If evolution is wrong then what's the alternative?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by chr0naut

 

The problem with the idea of a creator you present is the paradox of variety.

If we are to assume that there is, in shorthand terms, a God who created all life and put it where he wanted it to be, then we have to ask, why is there so much variety in life? For instance, moles; Why are there moles, marsupial "moles," mole rats, and not one but two "moles" among the afrotheres (the golden mole of southern Africa and the tenrec "moles" of Madagascar)? Why not just one mole to do the "job" that a mole needs to do?

"Aha," you counter, "What if this god just loves the variety?"

Well then why are there so few moles? Why are there no sorts of birds that have filled the mole niche? Why aren't there any "moles" among caviomorph rodents in South America? Why restrict mole rats and tenrecs to Africa, and marsupial moles to Australia? Why not have a global mole free-for-all?

The problem with this argument is that the classification of "mole", or any particular and individual species is entirely human.

To God, the variety may be across the entire spectrum of life, or according to some taxonomy of which we know nothing.

The problem is that, in the incompleteness of our knowledge of all things, we cannot make claims that would require that we did know all things.

Therefore, argument against God, by the "paradox of the variety of species" is, in itself, specious.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Your Move dude.

One could argue that if we were to assume that, on average, a new species arises every 45 years over the lifetime of the Earth, that the number of observed events of speciation that you have just listed, actually supports my theory that it is occurring faster than we calculate it should.

But my calculations were "back of the envelope" and hardly rigorous (I imagine if all variables were accounted for and all the stuff I left out to make the calculation simpler (and erring on the side of conservatism), I imagine that the the rate of speciation would only be AMAZINGLY, UNBELIEVABLY, INCREDIBLY faster).

reply to post by chr0naut

One could argue that if we were to assume that, on average, a new species arises every 45 years over the lifetime of the Earth, that the number of observed events of speciation that you have just listed, actually supports my theory that it is occurring faster than we calculate it should.

You keep talking about how fast Evolution and Speciation *SHOULD* happen, and you still have *YET* to cite any evidence that evolution works in a way that you assume that it does.

So, for the second time, please provide some sort of Evidence, or Proof for this "Speed" at which evolution is *SUPPOSED* to occur, to prove that you aren't just making this up.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by sgreco
Well, 3 pages later and no one has managed to answer the question at all.

I count six specific questions in the OP and an additional seventh in its title.

Unless a Creationist can step forward and answer it, I'm forced to assume they cannot. I guess this is the question that topples their house of cards. Sad really, so many of them assert all of this so passionately, it's a shame to think its all just a sham they dare not try to substantiate. I really thought even a few of them might have thought this all through.

I am not quite sure which of the seven has been unanswered by subsequent posts.

Please specify exactly which question you feel is unanswered.

for the 7th time, i think, here is the ONLY question I posed. Not 6 not 7 but one. And here it is.

Assuming that creationists and the counter-proofs they offer are correct and evolution is false, then please explain how 99% of creationists move from "it must be an intelligent designer" to "it must be the christian religion's God" when the notion of an "intelligent designer" does not specify any one particular religion?

reply to post by myselfaswell


I saw your Avatar and was reminded that yes God did have a sense of humor when he created some animals.
I would like the evolutionist to tell me why the Proboscis Monkey needs such a huge nose? Why did it evolve to this size?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b977e39cbbc6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I would like the evolutionist to tell me why the Proboscis Monkey needs such a huge nose? Why did it evolve to this size?

Sexual Selection. Bigger Nose attracts females in their Monkey culture, causing the bigger nose genes and mutations, exaggerating the trait over generations.

It makes sense. We've seen a lot of crazy traits exaggerated due to evolution through sexual selection.

Source

Would you believe me if I told you that these noses drive the women proboscis monkey’s wild! It is true, one of the uses for such a large nose is to attract a suitable mate. Just like the antler’s of a bull moose, the nose of a proboscis monkey displays that monkey’s status.

Ten seconds with google(plus longer to verify). It's always better to try to look up and answer and see what their is than to assume automatically their isn't one.

Again, for more information on it, or even sexual selection in general. Google yourself to some reliable sites. Biology is interesting.

Perhaps Creation, Evolution, and ID are all correct to some degree.


Creation should be pitted against the big bang or abiogenesis, not evolution so much. Unless the argument is centered on gods creation of all living things as they are today.

If you look at each "theory" and just take a bite from each.

God created blank
What he created has purpose and a plan or design. If you look around it seems most living things serve some greater purpose, mostly unbeknownst to the creature. Bees pollinate, plants are food among other things, small critters feed bigger creatures etc. creatures depend on other creatures. This whole process appears planned or intelligently designed, more so than simple chance.

Then creatures evolve, like it is supposed to happen. Like a failsafe, find yourself stuck in an unknown environment ? adapt to it. How? Its automatic, it just happens like it was programmed.

Sometimes the balance fails, things escape fate.. survive when they weren't suppose to, create imbalance and ultimately extinction to something.


Why do some things appear to have evolved further or differently than others?

When Man and Monkey went their separate ways. Why did Monkey stop or stall the intelligence factor, and at the same time split off in so many directions with so many still around today. And yet when man split off all but us did not survive.

