I was just read the book, "Now, That's a Good Question!" by R.C. Sproul, and a certain quote inspired me to finally get back to this blog and post this. Sproul described macroevolution as "one of the most unsubstantiated myths I've ever seen perpetuated in academic circles."
Here's the thing - Darwinists have tons of evidence showing that a degree of evolution can happen. That's basically a confirmed fact. Just look at dogs. Wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancestor. The same probably goes for a lot of bear species and felines, among others. However, that's microevolution, not the all-encompassing, life-from-one-cell macroevolution that Darwinists believe in.
So, you ask one of them to show you evidence. They'll come up with all kinds of things supposedly showing how it can happen. It all sounds very convincing. Here's the problem: showing that it "can" happen does not prove to any degree that it "has" happened. So where's their evidence that it HAS happened?
Nowhere.
It's not here.
It cannot be found.
It doesn't exist.
Proof that macroevolution happened exists the same way unicorns and fairies exist - in people's imaginations.
In other words, they expect reasonable people to accept that something happened against all odds that they have ZERO evidence for. They do not have a tape of matter appearing from nothing, or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small.
First, we must assume that all matter in the universe appeared out of NOWHERE. We must then accept that this tiny ball of matter exploded and formed the entire universe, that some of that matter formed a spiral galaxy, and in that galaxy was formed a star just the right size, with eight planets at just the right size and positions to promote life on the third of them - Earth.
We must also convince ourselves that a planet-sized object then rammed into Earth, scattering enough debri to form a perfectly-sized moon that causes tides required for life in the oceans.
As if that's not impossible enough, we're then expected to believe that on this perfectly-sized planet there is just enough oxygen to promote life, but not enough that said life would spontaneously burst into flames. Next, supposedly, chemical goo somehow assembled itself into a fully-functioning reproducing, feeding, reacting proto-bacterium, which then, via mutations and natural selection, changed over eons into jellyfish, eels, dinosaurs, crocodiles, hamsters, trees, algae, eagles, and people.
Interesting thing - the odds of even ONE of these things happening are unbelievably small. Suddenly God doesn't sound so ridiculous, does He? The modern Darwinist flat out tell us that we should ignore our common sense and believe that all this happened. Why? What could POSSIBLY make the above absurdity ANY more plausible than the Bible's account? Especially considering that the Bible, over and over again, is being proven right, and even Richard Dawkins at least acknowledges that nature "overwhelmingly impresses us with the illusion of design." (FYI - a certain atheist I have debated claimed I was taking that out of context. I am not. I clearly included the word illusion, and my point still stands. Dawkins admits that nature looks designed, and we must convince ourselves that it is not.)
Just for kicks, here's an issue with biological evolution that throws it down for good. It can't happen. There is no way for organisms to gain genetic information. Mutations can alter or destroy genetic information, but it can't create new information. Oops. I just wrote a paragraph that kicks the legs out from under the current scientific paradigm.
For the record - I truly respect Charles Darwin as a scientist. He was intelligent, honest, and more than willing to acknowledge gaps in his theory - which is much more than can be said for those so-called "scientists" who blatantly say that they will only accept evidence that supports Darwinism. Did he take it back? No, because at his death it still seemed perfectly reasonable. A hundred years of science, though, and it has not held up. Darwin would have acknowledged this if he had been alive to see it.
10 comments:
I think you need to write my next science textbook. All mine says on the issue (in EVERY LESSON) is "Nature is so amazing that the idea of evolution is stupid!" If it were that simple people wouldn't still be arguing. I've started writing snarky comments next to that kind of statement. Can't wait to pass it down to my little sister and watch her reaction. -Evelyn
Darwin's works are used by scientists to push their anti-human agenda, rather than real, rational science. Good post.
Macroevolution occurs above the species level, and has been observed (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html).
Microevolution can be thought of as changes within a species' gene pool over time, while macroevolution is the result of microevolution occurring over a longer period of time (or with separation of a species into two populations which no longer interbreed, i.e. speciation).
Here is evidence of new species forming even within the small time frame of observation since Darwin published his theory:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I'm using the talkorigins site because it is very concise and easy to use, but it cites references galore which you are free to investigate further....that is, if you decide to read works written by people besides those who do not accept evolution exists.
;-)
"...or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small."
Evolution does not claim that any creature is spontaneously generated, fully formed, from chemical goo. That is a doctrine from creationism. There have been many experiments over the years (if you google them, you'll find them) that have generated the beginnings of cells by simply mixing chemicals in a sterile environment (lipids will form a cell membrane structure in water simply because of their chemical properties) in an attempt to replicate the conditions which were found in an early earth before life arose. Why sterile? Because in an environment with bacteria (i.e. life), these molecules would quickly become food. This is why it is difficult to find the steps between "life" and "non-life" today in the natural environment, but by attempting to replicate a life-less environment replete with the chemicals and energy (light, heat, radiation, motion, etc) that were present before there was life here, we can see what happens as chemicals bounce around and combine.
