The following points are true. If you can still believe in the "theory" of evolution I want to know how

  1. Complex Specified Information — This is the idea that even if some initial metabolic process were to come about through random processes, the DNA or RNA that codes for the mechanism of those processes would not exist and it would just dissolve, or conversely, if the DNA or RNA existed the epigenetic material would not. Further, all proteins are made of amino acids, and amino acids forming in “primordial soup” do so equally in left and right handed mirror image forms. All the amino acids in life forms are the right handed variants. They have to be to allow for replication since proteins achieve their function by folding in a consistent manner. This places the probability of the first cell forming at roughly 1 in 10^150. My estimate of the number of atoms in the universe is 1 x 10^77
    Addendum to #1 Paul Davies, author of The Goldilocks Enigma:

"Biological organisms are immensely complex - far more complex than Paley could have realized.
To a physicist, they look nothing short of miraculous.
The many and diverse components function together in a coherent and amazingly orchestrated manner.
The living cell contains minuscule pumps, levers, motors, rotors, turbines, propellers, scissors, and many other instruments familiar from a human workshop, all of them exquisite examples of nanotechnology.
The entire assemblage runs itself with great efficiency, sometimes autonomously, sometimes in collaboration with other cells through a sophisticated network of intercellular communication based on chemical signaling.
The command and control functions of the cell are encoded in its DNA database, which implements instructions through intermediary molecules using an optimal mathematical code to convert software instructions into hardware products with customized functionality.
And this is just one cell.
In a larger organism, vastly many cells get together and cooperate to form organs such as eyes, ears, brains, livers, and kidneys, many of them immensely elaborate in their structure and function.
The human brain alone has more cells than there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
So it all adds up to a package of marvels that boggles the mind.

The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called ‘scientific establishment’ around it… because it undermines the worldview of anyone who wants naturalism to be true."
Thomas Nagel - “In the present intellectual climate such a possibility is unlikely to be taken seriously, but I would repeat my earlier observation that no viable account, even a purely speculative one, seems to be available of how a system as staggeringly functionally complex and informationally-rich as a self-reproducing cell, controlled by DNA, RNA, or some predecessor, could have arisen by chemical evolution alone from a dead environment. Recognition of the problem is not limited to the defenders of intelligent design.”
Many “scientific” naturalists in recognition of these facts retreat to Directed Panspermia (that life was seeded by aliens) to attempt to evade reality even though such an idea is in no way scientific, verifiable, or evident in any way, and in addition, doesn’t even have the slightest implication of any precursor of a solution to their problem.

  1. The “evolution” of sexual reproduction - If all species reproduced asexually by dividing, as evolutionists would have one believe they all once did, there is no conceivable mechanism by which sexual reproduction could develop. For evolution to work there must be sequential functional adaptations that natural selection can select for one at a time. If by some freak accident thousands of functional elements, that have no effect on the organism by themselves, came together to produce in one organism a gender, its heartache would be immutable.
  2. “In order to think, we must claim for our own reasoning a validity which is not credible if our own thought is merely a function of our brain, and our brains a byproduct of irrational physical processes.” - C.S. Lewis This means that human ability to reason cannot come from the irrational physical evolutionary processes, because if even a single step of a rational process is irrational, it renders the result irrational. “[Evolutionists] ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” -C.S. Lewis. He went on to say that when he encounters people who don’t see the contradiction here he realizes that he has not stumbled upon a mere anomaly in their thinking but an insidious defect that pervades their entire worldview.
  3. The Fossil record - In the fossil record we can categorize biological kingdoms, phyla, orders, families, classes, genera, and species. Evolutionists make weak claims to having found intermediate forms between different classes, and there is legitimate variation among genera within each created kind of organism. All kingdoms, phyla, orders, and families of organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record indisputably without intermediate forms.
  4. Hemoglobin (and any other protein which is at least two polypeptide chains bound together) - In order for chains of amino acids (polypeptide chains) to bind to each other requires a precise placement of at least three amino acids in each polypeptide chain. The parasite that causes malaria has a mind bogglingly vast worldwide population which for the purposes of Darwinian evolution is a powerhouse. Chloroquine was once a much more effective treatment for malaria than it is today. The parasite evolved chloroquine resistance. To do this required an adaptation that involved the precise placement of two amino acids within a single protein. There was no adaptation for natural selection to select for without both amino acids in the proper place. This took the organism a population of 10^20 to have enough mutations for one to be the correct adaptation. Polypeptide chain binding, given its requirement of 3 precisely placed amino acids on each chain, would require an adaptation that would not be likely without there having been (10^20)^x (where x is the number beyond 1 of precisely placed amino acids in a single adaptation). It is estimated that 10^40 organisms have lived in the history of earth. All polypeptide chain binding adaptations could not be selected for by natural selection until the chains were successfully bound together. Hemoglobin in humans is 4 polypeptide chains bound together.
  5. The law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) “The entropy in any given system is always increasing unless acted on by an outside force” Evolutionists try to elude the application of this scientific law by pointing out that the sun is an outside force that is acting on the biological systems of the earth. If you define entropy as merely the measure of energy not available for work in a system, they have a point. That is not the only way to define entropy though. If you define entropy as disorder, or the measure of the extent to which a system lacks order, you can see that in genetic systems the law of entropy is ineluctable.
  6. I won’t mention the details of this one because the subject matter is likely to render it outside the scope of propriety.

The reason why I accept evolution is because it’s the most fact based and widely accepted scientific theory concerning the evolution of life by the overwhelming majority of experts including roughly 8,000,000 scientists. When we look at the geological layers we can tell it’s superimposed. Within these superimposed layers we see minerals made of elements that have half lives that all agree with one another. Within these layers we also see fossils and the fossils are stacked not by size, but by types ever diverging from basal forms and these morphological changes aligns with genetic studies.

There is no other scientific theory coming even remotely close to disproving evolution and there is certainly no evidence whatsoever that supports pseudoscientific concepts such as young earth / old earth creationism.

Since you’ve mentioned many things, based around many subjects, why not pick one or two that you want to focus on and work it out.

Ignoring for a moment the other statements, this argument has always been intriguing. Do ID proponents actually argue that disease organisms are actually designed to kill more people presumably by God?

4 Likes

They, like mosquitoes, are the result of the curse of sin.

Mosquitoes, the pollinators of orchids , whose diet is predominantly nectar , are the result of sin? I mean it’s basically only the females that drink blood and they actually rarely drink blood. They drink blood to help with pregnancy. We are sort of their tree of life. Through our blood, and the blood of other animals, we give them new life. We are kind of like mosquitoes surviving on the blood of god……

1 Like

#1 is accepted by practically everyone as incontrovertible and has been defined as beyond the scope of evolutionary biology, so there is no need to rehash that one.
#2 Is the one that, in tandem with #1 takes to an entirely new level a roughly equivalent extent beyond the threshold of miraculous of #1. People who posit that life came about by scoring a chance less likely than picking one atom out of all the atoms in the universe in one try to come about with all right handed amino acids, DNA, RNA, infrastructure, membrane, and replication are truly blown out of the water by #2 if they venture to comprehend it.
If you could give a tenable answer to #2 I would think that evolutionists may deserve a little more credit than I typically extend them. The problem is that all these arguments are seemingly incontrovertible to me. I don’t believe that the theory of evolution could be considered tenable if even a single one remains unanswered.

There’s… a lot that you’ve brought up here. I’m not sure what sorts of things you’ve read or studied up on the topic of evolution, as it seems your personal beliefs are a mix of intelligent design writers and some young-earth creationism. It also seems like your mind could not be changed on the topic of evolution, is that correct? If that’s the case, what are you trying to accomplish with your post?

From my perspective, it looks like very little of your post has much to do with the theory of evolution or the main evidence supporting it. Putting the word “evolutionists” into a C.S. Lewis’ quote when he was fine with evolution himself seems a bit shady too.

8 Likes

Are you saying that abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolution? I guess it depends on exactly when you believe natural selection begin to play a role in biological evolution. But I’m general abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, are treated as separate studies…. You’re the one who brought it up…. As part of your counter argument for evolution…. So…

You mentioned this “ Complex Specified Information — This is the idea that even if some initial metabolic process were to come about through random processes, the DNA or RNA that codes for the mechanism of those processes would not exist and it would just dissolve, or conversely, if the DNA or RNA existed the epigenetic material would not. “

You said it’s “ is accepted by practically everyone as incontrovertible and has been defined as beyond the scope of evolutionary biology, so there is no need to rehash that one.“

Could you show me what scientific articles are collaborating this from well respected organizations?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue. Having some articles to read by actual scientists would be beneficial for me.

1 Like

First off, I believe God is sovereign. This may help you understand: my nephrectomy. Secondly, I don’t believe all your points are indeed true.

1 Like

I have some questions for you.

Can you explain to me why does the fossil record show humans in the fossil record after we see earlier forms of primates? Like when did bipedalism in primates first show up and was it in the earlier stages such as before the first Simians?

Can you explain to me if humans are mammals? If we are mammals, can you explain to me why we are, or are not primates? Also can you’re plain to me why a dolphin is not a fish?

Sorry, are you saying that mosquitoes didn’t exist before the fall?

