• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

Schrodinger's Cat said:
I have never, not once, been told that cosmology had anything what so ever to do with evolution.
Click to expand...

You are not the first one to voice this opinion. Someone else even gave some sort of source for the idea that the 6 "definitions" given by Hovind comes from somewhere else. Unfortunately they didn't provide any information other than the link so I don't know where it comes from, but suffice it to say, point taken. Though, don't let the subject title confuse you. I consider the cosmology issue, even though not biological, to be as relevant as the biological.

Schrodinger's Cat said:
It would be like going to a debate about, say, the merits of offshore drilling after the BP oil spill, and the opening argument is, "How can you possibly justify off shore drilling after catastrophies like Chernoble?"

The biggest problem I have found with people who deny evolution is that they have never actually studied arguments FOR evolution. Most people (like the OP) who don't "believe" in evolution cannot even properly define it. They just listen to people like Ray Comfort or Hovind who TELLS them what evolution is, and then their "debunking" seems solid because they are debating things no one has ever claimed to be true in the first place.

I have time and time again pressed people who deny evolution to please, just read ONE book on the subject by someone who is not a creationist. Read Coyne's wonderful, "Why Evolution is True." I have never, ever had someone agree to do this.
Click to expand...

A couple years ago or so on this Atheist forum it was suggested to me to read Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker and post my thoughts on it, which I did.

Here is what I said: "In the preface Dawkins insists with great enthusiasm that we, as animals, are of such complex design that it begs explanation. And he is going to do that explaining. The problem of our complex design has been solved by Darwin and Wallace. A great mystery that he can scarce believe most people was not aware of a need of there being a solution!

I find it interesting that most Evolutionists and Atheists scoff at the idea that we think that we are designed and therefore special. They also tend to find fault with our existence as a mystery, and would be so foolish to think that we could gain some insight on that mystery by reading Jehovah God’s word, the Bible and yet at the same time be more or less of the same ilk.

Dawkins later says that this wonderful mystery of our existence not only could be solved by Darwinism but “A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe wherever life may be found.” Science.

I found it interesting that Dawkins comes out and says that Darwinism needs to be advocated more than “similarly established truths in other branches of science,” though he does admit that he doesn’t understand why.

I also found it interesting that Dawkins asks why such a simple theory would have escaped the notice of such scientists of the past such as Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Leibnitz, Hume and Aristotle."

My posts on chapters 1 and 2 were even more favorable than the preface, much to my surprise, and I was beginning to understand Dawkins position; I was so excited that I quickly had responses to chapters 1 and 2 but when I went to post them I found that I had been banned for posting the Preface before finishing the entire book. By the guy who runs the place and suggested I read it and who had taken my post on hell and posted it on his blog. It was called spam because I hadn't finished the book before posting.

I don't do that anymore.

Here is my response to the latter part of your post which I have removed from this thread and responded to elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
I found that interesting as well, Radrook, but have two problems with it. First of all if the humans did develop gills that wouldn't necessarily mean they were not human. They hadn't produced something else. Now that is stretching it, of course, but if the Biblical Kinds isn't in agreement with the biological species the entire subject of evolution, can, at least to some degree, depend upon who is drawing the boundaries and what those boundaries are.

Secondly, the amount of time this "would" or "could" take millions and millions of years so that there would be no way of determining that it actually had done so.

I like your point about the opposite being proposed by evolution. Fish growing lungs because it would be better if they had if for no other reason than I know it would drive them nuts to hear anyone say that.
Click to expand...

Except, as I've pointed out the opposite actually ISN'T proposed by evolution. It's proposed by creationists who THINK its proposed by evolution and then say 'that's a stupid idea'
Gills evolving as part of the progression to fish makes sense as the pre-fish life form is also aquatic and would already have a way of extracting oxygen from seawater.
Losing gills as part of the evolution to land creatures is also a known and understood process.
A land creature returning to water, as both dinosaurs and mammals have done does not need to regain gills, nor would there be a simple evolutionary way to do so. I *may* be possible, but it is very unlikely as there is no pressure to do so and the advantage gained is slim to none. Mammals (and probably dinosaurs) are warm blooded and gills would be a massive heat sink. The ability to breathe underwater and thus hunt for food longer would be offset by the need to eat far more to keep the body temperature stable, so the theory of evolution actually suggests that gaining gills is extremely unlikely. And no aquatic dinosaur/mammal fossil, nor extant species HAS gills, indicating that the theory actually fits real life quite well (again).

If the ones proposing this 'refutation' of evolution had bothered to even slightly educate themselves about the actual theory of evolution they would have never brought this up. But then again that would mean an actual open mind.
 
Evolution isn't stupid, in fact it is a machine,
that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life.
Click to expand...
Things that mutate don't improve if it was random we wouldn't keep evolving and improving.
The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
There's where we differ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
 
Regarding gills in mammals.