I've already delved into some of the science behind the origins of the universe with you, which you are free to read again and further research. But simply dismissing it and saying "nah..." and then claiming it doesn't exist is not being very honest.
;-)
The earth has not always had free oxygen in its atmosphere. On the contrary to your statement about there being "just enough to promote life", oxygen in the atmosphere is a RESULT of life. There is substantial evidence of this in old rocks which show metals that have not reacted to oxygen -- iron is a prime example. Oxygen in the atmosphere is a result of photosynthesis, which evolved after the first life. Even today, we have ancient "bacteria" that cannot exist in an oxygen-bearing environment, being relegated to inhospitable regions of the planet like sulfur springs. Their structure and genes belie their age.
Oh, and what is "just enough" oxygen? When the land was just beginning to be colonized by organisms, there was a much higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere. Have you ever seen the fossils and preserved specimens of insects from the Carboniferous? They were huge...bigger than they could be today. Why is that? There was more oxygen in the atmosphere. Insects today are limited by the amount of surface area available to them for respiration (they don't have lungs...air just flows in and out through their spiracles...if they were as big today as they were back then, they'd suffocate). The decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere resulted from an increase in the decay of land-plants that didn't exist previously. Decay consumes oxygen. Before there was life on land, oxygen was belching out as a waste product from algae in the seas, and the land was barren.
The "perfect conditions for life" you describe are just how things work here and now. Yes, for life as we know it, these parts are necessary -- because life evolved with these parts already in place. Had they not been in place, another kind of life could have evolved. Evidence continues to accumulate that life does exist, or at least most likely had existed, on Mars, in conditions very different from here on Earth.
The rationale of "if everything wasn't just as it was, then everything now wouldn't be" fails because it ignores any possibility of something "now" being any other way. If a person's parents had shifted slightly while "in the act" then a different sperm could have reached the egg first...and that "person" wouldn't exist. But...another person would.
;-)
You did quote Dawkins out of context. Yes, he said that line...as an introduction to dismissing the notion of design. Basically he said, "You look around, and you think things are designed, but if you look further and deeper, you see that life as we know it is a result of small steps building upon one another, and evidence of those previous steps abound." If you just snip out "You look around, and you think things are designed" then you have a completely different meaning to what was said. And why, if creation is correct, would you need to resort to out-of-context quoting? The evidence of creation should be everywhere. Yet, I still haven't heard any.
Oh, and if you want to read the rest of what Dawkins wrote, it's here:
http://naturalhistorymag.com/features/101500/the-illusion-of-design
Organisms do gain genetic information, and I illustrated evidence of that by summarizing my research paper into the origin and copy number variation of the human salivary amylase gene. If you didn't understand it, or would like references to it, I'd be happy to assist. But to just ignore it and say "nah, doesn't exist" is not being very rational.
Here are some references to mutations which have caused new information in the genome of the organisms in which they were found:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Note that the organisms are mostly unicellular (and my favorite, the bacterium which can digest nylon...a chemical that didn't exist until people synthesized it). This is to be expected because in the short time we humans have been paying attention to these changes in the natural world, these organisms have had countless generations of reproduction -- more generations than exist for our species. Mutation, variation and selection (i.e., evolution) occurs faster in organisms with short generation intervals, and can be observed within a small amount of time. If this much change can occur now, it is completely logical to assume even greater changes can occur in greater amounts of time. To thus accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is to say that "ok, things are changing now, but that only just started recently...before that time, everything stayed the same."
Okay, Christopher Gordon, I'm going to assume you're AquaEyes from BYC. First off, a warning - you made way too many posts, and several had to be rescued from the spam box. Please try to restrain yourself to one or two posts.
Now then, on to more important matters.
Speciation - here we go. What defines species? Are Chihuahuas and German Shepherds seperate species? We know that coyotes and domestic dogs are seperate species, yet they can still interbreed with each other. Obviously there can be speciation if you define species in various ways - but that's semantics, not evolution. Incipient speciation is a joke.
Spontaneous generation - um, yeah, evolution does claim that something spontaneously generated from chemical goo, fully operational. A primitive bacterium, supposedly. It's awfully hard for an organism to operate if it can't produce energy, react to its environment, and reproduce. Of course, when I say spontaneous generation, that would include a bunch of chemical junk piling up into a critter over time. My point still stands - it's ludicrously improbable.
The beginnings of cells - creating a cell wall is a little bit like building an igloo and declaring that you've built a modern skyscraper. Create life, then I'll pay attention.
Perfect conditions for life - ach, you got me. I screwed up when I wrote oxygen. Basically, even if we assume spontaneous generation, conditions had to be perfect for it to happen, and the probability of that? Yeah.
Dawkins - how is it out of context?! I made it VERY clear that he was arguing AGAINST Intelligent Design, but what he was obviously saying is that nature, while it is NOT designed, APPEARS that way. I see no dishonesty here.
I started writing another long post, and then decided that this would be simpler for you -- and your readers -- to investigate on your own. All of your questions can be easily searched on the talk origins website:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This should allow you to see that your questions are not unique, and they have been answered, and there is evidence supporting the answers provided. Utilize this as a springboard for further research.
