Theory of Evolution: My argument against it.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
For years I've been wondering about Evolution. So, I would like to share my views on the subject.

If we evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys evolving now? Why don't they give birth to a human today? (Yes, I know evolution takes millions of years but why has nobody ever recorded the SLIGHTEST change in the monkey species?)

How the hell can one monkey's genes change an entire species? Surely there's a very low chance of a "deformed" monkey mating with a "normal" monkey and having "deformed" offspring that are capable of surviving? Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.
Mutant Chicken

How do our genes think, "Oh yeah, its that time again to change for the better"? For example, years ago I read somewhere that a type of fish evolved to walk on land. How did their genes know that they needed to adapt to the new environment?

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. The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.

Atheist Evolutionists believe that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers!


Finally, I think humans need to stop finding explanations for things that can't be proven.

I was watching a programme about Monkeys on TV a few days and the presenter kept saying, "Monkeys do/have *insert word here* for/so *insert reason here*" and it suddenly hit me, how do WE know for sure that they, for example, have long arms so they can climb up/swing from trees better? Maybe they just have long arms for no apparant reason at all?

It's like saying, "Many years ago, monkeys had short arms and couldn't climb trees very well so he/she thought, 'Oh crap! I better grow longer arms!' "

Another example would be our hands/fingers "evolving". I'll use video games as an example. We humans are playing alot more on the xbox, playstation, nintendo etc. so will our fingers change?! Will we only have our thumbs and one or two fingers in a few million years? How will our genes know we're playing games more often and only using our thumbs to do so? Our genes won't say, "Oh, we better grow longer thumbs next time, we're gonna need 'em!"

I hope I've put my argument across clearly. Thank you for reading.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Feedback is welcome, by the way.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I posted a reply to a similar thread you started...please read that...
I'm not really a believer in evolution (as its commonly defined)

Anyway, evolution doesn't just happen through mutations. It happens also through natural selection,* genetic drift, ** and flow*** and of course as you mentioned mutations.

*ya know sorta "survival of the fittest"),
**basically changes by change... some genes (and therefore traits) get passed on just by chance)
***different populations of the same species interchanging their gene pools, which are slightly different because the diff populations evovle to their various environments

Evolution is basically defined as the change in a populations gene pool that results in speciation (aka a new species)..
The most common definition of a species is based around "differential reproduction" which just means different species can't reproduce viable offspring...
But that is nonsense... Just think of wolves and dogs... they can reproduce... and used to be considered different species... I don't know any examples off the top of my head, but they are out there...

So, I believe in evolution. Except not one common ancestor that was a single celled organism. I believe (KNOW, actually) that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them! And that HE created everything according to their kinds...
So, HE made two dogs... now we have all kinds of dogs... NOT like he made a rat and the rat evolved into a dog.. that is dumb..

Umm hope that makes sense... I'm oversimplifying a bit here,, but EHhh!!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxed88
If we evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys evolving now? Why don't they give birth to a human today? (Yes, I know evolution takes millions of years but why has nobody ever recorded the SLIGHTEST change in the monkey species?)


We didnt evolve from monkeys, we had a common ancestor. Monkeys are evolving the same as anything else.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
How do our genes think, "Oh yeah, its that time again to change for the better"? How did their genes know that they needed to adapt to the new environment?


Dominant genes over time changed the species. If a creature has a better chance of survival or reproducing, it's more of those types of dominant genes will be passed down.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.


I'm not sure what this means. There is no law, its a theory, and there is no law that prevents evolution.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Atheist Evolutionists believe that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers!


Evolution states nothing whatsoever about where life arose, only that it changed over time. Please leave Atheist's out of it, philisophical views are irrelevant here.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxed88
If we evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys evolving now?


We did not "evolve from monkeys." This is the most basic misunderstanding of evolution.

Monkeys and humans are evolving right now.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Why don't they give birth to a human today? (Yes, I know evolution takes millions of years but why has nobody ever recorded the SLIGHTEST change in the monkey species?)


