.N.A bin. For example, resistance against pennecilin is a result of loosing a control gene..but no new complexities were recieved (not to mention it is just micro-evolution). It is simply silly to suggest that an animal could recieve a new complexity in which it did not previously have by a mutation. If someone has information that suggests otherwise (I.E, something we have actually OBSERVED) then post a reply with a link so I can stop wasting my time.B.)Natural Selection & Adaptation-Natural Selection is NOT proof of evolution. In fact, natural selection in itself is LIMITED too micro-evolution, people often get confused . If you have a group of horses, and speed is essential to their survival, then you will find that the fastest horses will survive, and spread their genes around faster. BUT, if you were to sit down and observe these horses for even a million years, you would STILL see horses (probably very screwed up or extinct horses since we are degenerating). The same goes with Adaptation, you cannot, and will not, get new species with micro-evolution going against you (so to speak). I really can't stand it when evolutionists will try to use this as proof to those who don't understand or don't know any better (like jr. high students *cough*). Natural Selection is limited to the boundaries of micro-evolution. This is, ofcourse, what we have observed today. Don't believe me? Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?C.) Old Earth - I can't help but chuckle when my science teacher screams accross the classroom that the earth is billions (4.5) of years old. What proof has he? Carbon-14 dating you say? Read and refute this lovely link before talking about old earth dating methods.Another thing the evolutionists try to convince the weak minded with is the "layer age" theory. Supposedly each layer of the earth represents a different age. This is simply nonsense, and it doesn't take much but a global flood to explain this. Any thing else I'm forgetting? What about more circular reasoning with the geologic column. How do you know how old the fossils are?Response: The layer they are in.How do you know how old layer is?Response: The fossils we find in them.(circular reasoning)To quickly establish a fact: the geoligic column is nothing but nonsense, and DOES not scientifically exist.D.) Transitional fossils - IF the thoery of evolution were in fact..a fact..we would expect to see millions (not hundreds, millions) of transitional fossils scattered around the earth. Yet..all the evolutionists have are a handful of questionable fossils that could be easily intrepeted as a different species. What amazes me, is the fascinating hominiod fossils used as "proof" of the evo's monkeys-to-man evolution scenario.Neanderthal - These were humans that lived in Europe thousands of years ago. They had much larger cranial capacaties (which probably means that they were smarter than us today). They also suffered rickets and arthritis from poor diets and the damp, cold climate they lived in(effect of the world wide flood). We've even see people today that shockingly resemble the supposed neanderthal hominoid.Lucy - Tree climbing chimpanzee that had slightly bigger bones, and a crushed skull.Cro-Magnom man - Clearly it was a man/human. Some were very tall (6 feet) and there is NO evidence that supports a human transition.Piltdown Man - a hoax! Skull treated with chemicals and put inside a half-monkey, half-human skeletonJava Man - founder of this so called hominiod denounced its credibility before he died.Nebraska Man - Pigs tooth.I could go on FOREVER. My point is that we have no clear cut evidence of transitional humans/hominiods .E.) Abiogenesis - Which I know has nothing to do with the evolution theory specifically, it definatly is closely related. I just want to point out that the odds of a cell assemblying itself by chance from a jumble of amino acids in an ocean from a lightning spark are so low, mathmaticians would consider the proability '0'. Enough said.Thats about all I can think of to say that has any value at this point, thnx to those who kindly reply .------------------
Mr BLonDe"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

/me waits patiently for reply with slight distress ------------------
Mr BLonDe"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

Got to make this quick, sorry if personal affairs effect the quality of this post .

quote:

---

but I am willing if Mr. DeBlonde can explain lucidly as to why he thinks C-14 dating is relevant to the age of the earth.

---

Well, if an animal is proven to be x million years old, thenage of the earth > x million years oldsince the animal must of lived on the earth.On the subject of Mutations:

quote:

---

If you ever have to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted you will wish you had that beneficial mutation that saves some humans from the pain.

---

I didn't deny the existance of benefitial mutations, only the ones in which new complexities arise. (BTW, not having teeth is a bad example, your loosing a complexity - a tooth) We'll get into this later..

quote:

---

I'm no scientist, (but then neither are you) but I did find this link jolly interesting ... http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

---

No, I'm not a scientist, but this isn't the first time the subject of nylon getting its digesting ability from a frameshift has been asked. I guess I'll answer a link from information from another link: [i]"New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmidsSOURCE: Aig

quote:

---

However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not merely a question of new information not being observed, but that it is impossible in principle: I would be interested to know why you think this. What principle prevents new information being added?