In the merchant marine we have "survival suits" next to the lifeboats. They are of thick neoprene, with waterproof seals around wrists and face. The idea is to keep us from freezing to death, and they are rated for keep one concious for more than 6 hours in cold water.

Gills in warm blooded animals is a REALLY bad idea.
 
edge said:
Evolution isn't stupid, in fact it is a machine,
Things that mutate don't improve if it was random we wouldn't keep evolving and improving.
The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that your god is the intelligent designer?
 
edge said:
Evolution isn't stupid, in fact it is a machine,
Things that mutate don't improve if it was random we wouldn't keep evolving and improving.
The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
There's where we differ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
Click to expand...

I already posted this to David, but I'll repeat it for you. Two things. One

Religion is based on principles that are sacred. Scientific training, ESPECIALLY when it comes to evolution, comes with the premise, "Question everything. Nothing is sacred." In fact, something can only be accepted as a scientific theory if it can be disproved given conflicting evidence. So, for instance, evolutionary theory as it exists would be disproved if we were to suddenly find evidence in the fossil record that there were mammals before there were troglodytes. The very fact that scientific theory is only accepted if it could possibly be disproven makes it utterly different that religion. For something to be "sacred" requires faith. Faith is not reliant on proof or evidence. Therefor, something believed due to faith alone could not be disproven... i.e. there is no way to prove God/reincarnation/etc does not exist. The fact that evolution COULD be disproven if the evidence presented itself makes it, by default, not a product of faith.
Click to expand...

and

Please stop making it seem like atheists are the only ones who believe in evolution. I am not an atheist. Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, and many other faith systems are perfectly fine with evolutionary theory. I was taught evolution in Catholic school. When I lived in Europe, I never met a creationist, though I knew plenty of people who were not secularists. For that matter, when living in New England as a kid, I didn't even know creationism was still a thing. I grew up in an extremely religious community filled with Catholics and orthodox Jews. I knew maybe one or two atheists in my whole life. It wasn't until I moved to the south that I even knew that creationism still was believed by a lot of people, and that evolution is not universally accepted (which I found shocking). I find it offensive that some people make it seem like atheists are the only people capable of understanding and appreciating the scientific method. They are not.
Click to expand...
 
edge said:
Things that mutate don't improve if it was random we wouldn't keep evolving and improving.
The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
There's where we differ.
Click to expand...

I will assume that the first sentence is, in fact, 2 sentences and work on that:
1.If by 'things that mutate' you mean organisms that have a mutation, yes they are sometimes improved, in that they sometimes survive better than those without the mutation.
2. If by 'it was random' you mean the mutations, yes 'we'(which includes all living things) would keep evolving and thus 'improving' because 'we' would have changed from our ancestors and survived better. Improving is nothing more than surviving better, hence blind cave fish have improved by losing their sight.
3. The theory of evolution is not a religion, unless by religion you mean science, in which case the theory of evolution is indeed a religion, but christianity then would not be.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
You are not the first one to voice this opinion. Someone else even gave some sort of source for the idea that the 6 "definitions" given by Hovind comes from somewhere else. Unfortunately they didn't provide any information other than the link so I don't know where it comes from, but suffice it to say, point taken. Though, don't let the subject title confuse you. I consider the cosmology issue, even though not biological, to be as relevant as the biological.



....
Click to expand...

Yet you are admittedly ignorant of, and bored by science. It's been demonstrated that you have no interest in learning.

So why are we supposed to consider your opinions on science, cosmology, and evolution valid? This is not a post-modernism thread. All ideas are not equally valid.
 
edge said:
what difference does it make?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvtvqGdMJbo&feature=player_embedded#!
Click to expand...

Edge,
It only took one sdfee838KKKKsdfee838KKKK minute of veiwing ^8-djdj.n**799dkr;e099 that video to determine that "DNA, the most ;mdkr;e0dkr;e0&)0|e densely packed information in the universe" is just ()*YYhhhxxso3h
()*//hhhxxso3h like our written language!*&*jgeu3fow

You've opened my eyes!!!

post script;
not to be impolite, but I do believe you owe me a single example of the evidence against evolution being swept under the rug.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
Edit - deleted former post as to not add to thread derailment.

Let's talk about evolution!
Click to expand...


With great pleasure!
Somebody mentioned the evolution of the lung and limb and I do not believe it has been answered yet.

The story of the evolution of the lung is actually quite ancient and start in the middle of the silurian, around 420 million years ago.
At that time, Osteichthyan are just on the verge of branching out between the actinopterygians (ray-finned fishes) and the Sarcopterigian (lobe-finned fish).

