Evolutionary Challenge

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:52 am

Micatal wrote: As Furrowed Brow noted, ahmetsecer provides us with too much information to wade through.
So, I picked one site at random, and flipped through a few pages.
This claim is made about the Plant Hopper species which goes back to the Cretaceous era in China and is alive today. It is labeled as a living fossil.
The adults of these plant-feeding insects are of two different species. One can fly, while the other cannot. The structures of these two species have not changed for millions of years. All the complex structures and systems of today's insects were also possessed by planthoppers living millions of years ago. During all those millions of years, these features have remained the same, indicating that the evolutionary process claimed by Darwinists never took place.
Sorry, the bolded part is false, and represents a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.

There is nothing within the theory of evolution that says EVERY species MUST change over time.

Evolution simply says that species CAN change over time and that many have, based on a whole number of factors which exert selective pressure on the species.
The fact that some species, like the Plant Hopper, have not changed does not mean that 'evolutionary processes never took place.' This is so fallacious as to amaze me that it is presented as a serious argument against evolution.

This task is too much work for one person. So maybe we can all contribute. If like Micatala you find a false claim or an invalid argument that can be directly and succinctly challenged this is the thread to do it. Please limit one post to one point only.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:07 am

From Ahmetsecer's link to Reply To Dawkins. On the very first page I find

Richard Dawkins, who has constantly and deliberately reiterated the idea that â€œlife cannot form by chanceâ€� in all his recent writings and interviews,..

Although he has rejected the idea of chance,...

Dawkins says that organisms cannot form by chance, but resorts to the same demagoguery by instead trying to portray such a blind process as natural selection as a conscious entity.

Dawkins does not deny chance contributes to evolution. It is just not the only factor. To say that Dawkins portrays natural selection as a conscious entity is the polar opposite of what Dawkins does say. Iâ€™ll refer ahmetsecer to The Blind Wathcmaker.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:27 am

On the second page of Reply To Dawkins I find:

Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs.
The British evolutionist and paleontologist Colin Patterson admits this fact:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (1)

This argument is both false, confused and invalid.

It is false for fruit flies. It is confused because natural selection does not create anything. The use of the word "create" in this context is a semantic confusion. The claim is invalid because the argument takes the form:

Major Premise: Natural selection cannot create new species, information, organs.
Observation: Y admits no one has created new species, information, organs.

The observation does not support the major premise. If no one has managed to do x, it does not follow that x is not possible.

In summary: false, confused and invalid.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:43 am

#3 Ambers Deny Darwin

Page contains many extant species found in amber. It just so happens not to include one of the most famous ant ambers ever, Sphecomyrma freyi. This ant is a species between wasps and ants.

Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphecomyrma_freyi

Couldn't get image to imbed, try this link:
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=5512&rendTypeId=4

Or this Google image search page, should be first pic:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... ages&gbv=2

Notice the small, almost non existent mandibles. Ants trend towards larger mandibles in the evolutionary tree.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:39 am

.

Furrowed Brow wrote:This task is too much work for one person. So maybe we can all contribute. If like Micatala you find a false claim or an invalid argument that can be directly and succinctly challenged this is the thread to do it. Please limit one post to one point only.

First, I have some general comments.

Opposition to evolution is based primarily upon study of theology NOT upon study of science; and opposition is focused upon ancient works rather than modern studies and modern information.

Charles Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882. His major publication, "Origin of the Species" was published in 1859.

There has been considerable study and research of the topics modern evolutionary biology during the past one hundred and fifty years. However, anti-evolutionists seem to be fixated on Charles Darwin as their archenemy and attempt to attach great significance to errors or perceived errors in his 150-year-old studies.

Very few people who actually study the fields of biology and genetics disagree with the concept that biological organisms change genetically over time (the meaning of evolution). Some knowledgeable people question the extent or speed of such changes but NOT their occurrence. Most reasonably informed people realize that genetic changes are deliberately and regularly produced in crops, livestock and pet species by what is known as selective breeding â€“ and most understand that mutations occur frequently and spontaneously, and that they represent genetic change.

Theologians, however, attempt to discredit any studies which conflict with their religious stories about "creation" of humans and other life forms by their favorite gods. An anti-intellectual tendency and deliberate ignorance allows denial of a century and a half of research including very rapid developments during the past couple of decades. Many (most?) anti-evolution statements appear to be unaware of such things a the various genome projects (the "mapping" of DNA sequences of different organisms including humans) and unaware of that widespread practices, such as genetically modification of crops, demonstrate evolutionary change (directed or spontaneous).

Perhaps the concept of genetic change escapes those who believe that their gods "made" life forms in their present configuration. However, one of their own, a monk named Gregor Mendel, a contemporary of Darwin (1822 to 1884), began the investigation of mechanisms of genetic change (evolution) by studying changes in garden peas through successive generations. There has been a great deal of recent study based upon his ideas â€“ and many contributions to the field.

As typical of theistic arguments, "pick and choose science" is evoked unethically to attempt to support ancient and incorrect "knowledge" representing information available to writers of ancient tomes. There is no evidence of advanced knowledge contributed by "gods" to bible stories or other religious writings. The stories reflect only common ideas and misconceptions of humans during their era â€“ nothing more. Many of the ideas presented by biblical writers (whoever they were) are known to be in error.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:22 pm

I rarely participate in these threads because I regard the matter as settled. Opposition to evolution is as wrongheaded and futile as claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

According to the Bible, the value of pi is exactly three:

1 Kings 7:23: "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

That is much more unequivocal than anything the Bible has to say about animal species. Shall we now set about proving why secular geometry is wrong and begin revising our math books to reflect the teachings of the Bible?

After all, the conventional value of pi is even said to be an irrational number; does not obviously mean that it must be wrong?

Here is a principle of Jewish Torah study that might be taken to heart by those struggling to disprove science that has been thoroughly verified and established as incontrovertible fact:

If you see something in the Torah that you know to be wrong, there are two possibilities:

(1) You do not properly understand the Torah (which is clearly the case here): or

(2) The Torah is mistaken.

Notice that the third alternative, i.e. overruling known fact in favor of religious dogma, is not listed.

It's puzzling to me why some seem to think it is the only one.

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:39 am

Darwinism in Ruins. Since there's quite a bit here, I think I'll just take on the introduction for now. (http://www.darwinisminruins.com/introduction.html)

Evolutionists seek to answer these questions, and account for the origin and variety of life, by means of the theory of evolution. They claim that life came into being from inanimate substances, by chance and over the course of time

Evolution says nothing of the source of life. They mashed together abiogenesis and evolution and called it one theory.

The realization that there are insuperable genetic barriers between species, the sudden emergence of life forms in the fossil record, and the fact that living things possess organs and systems that are wondrous marvels of design unmatched by even the most advanced 21st century technological progress, have all demolished evolutionist claims.

They mention no "genetic barriers between species" (so I can't really disprove anything specific there, just point out that there are no such barriers). No life forms (except for the first bacteria) emerge suddenly, and out of no where. Distinct species emerge, bearing many similarities to previous species, making it easy to link one as evolving from the other. Organs and these "systems" (Further vagueness so I can't specifically disprove) can be created through evolution. None of those things come close to demolishing evolution, or even casting slight doubt on it.

Rather than admitting their mistakes, most evolutionists have tried to salvage the situation by means of imaginary fairy-tale scenarios. Yet evolutionists have no answer to the question of speciation, which Charles Darwin described as the "mystery of mysteries" 1 and to which he long sought an answer. And that despite the intervening 150 years and all their intense efforts!

Speciation has been observed by humans. There is no question of speciation.

On the other hand, anyone looking in a sincere, unprejudiced way can clearly see that we live in a miraculous environment. Those bacteria, animals and plants that give rise to such ideal conditions cannot have come into being by chance. The fact is, every species on Earth is the product of a sublime creation. From their proteins and cells to their organs and systems, they carry messages that reveal the glory of their creation. Every living species points to the existence of an Almighty, Omniscient Creator possessed of an infinite artistry and intelligence. That Creator is God, Lord of the worlds.

Outside of the fact that this claim is based upon a feeling the author had when he looked at the ecosystems ("Oh everything is so pretty and perfect. It must be a miracle!") instead of logic and evidence, the "ideal conditions" for human life only exist because humans adapted to their environment through evolution. We molded ourselves to fit the world, no the other way around.

One aim of this book is to show how irrational and unscientific are evolutionist claims

Not only is this totally and completely, false, but it deserves a special mention because of just how ironic it is. Evolution is not irrational and unscientific. It is a theory that is being tested indefinitely and was created through the scientific method. This article, on the other hand, is filled with gaps in logic, unsubstantiated claims, and assumptions without evidence (Unless you count "Natour iz pritty" as evidence). People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

handofnergal · Post by **handofnergal** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:32 am

Hey guys! While I love taking part of the whole evolution/creationism debate, it is getting a bit old. You see I've discovered that the only people who debate evolution are the dye in the wool faith-heads, and nothing you tell them will ever convince them otherwise.

The only people who will truly hear what you are saying are people like me, and then you're just preaching to the choir. I would like to make one distinction if I may. The people opposed to evolution are clearly not all creationists, some are just stupid. But not all creationists are opposed to evolution. It's specifically the young earth movement, and overwhelmingly they are Bible literalists and Fundamentalists.

Technically, when I was a Catholic, I was a Creationist too, because I believed that God created the universe. Of course, I believed in the Big Bang and evolution, but my rationale was that God decided to create the universe through a Big Bang. Most rational moderate Christians agree. If you have a belief that requires you to do all kinds of second-guessing and mental gymnastics in order to rationalize something that is clear and demonstrable when your belief has no evidence...yeah, you can't even think for yourself anymore.

Creationists serve only one purpose---the amusement of the rest of humanity.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:52 pm

I am going senile. I have no recollection of starting this thread

T-mash · Post by **T-mash** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:52 pm

I'm sorry... I tried to help but I randomly picked a site and it starts with this:

"The way that for 150 years certain people have been devoted to such an extraordinarily illogical belief as the theory of evolution is a great miracle created by God by making use of Satan."

(http://www.whydarwinwaswrong.com/index.php)

I think reading any further is pointless.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Evolutionary Challenge

Evolutionary Challenge

Re: Evolutionary Challenge

Re: Evolutionary Challenge