I've lost my faith to evolution

[John Cuthber]

I've lost faith in genealogy.

 

 

My family tree says that I'm descended from a Dutch guy who lived 350 years ago. But, I live in the U.S.--I'm not Dutch. If Dutch people still exist and I'm supposed to come from Dutch people then how come I'm not Dutch?

 

For example, my ancestor supposedly lived in "New Amsterdam", but I've looked on a map and there is no such place. Genealogists tried to explain how my ancestors were Dutch, but I'm not Dutch so they invented a 'new' place that is kind of Dutch, but not really--so they just called it "New Amsterdam".

 

 

Plus, my Dutch/Not-Dutch ancestor was supposedly named "Jan" one day then suddenly had the name "John" the next day. A person is either a "Jan" or a "John", and they don't change from one to the other overnight.

 

 

My Dutch ancestors are supposedly on my father's side of the family, but an ancestor at the same time on my mother's side of the family was also named "John" and they lived in England. Is this supposed to be coincidence? Why did "Jan" suddenly get the name "John" if he was not related to my English side of the family and didn't know them at all? Genealogists can't explain that.

 

 

Also, no one knows where "Jan" came from. Genealogists can't explain who his mother and father were. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation so there is no way that I could be descended from this person. I'm supposed to believe that he just popped up out of the ground and here I am a dozen generations later?

 

 

Genealogists are wrong. Aliens designed my DNA and impregnated my mother. This explains why British people are still British and Dutch people are still Dutch, but I am neither. It's because I'm not descended from them. I have no ancestors on this planet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

 

LOL

[john13]

I am amazed on how so many people fail to see the holes on evolutionary theory.Living fossils could be considered as proof that evolution does not happen in the way science promotes.Claiming that a crocodile managed to survive for 200 million years almost unchanged because he always lived on the same ecological nisce(despite mass extinctions)is nothing more than a belief.We've never seen any specie evolving a new trait with steady evolution.Evolution theory is based on the fossils that show evolution from ape to man but science has proved that Neaderthals were different specie compared to Humans so actually even here we have problems.Even more important is how evolution could have started.Evolutionists like to separate Abiogenesis from evolution to try to cover the fact that evolution couldnt have started with a naturalistic way.We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant

[ydoaPs]

I am amazed on how so many people fail to see the holes on evolutionary theory.Living fossils could be considered as proof that evolution does not happen in the way science promotes.

You don't seem to even know how science says evolution happens.

 

 

We've never seen any specie evolving a new trait with steady evolution.

Really? Not even the ability to digest nylon(a man made substance)?

[Phi for All]

We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.

We haven't observed it so it's impossible?! This is unbelievably intellectually dishonest. Even as a speculation this lacks basic logic.

[StringJunky]

.We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant

 

How can we observe a process which we, as observant humans, are an integral and belated part of in the evolutionary timeline and for which the required initial conditions for an emergence to occur seem to have long since gone?

[ydoaPs]

We haven't observed it so it's impossible?! This is unbelievably intellectually dishonest. Even as a speculation this lacks basic logic.

No, I like it. We haven't observed God, so the concept of the deity is impossible.

[Sisyphus]

You did not observe your own conception, therefore it was impossible, therefore you don't exist.

 

"But surely you can infer..."

 

Sorry, can't hear you if you don't exist.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am amazed on how so many people fail to see the holes on evolutionary theory.Living fossils could be considered as proof that evolution does not happen in the way science promotes.Claiming that a crocodile managed to survive for 200 million years almost unchanged because he always lived on the same ecological nisce(despite mass extinctions)is nothing more than a belief.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

 

We've never seen any specie evolving a new trait with steady evolution.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB920.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

 

Evolution theory is based on the fossils that show evolution from ape to man

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

 

but science has proved that Neaderthals were different specie compared to Humans so actually even here we have problems.

1. Well, evolution says one species will evolve into something different, so what's the problem?
   
2. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Even more important is how evolution could have started.Evolutionists like to separate Abiogenesis from evolution to try to cover the fact that evolution couldnt have started with a naturalistic way.We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928023.900-living-oil-droplets-from-the-dawn-of-life.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

 

There is a great deal of promising abiogenesis research. You should look into it.

[A Tripolation]

We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant.

 

Christian to "almost-certainly-Christian". Who aided in the creation of our God? What being created this omnipotent and irreducibly-complex entity? Nowhere in the Bible does it say, so you can't use the sacred texts. Using this argument is futile. All it takes is that one question to tear down your entire idea.

[Edtharan]

I am amazed on how so many people fail to see the holes on evolutionary theory.

 

For a start, evolution does not need biology. There is evolution and then there is biological evolution. Biological evolution is just one implementation of evolution.

 

Evolution is technically a process, and more specifically an algorithm. The existence of the process and algorithm of evolution is not in doubt, it has been proved mathematically, and, just like all other mathematical proof, if it has been proven mathematically, then we have a 100% certainty of its existence.

 

So, when talking about evolution like this we are really talking about whether it is valid to consider that the algorithm of evolution applies to biological systems.

 

For the process of evolution to be validly applied to a system the system needs to have certain properties and processes that go on in it. These are:

 

1) Replication of packets of information with variation

2) Selection of these packets due to a criteria

 

Now, it is actually trivial to write a computer program that has these properties and processes and such programs are in wide spread use (you could not be reading this post without them - from the design of the circuits of your computer to the way the internet operates are all applications of the evolutionary algorithm in operation), but do biological systems demonstrate this?

 

Do biological systems replicate with variation? Yes, genetics has proven this occurs.

 

Do selection pressures apply to biological systems? Yes, extinctions and invasive species also prove this.

 

So we have now proven that biological systems have the requierments for evolution to occur, and thus it would take direct intervention for it not to occur.

 

Living fossils could be considered as proof that evolution does not happen in the way science promotes. Claiming that a crocodile managed to survive for 200 million years almost unchanged because he always lived on the same ecological nisce(despite mass extinctions)is nothing more than a belief.

Actually evolutionary theory states that this is perfectly possible. Remember it is survival of the fittest.

 

So over time a species will evolve to become very good at surviving in a particular ecological niche. But then if that niche does not change, then why would that organism go extinct? The only reason that an organism goes extinct is if the niche they are in changes or some other organism becomes more fit in that niche.

 

So your criticism actually contains its own disproof. You criticism is that crocodiles have evolved to be good at their particular niche, but then when that niche doesn't change and no organism becomes more fit than them for that niche you have shock that they didn't go extinct.

 

We've never seen any specie evolving a new trait with steady evolution.

Actually there have been plenty of examples of this, moths, fruit flies, bacteria, etc. This claim that there has been no examples is pure misinformation put out by those that don't want you to know that such evidence exists.

 

Evolution theory is based on the fossils that show evolution from ape to man but science has proved that Neaderthals were different specie compared to Humans so actually even here we have problems.

Do you have cousins? If you do then this is what Neanderthal is to humans. So, would you consider the existence of your cousins to be proof that you never had a grandmother? No not at all, it is actually proof that you had one.

 

The definition of a cousin is that your parents and theirs were siblings, that is they shared the same parents (your grandparents).

 

Now to determine if someone is your cousin, you can use DNA to trace family history. You can also use objects and other persistent evidence to prove a shared family connection. This has been done for Neanderthal and shows that they are a cousin species to us.

 

And, just as the existence of your cousin proves you had a shared grandparent, so too does Neanderthal (and the accompanying DNA, archaeological and fossil evidence) show that we shared a common ancestor, a "grandparent species" if you will.

 

When you look at further evidence (DNA, archaeological and fossil evidence) we can do this for other species (essentially second cousin species and so forth) and we can trace this back to the point where apes and us share a common "great-great-great (with many more greats) grandparent species".

 

Even more important is how evolution could have started.Evolutionists like to separate Abiogenesis from evolution to try to cover the fact that evolution couldnt have started with a naturalistic way.

Evolution is a process, thus once the components properties and processes needed for it to occur exist, then it too will exist. Evolution is just a description of a general class of processes that we have observed occur in many different types of systems (from living organism, to computer programs). So the existence of evolution is in no way in doubt.

 

As for Abiogenesis: I have covered this in other threads, but I will repeat it here as it has been a while since I posted about it.

 

The first thing to note is that there has never been observed or the need for the existence of something called: Élan Vital. This was a theory put out a long time ago that living things had some substance or property that made them different from non living things.

 

Many bad science fiction stories use the elan vital as a story element and thus this can propogate the beliefs that it exists. But remember science fiction is just Fiction.

 

Think of it like this: Your computer keyboard has all the letters and symbols (and more) that Shakespeare use to write all his works, but it is only the arrangement of them that makes Shakespeare so great, there is no magical substance in the keyboard that turns a bunch of letters and symbols into a great work of art, it is just the arrangement.

 

Thus it is with living systems. All the chemicals and the elements they are made up from in living organisms are exactly the same as those in non living systems. It is only the arrangement that is important.

 

We know that certain chemicals behave in certain ways due to the way the elements in them behave. For example Lipids, have one end that is attracted to water and one end that is repelled by water. This property of lipids, when immersed into water causes them to align with their water repellent ends together and the water attractive ends pointing away form each other.

 

When there is enough of them this causes them to form what is called a bi-layer. That is a membrane where all the water repellent ends clump together to form a sheet which eventually wraps around and joins up to itself into a small sphere (called a vesicle). You are probably very familiar with this: the foam you get with soap is exactly this effect (soap is typically made from lipids).

 

Lipids are extremely common. They can be formed from biological or even non biological processes, they have even found evidence that lipids can be found in molecular clouds in space (remeasurement of supernova that are forming into new stars and solar systems), and even on comets and asteroids. They are everywhere.

 

Another type of chemical I need to talk about is Nucleotides (these too are common and have been detected on comets). There are many types of Nucleotides, a couple that you would be familiar with are Deoxyribonucleic Nucleation Acid (DNA) and Ribonucleic Acid (RNA).

 

One that you might not be familiar with is: Phosphoramidate Deoxyribonucleic Nucleation Acid. Like regular DNA, this comes is several types that pair bond (just like DNA) and it can spontaneously form polymer chains. Also, like DNA the pair bond is able to be broken apart by heat.

 

Now, with the Lipids, the bi-layer is not a solid sheet, but has small holes (pores) in it between the lipid molecules that will allow small molecules to pass through. Phosphoramidate DNA monomers are small enough to pass through, but Phosphoramidate DNA polymers are not.

 

So if Phosphoramidate DNA monomers polymerise inside a lipid vesicle they can't get out. This means that lipid vesicles will accumulate Phosphoramidate DNA polymer chains inside themselves.

 

This is not life, but it does seem to resemble life. We have lipid vesicles (our cells are made from lipids and are essentially a lipid vesicle), and there is chains of pair bonded nucleotides inside them.

 

But as far as this goes they can't self replicate. But this does not mean they can't replicate. If the vesicle experiences a cycle of heating and cooling, such as set up by a convection current near a underwater volcanic vent, or in a rock pool heated by the sun and cooled at night, then the Phosphoramidate DNA pair bonds will break and then be allowed to reform, and as new nucleotide monomers can enter the vesicle, this will cause the nucleotide polymer chain to duplicate (but it won't likely be a perfect duplication - I'll get to this in a bit).

 

Lipid vesicles can also duplicate too. Lipid vesicles will integrate any free lipids it encounters into itself, and, also incorporate lipids from other vesicles if there is a difference in osmotic pressure (the more nucleotide in the vesicle the greater the osmotic pressure). This causes the lipid vesicle to grow, and large lipid vesicles can be split by purely mechanical forces (eg: hitting rocks, or just lathering soap).

 

When lipid vesicles do this the contents of the vesicle don't spill out. Which means the nucleotides inside don't escape.

 

To review what is going on here:

 

We have vesicles that contain and accumulate nucleotide polymer, pair bonded chains that through thermal variation can cause these polymer chains to duplicate, and through mechanical forces the vesicle can break into two or more independent vesicles without spilling its contents out.

 

But, then the nucleotide polymers in these new vesicles will also duplicate through thermal variation too.

 

This is not life, but it is assisted replication (assisted through natural forces - temperature variations and collisions). But, as this replication is not perfect, there will be variations, so any variation that increases the ease that this system can be replicated, such as reactions that eliminate the need for an assisted step (such as the ability to produce lipids internally and not need to encounter them in the outside environment to gain them) will lead that vesicle to end up replicating faster than others.

 

Now, because vesicles can steal lipids from each other, the vesicles that do this better, can reduce the number of vesicles that are poor at doing this, and thus we now have competition and a selection effect.

 

Remeber eariler that I said all you need for evolution is replication with variation and selection. These non-living (that is important) chemical and physical reaction systems show evolution.

 

Now there are small steps that can be taken from this system to reach a fully self replicating systems (eg: producing lipids, producing monomer, chemical breaking of the pair bonds rather than thermal breaking of the pair bonds, etc). And as each is independent, the existence (or not)of this in one system has no effect on the likely occurrence of another one appearing. However, as each gives an advantage then any system that developed one will quickly dominate the population.

 

This will lead to a system which, by all criteria we have, would be considered alive. This takes us from basic chemistry and physics to a living system, and also show the emergence of evolution as well.

 

To now say that you can't imagine that such a development is now invalid. This system would cause non living systems to develop into living systems. And, it does not require anything beyond known physics and chemistry. It is a "naturalistic way" that evolution and life can get started. Thus your claim has been invlaidated.

 

Of course, life might not have started this way, it could have started a different way, or yes, it could have been started by a creator being, but, it is a naturalistic way that it could have got started. More so, all these steps have been confirmed in lab experiments, so we know that the processes I have described here really do work as I have described here.

 

See this for more information: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/c/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg

 

And here is the Wikipedia link to the scientist that did these experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_W._Szostak

 

We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant

As the above shows, this is false.

 

Also evolutionists are not interested in Abiogenesis just as builders are not interesting in mining. Abiogenesis is about how a system can get to the point it can be considered alive, and biological evolution is concerned about what happens, give that living system already exist.

 

As there are scientists actively studying Abiogenesis. Evolutionists don't need to study it as it is already being studied.