---

I'm confused, what made you come to this conclusion? I know it is possible, heck theoretically a human could be born with wings, but the real question is if rather or rather not it happens in nature. I didn't think I would have to tell everyone this.

quote:

---

Indeed they get very confused, as your post demonstrates - natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, not a proof or demonstration. You had better clear up your confusions first.

---

Actually, I was refering to the confusions of those who don't know any better. Someone has confronted me before and asked why it was I deny evolution...because natural selection makes it inevetable. See what I mean? A mere mechanism does not prove the entire theory..and it was only meant to clarify things. Again, I didn't think it would be necessary to mention these details.

quote:

---

WHat do you mean by "degenerating"? What is it and why is it happening?

---

By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.

quote:

---

The argument is then over the age of these periods and the mechanism by which they were created. But they still represent strata organised by time.

---

Again, obviously so, but I was refering specifacally to the evolutionists side...hence the title .

quote:

---

What does it mean for something to "scientifically exist"? Can you define the term?

---

What evidence do you have to show that those layers in fact do represent millions of years?

quote:

---

WHy?

---

Well...why not? Don't you find it even a little unbelievable that we find numerous fossils of one species...but nothing but handfuls of the most questionable 'transition fossils'? I do.

quote:

---

Not held to be a transitional, but an extinct branch.

---

Yet..thought of as a credible hominoid in the evolutionary timeline.

quote:

---

A hoax exposed by evolutionists using the sound principles of taxonomy.

---

Yet..still a hoax...and still thought to be a credible hominoid for a certain timespan.

quote:

---

Well it was a fun post - I've rarely seen quite so much junk pulled together. Thanks for the entertainment. Now could someone with half a clue post something?

---

Lol...take it easy.

quote:

---

What would you classify and/or what is your definition of a 'dramatic macro change’? Why would bacterial evolution have to benefit mankind?

---

Sorry, I kind of left a very important peice of information out from that statement.Edit: Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) of human years over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?

quote:

---

You have it backwards, NS is the proposed mechanism of evolution, not the proof of it.

---

Again, I was just uncofusing the confused...and..isn't that exactly what I said? NS does not proove evolution?

quote:

---

Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates. And please explain why, if against all measurement, the transfer rates are a problem that methods that deal with other radioisotopes give similar ages.

---

On the subject of Argon dating:

quote:

---

Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates.

---

May I see these transfer rates? And, even so, it still ruins the credibility of the method.

quote:

---

Care to share the stats with me. I just got off of another board last night and trashed them and I have done so here earlier

---

http://evolution-facts.org/c07.htmI'd say that link does a nice job explaining why the possiblilities are pretty slim.

quote:

---

C-14 dating only works for organic remains no more than about 50,000 years old. It is useless for dating anything millions or billions of years old.

---

Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist, so 50,000 years is way beyond 6 - 10 thousand years .

quote:

---

Now that you've clarified I'd say that your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?

---

My argument is that it is implausible in nature. What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.

quote:

---

The AIG quote doesn't appear to support your position. It proposes two methods by which bacteria may have gained the ability to digest nylon. One of these methods is gene transfer, a form of mutation. The bacterial recipient of the transfer has gained information, ie, complexity.

---

But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.

quote:

---

And of what possible relevance here is the fact that some people you once debated with were confused about natural selection?

---

Forgive me for the confusion I put upon everyone, but it seemed relevant at the time...I get very angry when people use the non-existant natural selection argument at other places. Obviously..this is no other place. People are much...much more educated than me, or anyone I have ever debated with when it comes to evolutoin versus creationism. This forum is designed for the one argument that puzzles us all...and for that I am thankful.

quote:

---

Is this a scientific or a religious position? If scientific, why do you cite the holy book of a particular religious sect, and what is your evidence that only degeneration is possible?

---

A scientific or religious response was not specified at the time of my reply. However, it is a common argument among creationists (including myself), that we have no clear-cut evidence of uphill evolution among life on earth. In fact, we argue, things are quite opposite.Fact - things are changing through mutationQuestion - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.As for a christian argument, this would explain the fall of man as previously mentioned.

quote:

---

Even before the advent of radiometric dating, geologists were already convinced that the layers represented millions and hundreds of millions of accumulated years.

---

But, this is irrelevant. Today, it is obvious, that a majority of scientists believe in darwinian evolution (at least to my knowledge), but, that does not confirm the question of rather it is true or not. Again, can you please give me some information as to why you think it is, without doubt, true that those layers represent millions of accumulated years?Argon dating link: http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm

quote:

---

Finally, in real abiogenesis no one talks about pure chance, which is what he is using in his calculations here. Abiogenesis (which is separate from evolution) is based on the laws and probabilities of chemcistry and physics. This substantially changes the real probabilities and is another reason why pretty much all of these calculations are bogus.

---

Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance? It doesn't seem it's a natural resting state (as you were indirectly suggesting)..because we would have produced a cell in a lab already. Explain a bit more of why you think the formation of a cell happened in nature.

quote:

---

We certainly have become smarter, would you not agree?

---

No, I actually would not agree. I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent)

quote:

---

Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?

---

First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.
------------------
Mr BLonDe"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

​

[This message has been edited by Mr BLonDe, 04-09-2002]

quote:

---

If Adam and Eve were so intelligent why did they eat from the tree of knowledge?
If we were degenerating, how come populations continue to rise?
If people were more intelligent then, why did Noah have to create an Ark with gopher wood? Shouldn't he have been intelligent enough to make it more like an aircraft carrier? Why is there so much suffering in the bible if we were more intelligent then? Slavery? Killing Kids?
What about modern medicine?
How come they didn't have the technology to travel to the moon?
Why did they travel by camels and not cars?
Did they have telephones?
So show me how they were more intelligent again

---

I don't think you understand what I mean. We are indeed intellegent today, but it is through standing on the shoulders of those before us. For instance, Adam was smart enough to name every animal present in one single day, noah built an ark nearly the size of the titanic (big deal at that age in time) etc.. They didn't have the kind of technology we have today, but that doesn't mean they weren't smarter.------------------
Mr BLonDe"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

​

[This message has been edited by Mr BLonDe, 04-09-2002]

quote:

---

They then go on to discuss 'problems' with the method.

---

Speaking of problems, consider the following (directly from the link I gave in my first post):I don’t see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny. It seems to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.

​

Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth’s crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth’s crust is believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth’s crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products.

​

All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.

​

It is in response to what we were talking about earlier.

quote:

---

Why are you? Is there any evidence that particularly convinced that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? Why those particular upper and lower boundaries?

---

Evidence? I see much evidence for a global flood, for one. However, much of it is totally flipped around and intrepeted in a different manner by the Old Earth Evolutionists. The bounderies are obtained from nonother than my bible. Why trust that, assuming it is the absolute truth, you say? Well, if I can see such evidence that revolves around a global catastraphe, and am convinced it was nonother than the great flood of Noah, why not rely on the bible's other lectures about events in the past...particularly the age of the earth? The high years presented by the evolutionary geoligic column could be easily solved when taking account for the flood of Noah. And from that, the only other problem is the bogus dating methods we are currently discussing - which too rely on assumptions that are nonother than blind faith.

quote:

---

Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?

---

Give me an example where information is added by mutation. Then we'll talk.

quote:

---

The information was not present in the recipient - it gained in both information and complexity.

---

Yet...as I said...the information was already present to hand down. And, if you're asking where this came from, it is explained in the next point/statement.

quote:

---

Evidence? What kind of changes do you see or believe in?

---

By this, what do you mean? I see evidence for change, a general trend towards bad change, but change nevertheless. And, I believe the mechanisms presented by the theory of evolution are responsible. Ironically, it is this tendacy for change that puts evolution to the test. Have we really witnessed any change at all that suggests new species could come out of other ones?

quote:

---

I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong

---

Thats because I didn't think it was of any importance. Plus, I couldn't tell you if we were in 'great danger' because I wouldn't know. I'm simply suggestioning that there are problems present.

quote:

---

The emergence of life from cell-replicating molecules could itself have been a lengthy complex process.

---

"Could of"? What evidence do we have today that suggests anything to this extreme. Again, how is a life assembled from non-life...by anything other than extreme chance? Show me the evidence..because this is a stunning claim without it.

quote:

---

But you mean "shoulders" perhaps?

---

Yes..the slightest typo can cause the greatest amount of confusion .

quote:

---

Can you show that we are growing less intelligent? Fascinating stuff, if you can.

---

Off of my memory at this point, one instance would be the cranial capacity of older humans. If you would look at the neanderthal, for example, you would notice that they actually have a larger skull, rather than a smaller one as you would expect. Same with others..larger cranial capacities.

quote:

---

In that case doesn't radiometric dating falsify your belief? If there are multiple methods based on radioactive decay ratios that give dates older than 10,000 years, I would say you have a problem.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Even C-14 dating, corroborated by other methods, can be used to date materials much older than 10,000 years.

---

Which was what my original point was.

quote:

---

If you would care to provide some evidence that decay rates are constantly changing, then perhaps your argument could have some merit.

