Problems With Evolution

[herme3]

I have found an excellent video that is very scientific, yet it provides evidence against evolution. If you watch this video, you will see that the people who created it have an excellent understanding of evolution. The video starts by explaining the theory in great detail, and then it mentions lots of problems with the theory.

 

Here is the link to the video: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

 

Just click where the moving text says, "Watch Video Here" and then select your connection speed. I think you all will be impressed with how much evidence they provide.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Right, I don't have headphones so I can't listen to it, but I suggest you go to http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/ to cleanse yourself of creationist thoughts.

[ydoaPs]

I have found an excellent video that is very scientific, yet it provides evidence against evolution. If you watch this video, you will see that the people who created it have an excellent understanding of evolution.

it's from christiananswers.net, so it's very unlikely from what i've seen of their site. unfortunately, i can't watch the video because my sound doesn't work, atm.

 

The video starts by explaining the theory in great detail, and then it mentions lots of problems with the theory.

i suspect that it is describing the creationist strawman of evolution

 

 

go to talkorigins and check everything they supposedly found wrong. i have a feeling it's all covered there.

[herme3]

it's from christiananswers.net' date=' so it's very unlikely from what i've seen of their site. unfortunately, i can't watch the video because my sound doesn't work, atm.

 

i suspect that it is describing the creationist strawman of evolution[/quote']

 

No, this video is extremely detailed. It talks about all the evidence you provided that supports evolution, then it provides scientific evidence against it. You should really find a way to watch this.

[ydoaPs]

i suspect every bit of "evidence" against evolution they provide is covered here

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, this video is extremely detailed. It talks about all the evidence you provided that supports evolution, then it provides scientific evidence against it. You should really find a way to watch this.

"Scientific evidence"? Please take a look at the TalkOrigins link for an index of creationist claims and why they're wrong, and then reconsider.

 

I note, for example, that one of their chapters includes "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" in its title, which I presume means it's trying to convince you that the big bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. But, that is simply a misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

 

I sincerely doubt that video brings up any topics that have not been previously discussed here, but I will wait until I can grab some headphones to pass serious judgement.

[silkworm]

I do agree that it is well produced, and I watched the introduction and I was impressed with their lack of misrepresentation, in the first chapter specifically. It stayed very basic, but I can't make any complaints on Chapter 1.

 

So, I decided to keep watching and I fast forwarded to Chapter 14 "More Problems," that's where the wheels fell off.

 

It starts out with a Biblical assumption:

 

"In Genesis it says God created all creatures of their own kind to fill the Earth, and that's exactly what we see."

 

Who's to say? But that's fine. I can accept that. I'll grant the producer's a mulligan there, in good faith because I'm rooting for a valid argument. But then this happened.

 

"If as evolutionists claim a reptile evolved into a bird who would the first bird mate with?"

 

This is a charming question but it shows complete ignorance of a basic understanding of evolution. The line of reptiles that evolved into birds would mate with each other, and the first of that line would mate with its own species, of reptiles from which it came and was still part of before isolation among those with similar traits brings forth speciation, as its traits become more numerous among their population. Natural selection acts upon the individual, evolution acts upon a population. A population of reptiles evolved into a birds. They mate with each other. It's not that suddenly a reptile gave birth to a bird, and it's not that a reptile suddenly gave birth to a half-bird/half-reptile as it continues to claim.

 

"Furthermore, all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing or half a beak?"

 

It seems I have to say this alot, but I'll say it again. A transitional species from A to B is not equal to A+B/2. There are variations among all populations and these variations are constantly being tested by nature. Half of what? Half of the sum of variation? It makes no sense. It's the expression of a trait. We're all in transition, we're in transition right now. All living things are in transition.

 

I gave it a shot, herme3, and I did so in good faith. But this lack of a basic understanding of evolution was a deal breaker. I'm sorry. I don't know if they don't know, or if they're purpously misrepresenting good science to make their arguments make more sense. Either way, I'm forced to shut it off.

[herme3]

i suspect every bit of "evidence" against evolution they provide is covered here

 

 

I have been comparing some of the information from the video with the information on TalkOrigins. The video mentions some major evidence against evolution that isn't on TalkOrigins. There are also some responses on TalkOrigins that do not adequately cover many of the points made in the video.

 

You really need to watch this video before you can criticize it. Unlike many of the other creationist materials you might have seen, this video was created for evolutionists. The people who created this video understand the theory, and they've scientifically found flaws in the theory.

 

So, I decided to keep watching and I fast forwarded to Chapter 14 more problems, that's where the wheels fell off.

 

This video makes a very slow transition between evolution and creationism. You need to watch the whole video from start to finish before you can start arguing with it. Even if you choose not to believe the creationism evidence near the end, how can you argue with all the evidence against evolution they make throughout the entire video? I looked, and a lot of this stuff just isn't on the TalkOrigins web site.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This video makes a very slow transition between evolution and creationism. You need to watch the whole video from start to finish before you can start arguing with it. Even if you choose not to believe the creationism evidence near the end, how can you argue with all the evidence against evolution they make throughout the entire video? I looked, and a lot of this stuff just isn't on the TalkOrigins web site.

That doesn't make his particular points any less valid.

 

I will watch the video as soon as I can and see what I think.

[silkworm]

This video makes a very slow transition between evolution and creationism. You need to watch the whole video from start to finish before you can start arguing with it. Even if you choose not to believe the creationism evidence near the end, how can you argue with all the evidence against evolution they make throughout the entire video? I looked, and a lot of this stuff just isn't on the TalkOrigins web site.

 

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The statements that I mentioned are so flawed and show such an ignorance to a BASIC UNDERSTANDING of EVOLUTION that it was an END GAME. Those arguments are so horrible that they show that there will be nothing valid in the entire video against evolution. There they have MISREPRESENTED EVOLUTION in order to ARGUE with THEIR OWN MISREPRESENTATION. How do they expect to argue with the Theory of Evolution without understanding its processes?

 

I can't as a student of science condone anything that bad. If you talk to them and tell them to delete Chapter 14, and they DO, I will look further. Until then, there is absolutely no point, because that argument is such a misrepresentation of science that it is both vulgar and insulting.

 

I watched it in good faith, and I was severely disappointed with their misrepresentation. You can't tell me it has anything to do with the transition the video is making. If you say either of those things at any point, it shows you have no idea what happens in evolution.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm just telling you the truth.

[jeskill]

Yeah, it's slick, but doesn't give any new insights. It's also innaccurate and misleading. For example, it talks about how "adaptation" can occur within "kinds" due to DNA mutations and natural selection but evolution does not occur. What? Basically, evolution occurs, but it doesn't occur.

[jeskill]

I have been comparing some of the information from the video with the information on TalkOrigins. The video mentions some major evidence against evolution that isn't on TalkOrigins. There are also some responses on TalkOrigins that do not adequately cover many of the points made in the video.

 

Which specific evidence are you talking about?

[Hades]

omg herme, thanks. WHEW. i was really sweating that one along with the rest of the uncertain scientific community. And to think, the conclusive evidence youre using to infer a god is real is right there on the internet! thanks for solving that one. now if u can get on why theyre making a sequel to old school thatd just be greeeat thanks.

[PhDP]

"If as evolutionists claim a reptile evolved into a bird who would the first bird mate with?"

 

That's incredible. I really can't believe they don't know they're lying and misleading the public. Also, it's quite disturbing when they are misquoting evolutionist (like A.F.Fisher and R.Lewontin) to prove their point, I would certainly not like to see my name attached to lunatics just because I, as a scientist, have the right (perhaps even the duty) to be critical. And anyway, A.F.Fisher was not even critical, he was only saying we don't know how life began and how the major phyla started out because of our lack of information, not because evolution has failed as a theory.

 

I'm very curious to know how many creationists really understand evolution. There's some creationists here on the forum, I would like to know how many of them really took the time to read a book of evolutionary biology.

 

If you watch this video, you will see that the people who created it have an excellent understanding of evolution.

 

If you watch this video and know nothing about evolution, then you might possibly think the people who created it have an excellent understanding of evolution.

[jeskill]

Originally Posted by jeskill

"If as evolutionists claim a reptile evolved into a bird who would the first bird mate with?"

I think this was actually posted by silkworm. That is indeed a silly question.

 

If you watch this video and know nothing about evolution, then you might possibly think the people who created it have an excellent understanding of evolution.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right on this one.

 

Edit to add this picture:

Probably not COMPLETELY on topic, but interesting nonetheless. This was sent to me by my bf. It's a poster from the Turkish Creationist Museum. The blood is a nice touch.

[silkworm]

I think this was actually posted by silkworm. That is indeed a silly question.

 

I'd never say anything like that, I was quoting the video.

 

On a sidenote, that is an interesting poster. Anytime I attend a creation science meeting I'm asked to defend Hitler. At the last one, the speaker said, "I don't know why Hitler didn't get Charles Darwin to write the foreword to Mein Kampf." To which my friend yelled, "HE WAS LONG DEAD!"

 

Although I can see a very poor argument formed for Darwin's Natural Selection somehow fueling the Third Reich, and may I emphasize a very very poor argument and that Darwin had nothing at all to do with the Third Reich, how the hell could you say it was fuel for communism? I thought Marx was the wrong guy being blamed for that.

 

It's odd that you don't see Bert on that poster. What are those leopards doing? I can't tell.

[herme3]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The statements that I mentioned are so flawed and show such an ignorance to a BASIC UNDERSTANDING of EVOLUTION that it was an END GAME. Those arguments are so horrible that they show that there will be nothing valid in the entire video against evolution. There they have MISREPRESENTED EVOLUTION in order to ARGUE with THEIR OWN MISREPRESENTATION. How do they expect to argue with the Theory of Evolution without understanding its processes?

 

If you watched the first several chapters, you will see how advanced their knowledge of evolution is. You could easily take parts of this video and make your own video that could teach the theory of evolution.

 

I can't as a student of science condone anything that bad. If you talk to them and tell them to delete Chapter 14, and they DO, I will look further. Until then, there is absolutely no point, because that argument is such a misrepresentation of science that it is both vulgar and insulting.

 

There are some points in the video that I don't agree with. For example, I did think it was odd when they asked who the first bird would mate with. However, you must remember that one person didn't sit down and write all of this. Throughout the whole video, they interviewed tons of different scientists, including many biologists. Just because some of them might be wrong doesn't mean that all of them are wrong.

 

I think I understand some of the points they make in Chapter 14. Before you read what I'm about to say, let me make a disclaimer. I want to make it clear that I had nothing to do with the creation of this video, and what I'm about to say did not come from the information in this video.

 

In other words, if I say something totally stupid, don't use it as evidence against the video.

 

When they say, "all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing..." I don't think they actually mean any type of animal suddenly being born with half a wing. I think they are referring to the development of a wing over many generations. Why would natural selection cause a wing to develop? It wouldn't give an organism any advantage until the wing is developed enough to fly. Therefore, why would it continue to develop when it isn't giving any advantage to the animal? I think that might be what they were asking in the video, but that is just my interpretation.

[jeskill]

If you watched the first several chapters' date=' you will see how advanced their knowledge of evolution is. You could easily take parts of this video and make your own video that could teach the theory of evolution.

[/quote']

Are you kidding me? Just because they show flashy videos of DNA does not mean they know what they're talking about.

 

First problem with this show: It doesn't define what evolution is and what it isn't. This is a major problem because it's obvious that they are not using the word "evolution" correctly. Any first year university student (at least!) should be able to pick that up.

 

Second problem: It lumps biological evolution together with the big bang theory, angiogenesis and a bunch of other unrelated scientific hypotheses and uses glib "evidence" to refute ALL at one time. This evidence does not hold up to scrutiny. The second law of thermodynamics part is a particularly obvious example.

 

Third problem: Contrary to what you stated in a previous post, this show is not detailed. It takes a cursory glance at a bunch of topics, misrepresents them and then uses that misrepresentation to back their ideology.

 

This was obviously not made for "scientists". Anyone who's taken any course in evolutionary biology should be able to refute this.

 

Silkworm, I knew you were quoting the video, that's why I say "posted" and not "written".

 

The leopards are attacking a gazelle. Evil leopards!

The problem I have with this poster is that the theory of natural selection is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral. IOW, natural selection doesn't tell you how it ought to be, it just an explanation of what's going on.

Moreover, I fail to see how natural selection is related to fascism and communism, other then the lack of religion in all three.

 

I also find the pictures in the background offensive.

 

I'm going to Turkey for three weeks in May/June and I hope to visit this museum.

[ydoaPs]

I have been comparing some of the information from the video with the information on TalkOrigins. The video mentions some major evidence against evolution that isn't on TalkOrigins.

could you point to some specific evidence against evolution that isn't addressed on talkorigins?

[bjaminwood]

When they say, "all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing..." I don't think they actually mean any type of animal suddenly being born with half a wing. I think they are referring to the development of a wing over many generations. Why would natural selection cause a wing to develop? It wouldn't give an organism any advantage until the wing is developed enough to fly. Therefore, why would it continue to develop when it isn't giving any advantage to the animal? I think that might be what they were asking in the video, but that is just my interpretation.

 

That is exactly what they are saying

[ydoaPs]

When they say' date=' "all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing..." I don't think they actually mean any type of animal suddenly being born with half a wing. I think they are referring to the development of a wing over many generations. Why would natural selection cause a wing to develop? It wouldn't give an organism any advantage until the wing is developed enough to fly. Therefore, why would it continue to develop when it isn't giving any advantage to the animal? I think that might be what they were asking in the video, but that is just my interpretation.[/quote'']That is exactly what they are saying

 

what use is half a wing? lets ask our good friend Mr. Dawkins

 

What use is half a wing? How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough' date=' and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints. From here, there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings. Obviously there are distances that could not have been jubped by the earliest animals with proto-wings. Equally obviously, for [i']any[/i] degree of smallness or crudeness of ancestral air-catching surfaces, there must be some distance, however short, which can be jumped with the flap and which cannot be jumped without the flap.

 

Or, if prototype wingflaps worked to break the animal's fall, you cannot say 'Below a certain size the flaps would have been no use at all'. Once again, it doesn't matter how small and un-winglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height, but would just survive if it fell from a slightly lower height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight that improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then facour slight, prototype wingflaps. When these small wingflaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.

 

There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every stage in the continuum. There are frogs that glide with big webs between their toes, tree-snakes with flattened bodies that catch the air, lizards with flaps along their bodies; and several different kinds of mammals that glide with membranes stretched between their limbs, showing us the kind of way bats must have got their start. Contrary to the creationist literature, not only are animals with 'half a wing' common, so are animals with a quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, and so on. The idea of a flying continuum becoes even more persuasive when we remember that very small animals tend to float gently in the air, whatever their shape. The reason this is persuasive is that there is an infinitesimally graded continuum from small to large.

[Phi for All]

When they say, "all intermediate forms would be fatal. What good is half a wing..." I don't think they actually mean any type of animal suddenly being born with half a wing. I think they are referring to the development of a wing over many generations. Why would natural selection cause a wing to develop? It wouldn't give an organism any advantage until the wing is developed enough to fly. Therefore, why would it continue to develop when it isn't giving any advantage to the animal? I think that might be what they were asking in the video, but that is just my interpretation.

Even flapping half a wing might help you run a little faster to avoid a predator. Isn't this advantage enough to continue the development? Ever try to catch a chicken?

 

They are using the image of a bird with half-formed wings trying to fly at height to make it seem absurd and get their point across about all intermediate forms being fatal. Do you think flight is a spontaneous thing or would flapping and hopping probably be an intermediate step that might be advantageous?

[Dak]

Thought id give the death to creationism forum a go.

 

commentry on the documentary

 

My appologies that it's so long... didn't notice how much i was wrighting till i'd written it.

[herme3]

Dak, you bring up some very interesting points in your post. I don't have enough knowledge about all of this to judge whether you are correct, or if the video is correct. You might want to e-mail ChristianAnswers and see what their response is to your statements.

 

It is interesting how you try to separate evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang. I think the reason the video groups them together is because creationism provides a beginning of everything. Evolution doesn't. However, when people say that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't have a beginning, most of them point to these other two theories. I think that evolutionists probably started the connection between these theories, not creationists.

 

Here is my interpretation from some of the key chapters I watched in this video:

 

Chapter 6-See what they say about Spontaneous Generation. They said some interesting things about Urey’s and Miller’s experiment. They talked about how their experiment was nothing like the original conditions on Earth when they created amino acids. TalkOrigins claims that there was little or no oxygen on Earth when life first started. However, this video says that evidence shows there was. Overall, this is a really good Chapter. However, I’m sure all of you will mention the man at the end who was talking about the jar of peanut butter. I know that was a little silly and far from scientific, but you have to remember that was only one person out of the many scientists who helped put this video together.

 

Chapter 7-It says that even if amino acids could be naturally created, it would be nearly impossible for them to become proteins. It said the chance of this happening is 10^65. They continue to say that even if this somehow did happen, the probability would be even lower for these proteins to become a simple form of life. Also, Chapter 7 says that it would be impossible to create one cell from evolution because so many parts would need to be created at the same time.

 

Chapter 8-It talks about how evolutionists try to make bacteria seem very simple. Here they spend some time talking about how complex bacteria really are. They say it would be easier to naturally go from bacteria to humans than go from chemicals to bacteria. Yet, going from chemicals to bacteria is not something that evolutionists talk about very much.

 

Chapter 10-Charles Darwin himself found evidence against evolution! Darwin admitted that if evolution was true there should many fossils that should exist. However, none of these fossils have been found.

 

Chapter 12-They explain how there is no link between humans and apes. They said that evolutionists have tried to create this link without any real scientific evidence!

 

Chapter 13-Evolutionists always make a big deal about how similar Human DNA is to Chimpanzee DNA. This shows that Human DNA is similar to lots of other DNA, so that really doesn’t mean that Humans are closely related to Chimpanzees.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is interesting how you try to separate evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang. I think the reason the video groups them together is because creationism provides a beginning of everything. Evolution doesn't. However, when people say that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't have a beginning, most of them point to these other two theories. I think that evolutionists probably started the connection between these theories, not creationists.

Evolution is part of the scientific framework, and so is the big bang theory. Hence, creationists throw them together.

 

Chapter 6-See what they say about Spontaneous Generation. They said some interesting things about Urey’s and Miller’s experiment. They talked about how their experiment was nothing like the original conditions on Earth when they created amino acids. TalkOrigins claims that there was little or no oxygen on Earth when life first started. However, this video says that evidence shows there was. Overall, this is a really good Chapter. However, I’m sure all of you will mention the man at the end who was talking about the jar of peanut butter. I know that was a little silly and far from scientific, but you have to remember that was only one person out of the many scientists who helped put this video together.

Does the video provide this evidence? Or references?

 

Chapter 7-It says that even if amino acids could be naturally created, it would be nearly impossible for them to become proteins. It said the chance of this happening is 10^65. They continue to say that even if this somehow did happen, the probability would be even lower for these proteins to become a simple form of life. Also, Chapter 7 says that it would be impossible to create one cell from evolution because so many parts would need to be created at the same time.

An atmosphere of C02, nitrogen and water vapor can produce amino acids (see here). Frankly, the probability things don't work. And this: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

Chapter 8-It talks about how evolutionists try to make bacteria seem very simple. Here they spend some time talking about how complex bacteria really are. They say it would be easier to naturally go from bacteria to humans than go from chemicals to bacteria. Yet, going from chemicals to bacteria is not something that evolutionists talk about very much.

Nobody said the first cells were as complex as bacteria:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

 

Chapter 10-Charles Darwin himself found evidence against evolution! Darwin admitted that if evolution was true there should many fossils that should exist. However, none of these fossils have been found.

Yet.

 

Although we do have a nice collection of transitional fossils.

 

Chapter 12-They explain how there is no link between humans and apes. They said that evolutionists have tried to create this link without any real scientific evidence!

I'll have to listen to this one.

 

Chapter 13-Evolutionists always make a big deal about how similar Human DNA is to Chimpanzee DNA. This shows that Human DNA is similar to lots of other DNA, so that really doesn’t mean that Humans are closely related to Chimpanzees.

Humans and chimpanzees are about 98% identical in DNA. We are similar to many other species (simply because we share a lot of things, like skin/hair/eyes/etc. in common) in terms of DNA, but none as much as apes.