This is also the time were fish are colonizing fresh waters for the first time. It's a new environment, and quite a rich one at that, so it is a pretty good move, but there is a problem with that...
You see, freshwaters mean shallower bodies of water and these can become quite hot and the ideal gaz law tells us that warmer temperature contain less dissolved oxygen than cooler one. So, the fish were often confronted to oxygenation problem.
One thing they did to compensate that, and contemporary fish are still doing it, is to go to the surface to "gulp" some air. Air above the surface was at a roughly constant level, one significantly higher than in the hot waters.
So the fishies swallowed big gulp of air. This air came into contact with the mucosa of the digestive track and started to diffuse into the blood vessels, after all, the mucosa had already evolved as an optimal area for the diffusion of small molecules from nutrients.
Clearly, that wasn't a very efficient way to do so, but it allowed the fish enrich their blood-stream in sweet, sweet oxygen and that gave them an advantage.

Over time, the digestive track started to invaginate, slowly, into a pocket. This allowed to keep more air at a time, and allowed more gaseous exchange to take place.
Not surprisingly, this invagination took place rather high in the digestive track, just by the heart, in order to provide this very important muscle in oxygen.

As you'd predict, this innovation was selected upon for many generations of fish that stayed in shallower water; mud ponds or swamp environments. Indeed, some probably started to wonder at the surface, maybe to escape predators, or to go look for some food they wouldn't have to share with other fish species, or to move away from a pond that started to dry up and into a safer one. Progressively, their primitive lungs grew and became more vascularized allowing them to stay for longer and longer periods of time.
And, the fish that did best at staying out of the water did better, they could find more food, or avoid predators better (remember the old joke, 'I don't have to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun YOU'; these fish didn't have to stay out of the water all their life, they just had to stay longer than the neighbor and only get back when the big bad predator was no longer hungry...).
Today, several species of catfish have adopted a similar behavior, wandering, sometime for miles at a time, in the night. Some other species, such as the Australian mudfish, are able to bury themselves in the mud and wait for several weeks for the return of the rains...

On the other hand, some among these fish actually moved away from these shallow waters. They did not loose their "proto-lung", however, instead, in these species, the organ took a different evolutionary root and started moving toward a more dorsal position.
There, it allowed the fish to equilibrate himself in the water without having to constantly swim. Not only was it great to save energy, it allowed the fish to become more stealthy, wonderful for ambushing preys.
This was so useful that this swim bladder soon become dominant among bony fishes (the condrichtyan, sharks and rays, and the agnathean don't have it, though, as the organ appeared after their split from the osteichthyan lineage).
After a while, however, one more evolutionary innovation took place in the swim bladder. Rather than going to the surface to gulp air, some fish started reversing the initial gas diffusion process. Rather than a breathing organ where the gas diffused from the organ to the blood stream, the same diffusion laws allowed the gas to diffuse from the blood stream toward the organ. This allowed the fish to adjust its swim bladder without going back to the surface (and also allowed the 'closing' of the swim bladder, hence isolating from pathogens). This is the beginning of the physoclistic fish but, even among them, the organ start, during the embryological stages, as an invagination of the digestive track.
Neil Degrasse Tyson wonders in his funny examples of stupid design video about why the design of our respiratory track is such that we can choke on our food, but there is a very good reason for that and, as usual, the reason is evolutionary.





The story of the limbs is actually quite boring in comparison, I think.
As we have seen, we had fish using their primitive lung and starting to wander in the muddy banks of the swamp they live it.
It is also likely that some species did not actually live the
These fish had most of the features required to make a reasonably efficient land animal, they had ribs, they had a pectoral girdle and they had limbs connecting to this pectoral girdle. More importantly, they had little predators to worry about and only had to out-compete their cousins.
So, the pectoral girdle reinforced itself, and the hyelomedular bone decreased in size, allowing for a better mobility of the neck. More strikingly, the fins reinforced itself, gaining new bones allowing for a better support, and these bones progressively evolved into something strikingly similar to ours:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_limb_lg.jpg

Edited by LashL: 
Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.



Tiktaalik is probably a good example of what the first primitive tetrapod limbs looked like...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edge said:
The theory of evolution is merely a religion
Click to expand...

You can't bring everything down to the level of superstitious claptrap just by giving it the same label as your own superstitious claptrap.

A scientific theory is not a religion, no matter how many times you misapply that label.
 
Notice Davey-boy's silence to all the answers already provided to his "questions" concerning cosmology...and that one question concerning termites.
 
slingblade said:
You can't bring everything down to the level of superstitious claptrap just by giving it the same label as your own superstitious claptrap.

A scientific theory is not a religion, no matter how many times you misapply that label.
Click to expand...
It's curious the disdain towards religion shown by theists like Davey and Edge.

It's as if they know that their religious beliefs are nonsense and are attempting to drag anything they don't like or understand down to their level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom