The Evolutionist Error

[moses2792796]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge. Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine, to disprove the existence of the latter. This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times, many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance. It is now that I shall use the example of man as promised, those who know of the realm of being would never assume man to be a purely physical being, just as they would never assume reality to exist only as a manifestation without essence. Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine. This is inherent in animals, although this is the key difference between man and animal. Man is capable of an awareness of this, while animals (with a small degree of doubt) are not.

To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself. This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature. The divine consciousness is eternal and unaffected by how it manifests, in this case, evolution. Evolution was not the cause of man, as many evolutionists would have you believe, man preceded evolution.

[Goat]

Many do not contest the issue of micro evolution.

However, how many can produce many examples of Macro evolution occurring today?

I just love it when Christians trap themselves with their own arguments. I just love the looks on their faces when you say "there is no difference between micro and macroevolution", and they've already conceded that microevolution occurs!

I read in Scientific American the other day that some researchers are on the verge of observing a speciation event in some kind of dragonfly. Would that help convince our skeptic?

No, because the dragon fly is still a dragon fly, and not a mouse.

[Openmind]

No, because the dragon fly is still a dragon fly, and not a mouse.

To those who cannot understand advanced genetics (myself at the moment), outward appearances are all that matters, I suppose

I have a query that might be helpful. Let's say that A, B and C are three different animals. Let us say that A and B are phenotypically similar (they appear similar), Such as...a bilby and a rabbit. Does anyone here know of another animal, C, that appears drastically different to the bilby, yet is genetically closer related to the bilby, than the rabbit is to the bilby? I hope this was not too confusing.

I chose the bilby because it is an Australian native animal, and Australia has been isolated for many years with a rather unique evolutionary path. So, I reason that something like a kangaroo may be more closely related to the bilby than a rabbit. I don't know for sure, and would appreciate help in finding out.

This would demonstrate that in evolutionary terms, genes are much more important than looks, in determining when large changes have taken place! Now this could apply to any trio of animals. I think I read somewhere that horses are more related to hippos than they are to zebras. This is what I'm getting at.

[The Duke of Vandals]

No, because the dragon fly is still a dragon fly, and not a mouse.

You, like many others who don't yet understand evolution, find it challenging to see the process involved. To be sure, evolution is a very slow process that takes place over millions of years with subtle changes building over time.

Theists like to look at the beginning point and the end point and declare that one can never be reached from the other.

This is a potential criticism of any gradual process. How can a mountain form from a flat plane? How could we go from carrying pocket calculators to blackberries in less than 25 years?

An analogy I like to use for the pace of evolution is aging. An infant goes from weighing perhaps 6 to 8 pounds at birth to becoming 20 times that weight. The most coordinated olympic athletes all began life as struggling newborns unable to hold their heads up or use tools. If we look at just the beginning point (infant) and the end point (adulthood), it's tempting to ask, "How could an infant become an adult?"

We both know the answer: subtle changes over time.

Evolution is the same way. Subtle changes over time. Demanding a dragonfly give birth to a mouse is a little like implying that an human should go to sleep as an infant and wake up 8 hours later as a teen-ager... and then concluding that "aging doesn't happen because infants don't become teen agers overnight".

Overall, I'm disapointed in and insulted by your argument. The non-theists on this site bend over backwards to learn about the bible so to better argue against it. You won't catch any of the atheists referring to the time "moses met up with Jesus to fight the Aztecs"**. If you encountered such an argument, you'd point out how ludicrous it is and move on. The arguments you've presented here are every bit as laughable as a Moses/Jesus meetup, yet you seem to believe they're a) convincing and b) relevant in spite of our explanations. It tells me you're either unwilling or unable to reciprocate the courtesy we show you. It tells me you're uninterested in actually learning about evolution.

That's no way to conduct yourself.







** Unless you're dealing with a Mormon.

[Goat]

No, because the dragon fly is still a dragon fly, and not a mouse.

You, like many others who don't yet understand evolution, find it challenging to see the process involved. To be sure, evolution is a very slow process that takes place over millions of years with subtle changes building over time.

FYI >> I was being factious. I was just repeating the story line that is used so often in response to 'I don't know how they can deny the fact of evolution'.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Heh. I missed that you wrote that. I have been gone for a while. Thought you were someone else.

[Revelations won]

Evolution ?

You speak in terms of macro-evolution as a fact of life.

Many single celled forms of life exist.

Where is your evidence of any 2, 3, 4 or 5 cell life forms ?

[McCulloch]

Evolution ?

You speak in terms of macro-evolution as a fact of life.

Many single celled forms of life exist.

Where is your evidence of any 2, 3, 4 or 5 cell life forms ?

Why should they? The progression is from single celled life forms to colonies of single celled life forms to multi-celled life forms where the cells are undifferentiated to multi-celled life forms where the cells are differentiated.

[Revelations won]

From this answer as I understand it, you admit that there are no 2,3,4 or 5 cell life forms.

Your claim apparently is that this evolution just jumped from 1 cell to 6 cell life forms.

Why did your so called cluster cells form any life forms in category 2 thru 5?

Why wait until 6 cells to be formed into a different life form?

Why did this change happen to require only 6 cells or higher?

Why not 2 or 5?

It should be just as logical for a one cell life form to evolve to a 2 cell life form.

[Furrowed Brow]

From this answer as I understand it, you admit that there are no 2,3,4 or 5 cell life forms.

No. Theory just says they are not necessary.

]Your claim apparently is that this evolution just jumped from 1 cell to 6 cell life forms.

No. The theory allows for the possibilty of a bigger jump than that.

Why did your so called cluster cells form any life forms in category 2 thru 5?

Why wait until 6 cells to be formed into a different life form?

Why did this change happen to require only 6 cells or higher?

Why not 2 or 5?

You can have a “cluster” of two cells, or three cells etc. However we are talking microbes here. The question then surrounds the ready supply of single cells that can signal to one another, and what advantages this gives clusters of signalling cells.

It should be just as logical for a one cell life form to evolve to a 2 cell life form.

But where’s the rule that says biology has to follow simplistic logic? The size of cellular clusters selected for by nature does not have to follow 1, 2 ,3 ,4 , 5 logic. If a 2 cell organisms can do something advantageous to its survival that a one cell organism cannot then we should be looking for 2 cell organisms. If however 2 cells is a disadvantage, then they will be hard to find if they were ever there at all. As the clusters of cooperating cells grow in size then more permutation become possible, so mathematically there are more chances for advantageous group behaviour to emerge. It is equally valid to say that nature has set a threshold for multicultural life at higher numbers than 2, 3, 4 and 5 than it is to say there must be life forms of this size. The deciding factor as to which route nature followed is not a priori logic but observations of what nature does and observations of evidence of what nature has done in the past.

[McCulloch]

From this answer as I understand it, you admit that there are no 2,3,4 or 5 cell life forms.

Your claim apparently is that this evolution just jumped from 1 cell to 6 cell life forms.

Why did your so called cluster cells form any life forms in category 2 thru 5?

Why wait until 6 cells to be formed into a different life form?

Why did this change happen to require only 6 cells or higher?

Why not 2 or 5?

It should be just as logical for a one cell life form to evolve to a 2 cell life form.

You should really try to get an understanding of the theory that you are criticizing.

Here is a link to an article that walks through the Biological stages of evolution. You might want to try to understand why evolution does not predict nor require 2 to 6 celled life.

Now, if you really want answers to this type of question, you would be best asking a biologist.