Competiton? Did we not compete with the other primates as well? Why did they survive the competition, and not all the other man animals?


sorry rambling................

Originally posted by PowerSlave

Why do some things appear to have evolved further or differently than others?

When Man and Monkey went their separate ways. Why did Monkey stop or stall the intelligence factor, and at the same time split off in so many directions with so many still around today. And yet when man split off all but us did not survive.

Competiton? Did we not compete with the other primates as well? Why did they survive the competition, and not all the other man animals?

There is no 'one size fits all' for evolution. If one group fills into a certain niche, they call lose their standing in others. If one mutation sets off a path one way, another species can spread out a different way to avoid fighting for that specific role.

Man and Ape(Apes aren't Monkeys, common misconception), while we can't give a 100% answer, having not been there, the basic theory is that man was weaker. On top of that, there's some evidence of a mutation that weakened the jaw(no more biting as a defense mechanism), that also opened room for easier mutations that increased brain activity(reference: BBC doc. "The Human Ape", Good watch too, I think you can find it on youtube). When man's survival method of toughness weakened, it created a demand for a new one. This lead to the use of tools/weapons, for defense and hunting.

The necessity of using tools, made intelligence a major factor in natural selection. Whereas other apes laws of natural selection were still mostly lead by physical capabilities. Telling them to evolve in different ways.

And modern apes aren't "Less evolved", it's just that intelligence isn't what evolution reinforced. They can mentally process more faster, and have quicker reaction times, for example. Mental capabilities more suited to their niche than the ones we've built ourselves. Not to mention all the physical capabilities built for them since they still live in a more physically demanding habitat. They're also much more intelligent than we usually think they to be.

~
If that answers it for you. If not, I'm sure theirs much more well written and explained articles on the topic. All questions can be answered with rather simple researched. The answers are there.

reply to post by sgreco


In my opinion, if evolution is wrong--and believe that it is--then creationism is the only logical explanation left.

To answer the question in the original post, DE-Evolution.
Modern religion is nothing what it is based off of. The real religious people charted stars, and knew where they were in the universe. The modern christian can't tell you anything if its not from his preacher or on his smartphone.
Lets clear that up.
Religion is the body that governs 'supreme' knowledge. So, religion is faulty, but not its laws. Just as the body that governs laws. To look at the bush administration and to say the constitution is faulty would be erroneous. Just like saying that the knowledge found within religion is erroneous. Few of you do not even have the tools to measure some of the elements within scripture. We have a hard time convincing people with video footage of "flying wheels" , so imagine if we show it to them in a historical recording.
First off, rather you guys agree with it or not the concepts and knowledge found within religion was our FIRST science and with it we achieved one thing that science can't. To measure the unmeasurable, or to see the unseen.

This is one thing I do not understand about the people who revere scientist and their theoretical approach that is about a day old compared to the contrary.
How are the blind followers so adamant about the non-existence of God or the spirit when neither can be measured?????? To judge everything by the 'eyes' is perhaps the most foolish approach when trying to understand the universe and what makes it work. Can you see the wind?????No you can see the effects of it and most important, YOU CAN FEEL IT. What about Dark Matter???? Mono-Atomic gold?? Nothing from the perspective of scientist deals with nothing other then what is seen. Remember, they once described the space between matter as just 'space'. Remember how many times the US failed with the lunar's gravity because they swore it was something different than what it was rather than just sitting down and really putting pride to the side.
There are plenty of things that we aren't going to understand simply because we have yet to release are arrogant, self-glorifying pride that is disabling us to view the universe without a veil as the ancients did with EASE.


I will say this much, the concepts found in religion speak of things that are beyond the grasp of the human imagination. Things that science cannot and is not equipped to verify. Like an energy that is self-sustaining, unseen, and every where at once!!!! That energy is referred to now by the limited, misgnomer GOD. Its okay for scientist to say, electrons can communicate long distances, be at 2 places at once and a whole list of other things. When we talk about spirit these same things can NOT be possible right?? I like how science reflects the weaker side of human nature. The linear, up-down, this-that-, start-finish..... The universe can never and never will be understood this way. It needs a more 'wholly', 'holistic', 'whole(not lacking any parts) or 'holy' approach. The 'knowledge' found within some of these religions can tell you about the conditions that produced the big bang, scientist can not.
......Science says things are moving, an older science says there was a first mover. What are we not getting here?!?!?!?!
At the end of the day, I will say something that few people in history has ever said.
Science validates the knowledge found within ancient religions.
My intentions are not to insult anyone from any background or belief system.
sorry for grammar, english isn't my first language, American is

*I just wanted to add this for the record. You can tell evolution is very faulty, and false because we read little about man and his past in the water. There is enough evidence that shows we have had some time in the water like our layer of fat, or the fact that our heart rate slows down when we dive. This is a natural reflex for a Marine creature.

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
To answer the question in the original post, DE-Evolution.

Amusingly enough that did not answer the question in my original post. >

Originally posted by Bleedout1975
reply to post by sgreco

 

In my opinion, if evolution is wrong--and believe that it is--then creationism is the only logical explanation left.

So, will you agree to adherance to the Islamic religion and its story of creation?