The Argument Against Evolution
This is an argument of a set of arguments pointing out the flaws in Evolution. I wanted to share with you all and see what you think. (: PLEASE Comment!
"Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there -- therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth."
I find that I agree with what they have presented here, in a rather well-written article on the flaws of Evolutionary theory. What do you think? Can evolution actually be debunked with what information we already have, and we're just not looking for it? Have people leapt too quickly onto a new theory that isn't the Bible or other tales of Creation to see what's wrong with it?
Or are the people who wrote this article dead wrong? Are they making connections that cannot be made logically?
Please write a comment and let me know if you agree or disagree!
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there -- therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth."
I find that I agree with what they have presented here, in a rather well-written article on the flaws of Evolutionary theory. What do you think? Can evolution actually be debunked with what information we already have, and we're just not looking for it? Have people leapt too quickly onto a new theory that isn't the Bible or other tales of Creation to see what's wrong with it?
Or are the people who wrote this article dead wrong? Are they making connections that cannot be made logically?
Please write a comment and let me know if you agree or disagree!
41 Comments
For a moment forget about single cell + evolution = complex human. This is not evolution. Now think about how old the human species is. It's in the thousands. How long has the earth been around (with life). In the billions. This needs some thought to really grasp. Now let's go back to our genetical different most recent "links." We have evidence of these genetically different pre-humans. We have a common ancestor with monkeys. There is a study that we share 70% DNA with sea sponges. Always quest
Where did the genetic information come from to make those pre-humans into modern humans?
Glitches, basically.
When DNA is copied (and this has been recorded) it isn't copied perfectly. The distorted copy contains new information.
I don't think evolution is totally incorrect. To me, most of it makes sense. Also, mutations aren't always bad. Lactose tolerance in adults is a mutation, as are any eye color other than brown. Not sure why eye colors would be important, but lactose tolerance is supposed to be switched off in adults. In places where there's a better chance of survival if one can drink milk, then lactose tolerance in adulthood is a useful mutation. Also, evolution didn't happen suddenly.
I'm not, nor is the article saying, that mutations (or variation in a species) is bad/wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that a cat with six toes instead of five is still a cat. It doesn't change that a blue-eyed human instead of a brown-eyed human is still a.....human. So I'm not against species variation, and there are of course variations and mutations in all species. But I don't think that there is enough information in a being that can be turned on/off to make it a separate species over
time.
1. Maybe in the case of one being, that might be. But evolution isn't "thing" to "totally different thing". It's "thing" to "slightly different thing" to "slightly different thing with additional slight difference" to "formerly slightly different thing with now enhanced slight difference, and maybe a few others"...etc.
Those examples you provided of a cat and human...are only still a cat and a human because they're close enough to "cat" and "human" to fit pretty closely with the arbitrary...
...wording.
There are flaws in it, definitely, but it's not all wrong. And a lot of evolution has to do with epigenetics. So it's a lot about switches and changes. Not gaining information, but a change in it. It's not that we have more genes than other organisms; in fact, we have less than many. It's that different instructions are turned on and off. But at the same time, I still have yet to understand why evolution happened. They could all just die instead of changing, right?
And we don't know how to make life. I don't believe we're supposed to know. I also don't believe that humans came from that single cell. I have my religion, which makes perfect sense to me, and I don't believe the theory of evolution explains everything. However, it's not totally ridiculous and it does make sense in certain contexts, like how a certain species can vary. So yeah. I'mma shut up now.
Yeah, I get that. But I still wouldn't say the whole theory of evolution is totally wrong. It can make some sense, but I see your point at the same time. And it's hard to argue with the fact that people can make connections based on the time period different kinds of organisms were found in. But you can never say anything absolute in science. There is no proving, only disproving, so anything and everything we know could be wrong. (Speaking of which, they better find the Higgs boson or I'll die.)
Also, there IS in fact a scientific law that allows one KIND (note "kind") of creature to turn into another: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy (chaos) increases over time.
Or, to put it another way, if a given thing (in this case, a genome) has the capability to form a certain line of code, it may not initially, because of low probability, but, eventually, even a 1/1,000,000 probability is going to be realized the millionth time the scenario (genes being scripted) is run.
I'm not an expert in evolution, but I agree with TheGloriousLightReturned, a.k.a. Lich_Money.
Of course there is not proof for everything, but there is more than enough proof. I know that religious people prefer not to believe in it (due to the fact that it clashes with the information the church and bible offers), but even most religious groups have admitted it by now. Also, what this article does is pull conclusions and ask questions, and trying to satisfy the reader's need for information-
-by using difficult words to try and sound more professional. Also, they state:
"Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth."
Actually, as far as we know, moths could be giant creatures in a million years, with large eyes to see better in a dark enviroment, for example. Ever read Darwin's theory about the finches in the Galapagos islands?
To survive, we must adapt. If we do not adapt, our race will go extinct.
What do you think of irreducibility then?
No idea what the word means :P But if you're looking for a decent person to have an argument with, I suggest Lich_Monkey, I'm a worthless competitor.
Irreducibly complex. Something that must have every single part to it to function. If just one thing is missing, the whole does not work. Ir-reducible. Unable to be reduced. Even Darwin said that if just one thing that is irreducible could be found, his 'theories would undoubtedly have to fall apart' because something that cannot be reduced cannot evolve. Does that make any more sense?
Yes it does. But clearly, everything can be reduced. Even us humans, though most of us seem to think ourselves immortal. I have noticed that things like television and genetic make us dumber and more prone to diseases such as cancer. And Darwin wasn't such a genius as originally thought. Presumably, he heard the missing link to the theory from another person and then understood. So I say that until it has been proven completely incorrect, I trust the evolution theory more than religion, simply-
-simply because there's more proof (and that's undeniable) that it exists than any kind of religion.
No, I don't think you get it yet. Everything can be reduced yes, but there is a point to which it cannot be reduced anymore and still function, which is what irreducibility is. If you take away a part, the whole thing fails/dies/ceases to be. It doesn't become a lesser form, the organism dies. It's not like a human, where you can live without your spleen, or your appendix, or even a kidney. That's not irreducibly complex.
All right. So where is this irreducibly complex? In what organism has it been found, therefore disproving the Evolution Theory?
Before I answer that, I want to explain that I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm not trying in any way to be rude, just bring up another side that you seem unaware of.
There are many; here's a few:
Cilium (cilia)
Bacterial flagellum
Blood clotting system
Light sensing system in animal's eyes
Transport system in a cell
Etc. I have a link to a good article (much better than this one I posted here), if you'd like to research it more yourself. (:
I know you're not. I like what you're doing here, because you research both sides of a story, then continue to take the lesser explored and less likely sight and place it in a convincing light. It's good to keep thinking. And that's interesting. It proves that Darwin's theory is far from perfect, but then again, I think everyone knew that. I still stick to my weak point, because I'm just plain old stubborn. And I think I might sometime! Had a test this morning, though. My head is still pounding
Okay good. It's just hard to tell when writing back and forth online sometimes, so I just wanted to make sure neither of us were going to get upset about it. shrugs It's a touchy subject.
Thank you. (:
Haha, alright. And that's about how I feel after a test.....though with the way my classes are set up, I have to take three tests in a row anytime I want to take one. Grumble, grumble, grumble....XD
That's the thing with the internet and lack of characters for smileys! :P And true, that.
You're welcome!
That's sucky! D: What subjects do you prefer?
I prefer language. Most people take a break in my college algebra class by leaving the room, taking a walk around campus, and bringing back a soda. I take a break by translating Korean. XD
Wow! :P I'm more into history and reading myself. I like to translate too, but prefer Latin over Greek, mainly because I know it better. I'm impressed :P
I liked history a lot, but it's limited. XD I joke a lot that I could probably take a citizenship test in Russia and pass, I knew that much, government and all.
I just like languages, which has only intensified since I was blessed with a little brother. He's just starting to form words, and it fascinates me so much what words he picks up and how he says them, and all the other sounds he can make that grown adults can't do. XD I think I've studied 13 or so tongues over the course of my life. :D
That's a lot...O.o I'm 15 and I only speak 2 languages fluently! :P
I didn't say anything about fluency. :P XD I speak four languages counting English, though I switch off and on studying--German for a while, Polish and Korean for a while, German for a while, like that. When I get fluent enough to easily converse, I'll add another language.
That's cool! I'm learning French (pulls face which I don't find easy) and I'll have to learn Spanish soon, too... You sound pretty talented! xD
French was alright. It's a beautiful languge, but I didn't find it much of a challenge. Asian languages and Russian draw me because they're difficult, and I want it to be something to work at, not something easy. My mother wanted me to continue with French, because I had a good accent, but I moved on to German. And yuck, Spanish is one of the few languages I never want to learn! DX
Thank you, but it's really the only thing I'm talented at. :S
You're welcome! :P I wish I had the ease which you have...unfortunately, I'm not and I'll have to deal with it!
I wish you much luck! (:
Haha! xD Thank you, same goes for you!
Oh! Irreducibility is actually NOT a problem in evolution, though. :)
Mostly because most mutations we have didn't arise as adaptations but as chance things that tagged along with them. Not everything that evolves NEEDS to have a function. It's a common mistake people make...
So something can evolve into another thing that is not functionable and evolve somehow later?
FunctionAL. Not functionABLE.
Anyhau, yes, that's right. It's why you see all those clearly non-beneficial mutations the article talked about.
XD I changed some of the words before the function- bit, and forgot to edit that. DX
Ees fine. :)