Speciation -- the breeds of dog can still interbreed, thus they aren't different species. Examples provided on the website above are of populations which no longer interbreed, thus new species, and which has occurred within observable human history.
Spontaneous generation -- complex life does not appear out of nothing (that is creationism). What does appear is an increase in complexity, from something simple to what we see today. There wasn't a jump from goo to bacteria. It was a series of small hops, with evidence to be found existing today that provides models (clay crystals, prions, organic molecules generated from non-living origins, etc).
Beginnings of cells -- yes, a primitive cell is simply a membrane enclosing other molecules. That was how it began. The membrane provided protection, allowing for a better rate of replication and survival of the molecules inside. The first cell was much simpler than the simplest bacteria today, but even so, it was more complex than the molecules not bound by membranes. Small steps, Drake...that's how it works....not great leaps.
Conditions perfect for life -- what conditions are those? We know today of many examples of organisms that can survive only in environments that are lethal to others. Big variation in temperature, pressure, pH, presence or absence of oxygen and/or other highly reactive atoms or molecules, etc. Google "extremophiles" to find out the range of conditions where life exists HERE and tell me what "perfect" had to be for it to get started. The conditions were as they were. Life grew around them. And in other environments, on other planets, with other ranges of conditions, other life could form. Check out a periodic table of elements, and notice how they are arranged. Those in the same vertical column have similar chemical bonding properties. It's very possible that within another range of conditions, life could evolve using a replacement from the same vertical column. Then the "perfect conditions for life" would be different.
You did take Dawkins out of context, because you didn't report how he refuted the illusion of design. If I was in North Dakota in February, and I looked out the window and said "It looks like a beautiful day out there" but then continued with "but once I stepped outside, my face went numb from the cold, and I became miserable" you can see how my first statement is meant to contrast with my second. If you quoted me as saying "It looks like a beautiful day out there" and followed it with how I must love the cold, I would say you took my words out of context.
Post what followed your Dawkins quote, and let others decide.
"Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed."
P.S. Are you actually reading the science, or just repeating the creationist arguments against the science? If you're doing the latter, it's like having a debate but duct-taping your opponent's mouth.
;)
Actually, if you read my blog post closer towards the beginning, you'll note that I readily acknowledged that a degree of speciation is totally plausible. Like I mentioned in the post, see canines, felines, bears, birds of prey, and what-have-you. At the same time, if species is defined as animals that can't interbreed with each other, then the coyote, the red wolf, and the not-quite-sure-what-she-is dog in my backyard are members of the same species.
I already pointed out that even slow, steady build-up to a living cell is extremely implausible in my response. Besides, what about the fact that matter tends to become disorganized over time, rather than organized?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think we're using different definitions here. I've always considered a cell - no matter how primitive - to be a living thing. A membrane enclosing molecules that can't replicate itself, can't produce energy, can't absorb nutrients, and can't react to its environment to some degree is not alive. Once again, we're back to the igloo-skyscraper analogy. Sure, you've got a building, but it's just a wall. We're still waiting for the air-conditioned high rise.
Once again, as for Dawkins, my quotation - and what came after it - made it VERY clear that he was attacking I.D. His waxing eloquent about Darwin seems rather reduntant. Even if I included it, the thrust of the quote would still be exactly the same.
And yes, I have thoroughly read your links. I found TalkOrigins to be very interesting and informative, and I would like to encourage all my readers to visit the site, if only to get a better grasp of Darwinist arguments.
Ugh, this is why it's hard for me to be brief...I always feel I'm leaving something out.
The basic definition of "species" incorporates more than just interbreeding -- the offspring must resemble the parents, rather than being an intermediate. When new organisms are discovered that seem intermediate between two related species with a range overlap, there is immediate concern that this new "species" is really just a hybrid. The complexity of species definition occurs when hybridization happens, again because species are not "fixed" entities but the description of an "average" of organisms within a population. Scientists go back and forth on where to draw the line (lumpers versus splitters), BUT, when a population diverges to the point when they DON'T interbreed anymore, THEN we know speciation has occurred. The examples provided on the talk origins website (my favorite is the division of the above-ground and subway populations of mosquitos in England, that don't interbreed in the lab) fit the "don't interbreed anymore" criterium. It occurs a lot in plants because of polyploidy -- if a plant has an error in early mitosis at the seed level, it can develop double the number of chromosomes (tetraploid). That plant now can't interbreed with its parents (diploid) because the offspring are sterile (triploid). But it can self-seed and begin a new population. Because this happens so often with plants, most botanists don't "count" them as different species, because to do so would be cumbersome.
The smallest functional unit of life, as we define it, is a cell. But the term "cell" is used because when first seen under the microscope, it looked like a gathering of "stuff" within a membrane.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cell
The biological use of the word came after the others, which were already in use, because the biological cell looked like a tiny "compartment" full of stuff. It is possible to have the same idea -- "stuff" enclosed within a membrane -- that does not fulfill the requirements for "life." And artificial cells have been made in the lab for decades now.
Post a Comment