This page lists different types of monkeys. Additionally, there is a baker's dozen families beneath the "Primate" Order:


Family Callitrichidae (marmosets and tamarins)
Family Cebidae (New World monkeys)
Family Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys)
Family Cheirogaleidae (dwarf lemurs and mouse lemurs)
Family Daubentoniidae (aye-aye)
Family Galagonidae (bushbabies and galagos)
Family Hominidae (great apes and humans)
Family Hylobatidae (gibbons and lesser apes)
Family Indridae (indris, sifakas, and relatives)
Family Lemuridae (true lemurs)
Family Loridae (lorises)
Family Megaladapidae (sportive lemurs)
Family Tarsiidae (tarsiers)



Originally posted by xeroxed88
How the hell can one monkey's genes change an entire species?


Hmm, are you familiar with the American Curl breed of cats? This entire breed of cats has arisen due to one single cat's mutation in the Eighties.

Consider the differences between breeds of dogs. 15,000 years ago, a Chihuahua was a damn wolf. 15,000 years is a very short period of time.

In any case, there is no single animal responsible for the entire evolution of his species: evolution is an ongoing process. The inference here is that every animal with offspring plays a part in the gradual changes in his descendants.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.
Mutant Chicken


Logically, positive mutations, though rarer than negative mutations, would stand a better chance of survival in offspring due to the very nature of their positivity. This has been shown to be the case.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
How do our genes think, "Oh yeah, its that time again to change for the better"? For example, years ago I read somewhere that a type of fish evolved to walk on land. How did their genes know that they needed to adapt to the new environment?


It, err, doesn't work like this. I could explain the process of evolution to you here, but I think you'd get more benefit out of perhaps reading a book on the subject.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
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. The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.


I agree with this statement. There is no "natural law" that speaks about speciation.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Atheist Evolutionists believe that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances.


Right, I believe that this is one of the perspectives of evolutionist supporters. The term for the hypothetical rise of life from non-living components is "abiogenesis."


Originally posted by xeroxed88
The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers!


I find this statement agreeable: my hypothetical garden would not spring forth trees and flowers without reproductive elements from pre-existing flora spawning such growth. This has no real bearing on possible past incidents of abiogenesis and evolution from LUCAs.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Finally, I think humans need to stop finding explanations for things that can't be proven.


I disagree with this statement entirely. When humans cease our search for knowledge, truth, and meaning, we will forfeit our humanity. Or something. Probably.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
I was watching a programme about Monkeys on TV a few days and the presenter kept saying, "Monkeys do/have *insert word here* for/so *insert reason here*" and it suddenly hit me, how do WE know for sure that they, for example, have long arms so they can climb up/swing from trees better? Maybe they just have long arms for no apparant reason at all?


This is certainly a possibility. Maybe birds have wings for no reason at all. Like chickens!


Originally posted by xeroxed88
It's like saying, "Many years ago, monkeys had short arms and couldn't climb trees very well so he/she thought, 'Oh crap! I better grow longer arms!' "


Hmm... I don't really think that it's quite like that.


Originally posted by xeroxed88
Another example would be our hands/fingers "evolving". I'll use video games as an example. We humans are playing alot more on the xbox, playstation, nintendo etc. so will our fingers change?! Will we only have our thumbs and one or two fingers in a few million years? How will our genes know we're playing games more often and only using our thumbs to do so? Our genes won't say, "Oh, we better grow longer thumbs next time, we're gonna need 'em!"


This is kind of bizarre, but I'll play along. If one day, human females stopped reproducing with human males unless they had superior video gaming skills, then it would stand to reason that only those with, uh, superior fingers would reproduce. Eventually, more of the population would have superior fingers, because those with superior finger genes would be the ones producing offspring.

After a long time of such nonsense, a positive mutation might develop that further increased the reproductive odds for the person, and his offspring would pass this along as well, until everybody had huge thumbs and eyeballs and slowed digestive systems to support their weak bodies better so that they could spend less time eating and hunting and more time practicing video games for the ladies. They would no longer be "humans," they would be "playstatiomen."

Of course this wouldn't happen because reproduction and survival go hand in hand: in mammal terms, that usually means that males who are able to provide food and safety to their potential families are more attractive to females.

This was a goofy example, though, and I didn't really think it through too much, but you get the idea.

Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxed88
I know evolution takes millions of years but why has nobody ever recorded the SLIGHTEST change in the monkey species?