---

I could easily flip this around, what evidence do you have to assume that the decay rates must have always been the same? Secondly, don't you find it odd that the rock is assumed to have no gains or losses of isotopes since its formation, yet, when dates are given that fit awkwardly in the old earth timeline, the rock is then concluded to be corrupted, or in other words, invalid! It seems that this dating method is on both sides, which ever one is conveniant.

quote:

---

. Please define "information" in a biological context. Be as specific as possible, and provide examples (if practicable) of you believe constitutes an "increase" or "decrease".

---

Example of decrease: a control gene being thrown out. Although in some cases this could benefit the mutant, it is still a loss of information.Example of increase: still waiting to this day for an example. I suppose I could make one up though...

quote:

---

. Please define "complexity" in terms of a biological system.

---

I'll just give an example I suppose:Lose of complexity - animal loosing its legs, mutant loosing dna information, (as stated eariler) loosing a control gene, etc... We observe this a lot in nature...a lot.Gain of complexity - Still waiting for an example in nature.NOTE: I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

quote:

---

However, what puzzles me is your assertion that natural selection is non-existent.

---

Ok, now you're puzzling me. What made you think I denied the existance of natural selection?

quote:

---

I think it has been pointed out that evolution is not linear, nor is it necessarily "progress". Here's a graphic representation of the three recognized "outcomes" of the selection process:

---

Basically what I meant by "evidence of uphill evolution", is any "uphill information". Specifically, change that suggests new species could evolve over time.

quote:

---

Since you have made this assertion, it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for making it. How was it determined that Adam (assuming he existed) was "more intelligent" than, say, Einstein, Schrodinger, Darwin, or Pope John Paul?

---

Again, the only thing I can give you is evidence for downhill evolution (which basically all we observe today), and my bible. It would be pointless to even bother with the latter because it has been stated that faith is not excepted. (although, evolutionists have much of it to present to the rest of us)

quote:

---

We do. Bacteria are capable of adapting to antibiotics in incredibly short periods of time.

---

That isn't positive evidence for molecules to man evolution. This resistance is aquired through nonother than loss, copying, and transfered information. That is--unless you can give a specific example otherwise.

quote:

---

And BlonDe- do you believe that evolution created ecological diversity after the flood, like many creationists believe on this board?

---

You betcha. Micro-evolution, speciation, Natural Selection, (all of the componets of your theory) are responsible for the diversity you see today.

quote:

---

Wouldn't this be considered a VERY beneficial mutation?? I sure think so.

---

Again, I don't deny the existance of the rare benefitial mutations, I deny those that suggest a new species can be the outcome after an accumulation of these types of mutations over time. My motto being: once a dog, always a dog. I'll state this a thousand times, it seems like, but would someone PLEASE give me an example since it is assumed by millions it happens.

quote:

---

Out of all the mutations occuring, and considering that natural selection will proliferate a useful mutation, how can you sustain that argument?

---

Why...the evidence ofcourse. The evidence you need to spin things around has never been confirmed after years of observing. What you are suggesting is so completely implausible, that I, and many others, would consider it IMPOSSIBLE. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of random mistakes responsible for the creatures we see around us? It simply is nonsense at its zenith. It requires large amounts of blind faith, which, is why you will hear many people, including myself refer to evolution as just another religion.

quote:

---

You don't think increasing information and increasing complexity go hand-in-hand? How do you add a book to a library without making it more complex? It requires more shelf space, more room in the card catalog, it's one more book to be checked out and checked in, it contains, possibly, information not previously present in the library.

---

*EXCELLENT POINT* Except...we havn't seen anything like this. We should be observing new complexity/information mutations millions of times for evolution to be any credible at all, yet, we havn't even seen one example.

quote:

---

I think you're confusing the creation of new information with the transfer of information.

---

Nope. And I can't believe we're still arguing about this:

quote:

---

AIG was citing an example of the transfer of information by moving a gene from one cell to another. The cell receiving the gene has gained information and complexity.

---

Which, I do NOT deny. When have you ever heard a creationist deny this in all of your days of debating (I noticed you were a moderator, by the way )?Point being: the information was already there to give. Where did this information come from? Read the second part of the original quote.Have we cleared this up? AiG has said nothing contradicting to what I have said or believe.

quote:

---

As already explained, there is no such thing as "uphill evolution". The question remains, what leads you to believe only in evolution through genetic degeneration?

---

The evidence suggests so.

quote:

---

I also recommend going to the "Geologic Column" topic string, and looking at what is there:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=13&p=3

​

Moose

---

Will do, the topic looks interesting already =)