6 Likes
  • :wave:*Response to#4

The Fossil record - In the fossil record we can categorize biological kingdoms, phyla, orders, families, classes, genera, and species. Evolutionists make weak claims to having found intermediate forms between different classes, and there is legitimate variation among genera within each created kind of organism. All kingdoms, phyla, orders, and families of organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record indisputably without intermediate forms.”

I go out and fossil hunt here and there in my spare time (which is basically non-existent in recent days), but one thing that is important to understand is geologic superposition, and not just the features that a fossil has, but also the order in which they’re present in the fossil succession.

So for example, in plants, there are lots of seed bearing plants and lots of flowering plants. And there is a good bit of variation within those groups. But it should be noted that the timing of their appearance is different.

Or another example, you have fish, amphibians, reptiles, and then mammals and birds appearing in the succession, in that order.

So someone could look at tiktaalik and say that it has scales and fins. Well other fish have scales and fins too. So maybe it’s just a weird fish. Tiktaalik has a flat amphibian-like head and it has spiracles for breathing air, an elongated rib cage, robust pectoral girdles, wrist bones (radius and ulna), and an unfused skull/neck for turning its head independent of it’s body, but so do tetrapods, so what’s the big deal? The point is that, it just so happens that if we look at the order in which the succession presents itself, tiktaalik just so happens to be in the Devonian after fish, which appear in the Cambrian, and before tetrapods that dominate the late Devonian. And thus it is “intermediate”.

See the following presentation for more details:

And the same rule applies in genetics as well. So, all fish are genetically more similar (in simple terms), to all amphibians, than they are to any reptile. And all mammals and birds are more genetically similar to all reptiles than to amphibians. Even down to finer levels, all whales are genetically more similar to all other mammals than they are to fish (even though whales and dolphins look kind of like fish). And so, if we turn back to fossils, we might expect whale fossils to first appear around other mammals of the Cenozoic. And they do.

So, it’s not so much just the trait that a fossil has, but it’s really just as important, if not more important, to understand how predictions are made to find those fossils based on the succession.

For more questions about fossils and geology, I’d recommend attending local geological societies and speaking with geologists there. Meetings are free to attend, and it’s an easy way to learn a good bit for those sincerely interested in the science. They often dish out PDHs for attendence too, so rock nerds like myself tend to flock in the same coop.

Geology is also a very deep and rich science as well, not to be confused with surficial topics of “debate”. These little sound bites we hear in arguments are like scratching the tip of the iceberg. Similar to how some people might quote a passage in scripture without understanding it’s context.

Enjoy!

4 Likes

What is quotation and what isn’t? What points are true? Can you give us the first one? You need to edit using Blockquote.

Given the choice between fallacy like Davis’ sharpshooter nonsense and looking out the window, as Anaximander did, there is no choice. I have to know, not believe in, evolution. So no worries. I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in quantum mechanics or the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I know that those narratives are the only rational ones.

1 Like

You had me going. “Someone”, I thought, “with thoughtful questions who wants answers”. Ok, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and Lewis was discussing theology but here’s a seeker of truth; let’s cut him some slack. Except you don’t seem interested in discussion; numbers #1&#2 were foregone conclusions on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to personal incredulity. So I took another look and noticed…

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics! Really? That old canard? Unless, of course… are you a PhD in physics with a new take on the subject? Cause, if not, mate, let’s stop right here. If you wanted a soapbox, you only had to say so. But a discussion on this laundry list of tired, old, done-to-death subjects, come off it. The least you could have done was come up with one, just one, original idea.

5 Likes

If you define entropy as ‘cream cheese’, entropy is quite tasty. Entropy is well-defined in physics and chemistry. Evolution obeys natural laws governing entropy just like everything else in the universe.

6 Likes

Why would you want me to come up with an original idea. I have one, #7 I mentioned. I just didn’t include it on account of the fact that the subject matter would make people inclined to think it was a joke. (The evolution of the clitoris, of course the fully formed structure influences mate selection, but a precursor? I don’t think so). An answer to #2 would be nice.

The C.S. Lewis quotes are exactly that. Quotes. If you can think of another application for the quote that starts “In order to think…” I’m all ears. Regardless, the application of the concept is one from which the implications for the “theory” of evolution are ineluctable.

Because “sin” magically created new creatures? How does that work?

3 Likes

Defining entropy as disorder is known as information theory. FYI

We find humans in the fossil record higher because they have only been around since Adam and Eve. We have found many species of Australopithecus, but none that would constitute a missing link between them and Homo Erectus which was essentially humans before their genetic variation had been culled by changes in environment. Homo Erectus appears abruptly.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.