Why are you saying that there hasn't been any change recorded?


How the hell can one monkey's genes change an entire species?

via Natural Selection.


Surely there's a very low chance of a "deformed" monkey

Has nothing to do with deformation.


Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.

Mutations do not destroy information, but the are mostly deleterious. Actually some have theorized that most mutations are completely neutral, and then the next largest bit after that are the harmful ones, and then after that, in the smallest group, are the beneficial ones. But what of it? When there is a beneficial mutation, it'll spread.


years ago I read somewhere that a type of fish evolved to walk on land. How did their genes know that they needed to adapt to the new environment?

No one claims that the genes felt any desire. There is no forethought in evolution. Organisms change, say a river fish's fins become more ossified and bony, and that change might be beneficial in their particular circumstances, say it permits them to amble around the rocks and ground in the shallow water of the river rather than stuggle to swim normally in the water, then that change will propagate. That individual, because it has an advantage, will produce more offspring, which will be similar to it, and they will have that advantage, and they will produce more, similar, offspring.



There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.

There is absolutely not need for any such 'scientific law'. The fact that organisms change is sufficient enough to show that they can change.



such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.

This simply doesn't make sense. Why would a natural law be needed for amphibians to have thicker skins and hard egs, and thus become reptillian?


The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers!

So? How does that mean that those plants can't change???



Finally, I think humans need to stop finding explanations for things that can't be proven.

Your opinion carries no weight nor authority for the rest of us. Mine doesn't either, none of ours does.


how do WE know for sure that they, for example, have long arms so they can climb up/swing from trees better? Maybe they just have long arms for no apparant reason at all?

There is no reason for why they have longer arms. However, before they had longer arms, a monkey who did infact have longer arms and could move about the trees better would have an advantage, not by plan, not by design, not through forthought, and not 'for' any reason.

It's like saying, "Many years ago, monkeys had short arms and couldn't climb trees very well so he/she thought, 'Oh crap! I better grow longer arms!' "
No one claims this, indeed, its explicitly rejected in even the low level high school teachings of evolution. I thought you said you'd been thinking about this for a 'few years'?

How will our genes know we're playing games more often

There is no forethought. There are populations of organisms. These populations are made up of individuals that vary from one to another. That variation in inheritable. The population produces more offspring than can reasonably survive, each generation. Thus, any individual with an advantage, even a slight one, will be 'selected' for, practically as a consequence of the logic of the situation. Have an advantage that permits you to reproduce more, then there will be more like you the next generation. Until everyone looks like 'you', so to speak. There is no planning. There's change and selection.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Thank you for rebutting those specious arguments Nygdan, it saves me the trouble of having to do the same.


Awww, you didn't like my playstatiomen scenario?


Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
A couple of hundred years ago some Canadian Geese landed here, and stayed. They're a completely different species now, not sure what the scientific name is, but they're called Nene Geese now. They don't swim, they walk around on lava rocks, so their feet have lost much of the webbing, and developed claws. Didn't take millions of years for it to happen.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Thank you all for the information you gave.



such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.


This simply doesn't make sense. Why would a natural law be needed for amphibians to have thicker skins and hard egs, and thus become reptillian?


I think you misunderstood.

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen.


I was saying that the theory says that complex life-forms (reptiles, mammals etc.) came from simple life-forms. Not that an amphibian turns into a reptile.


Finally, I think humans need to stop finding explanations for things that can't be proven.


Your opinion carries no weight nor authority for the rest of us. Mine doesn't either, none of ours does.

I wasn't trying to force my opinion onto you, I was just saying it. Freedom of speech, right?


Thank you to all that replied to this thread. I've learnt alot.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxed88
I was saying that the theory says that complex life-forms (reptiles, mammals etc.) came from simple life-forms. Not that an amphibian turns into a reptile.

Ok, but why state that there has to be some law that says it is permissible? Change occurs, therefore, over time, things can look dramatically different.

I wasn't trying to force my opinion onto you, I was just saying it. Freedom of speech, right

Indeed, just pointing out, opinions aren't helpful here, my opions on the matter are just that, opinions, and everyone has those. Whats important is the evidence and an objective analysis of it.





new topics




 
0

log in

join