Darwinian Evolution is highly questionable

[Bobby Martnen]

Blind material forces cannot create our intelligent, rational, creative human minds.

[Bobby Martnen]

Good video. The thing is, because there are many animals that are grouped into certain types, and appear related, doesn't mean these groups necessarily all developed from one another, without any intervention. One can actually see the hand of God in all of this... his creation is a wonderful work of art.

Exactly! Just like the iPhone and iPad have similar design elements, but that proves they have a common designer, not that the iPhone "evolved" itself into an iPad

[Bobby Martnen]

fullfills little mikes wish to get a new iphone on christmas?

We're talking about God, not Santa Claus...

[Decius]

We're talking about God, not Santa Claus...

Santa Claus isnt even a christian concept

[Bobby Martnen]

Santa Claus isnt even a christian concept

Exactly. He's very loosely based on the real St. Nicholas, but he's mostly an invention of the Coca-Cola company, which is why he wears red and white.

[Defiance]

To all atheists, I have some questions.

1) If it's true that both mammals and birds share the reptile as their common ancestor, where are all the transitional species between reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals? After MILLIONS of years of evolution there should be at least a few types of animals alive today that exhibit traits of both. Personally though, I can't think of ANY. Why is this? Is there something I'm missing (which I confess is a possibility), or did they ALL go extinct?

2) Whether it be birds or dragonflies, how in the hell did flight evolve? Think about it.

3) How and why did fish evolve into terrestrial animals? Gills to lungs; swimming to walking. It seems awfully far-fetched if you ask me.

4) How can you use your alleged intelligence to come to the conclusion that your brain was not created by anything remotely intelligent but was, in fact, nothing but the result of a random and meaningless explosion several billions of years ago?

[Zroota]

But why? What undeniable proof does the theory of evolution bring that makes it a more valid explanation than creation? We take evolution as a fact and given because it is presented to us, from an early age, as fact. But in the end it is nothing but another theory, it is neither law nor observable/verifiable. And let's leave myths and legends out for a second. There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution. In fact, there are even irreligious people who question or don't believe in evolution. Some, for example believe we were created by a more intelligent/advanced civilization, such as aliens. Whether the theory of evolution is scientific truth is one thing, how the world came to be is of course the next question but one should focus on evolution by itself first. It's perplexing how mainstream science hardly poses this very reasonable question. After all, nobody wants to provide ammunition to the proponents of creationism or "intelligent design".

Yes, evolution is just a theory, but at least it's based on natural occurrences and a lot of it has been proved. By the way, some aspects of evolution are fact, whilst others, namely those involving the birth of the universe are mere theories (Big Bang theory). Still, I'd rather abide to natural explanations of the world. Not those implemented in a book in some Middle Eastern desert - Funny, racist Germanic people who look down upon Arabs and Jews have no problem with their 3000 year old myths. It's just really bizarre and ironic. But now I'm straying off topic.

Think of it this way, when there's a murder investigation I'm pretty sure we won't be bringing in ghosts, demons and such. We'd use earthly evidence to determine the cause of the crime that took place. That's just how it is. But in this case, we use such natural probes when it comes to our own background and biological history. Look, I'm all for a deistic god, or a god that had no intervention with humans. But a god who was perceived by humans, where they allegedly heard of him, or saw him in human form (Jesus), and wrote about him seems really implausible.

We can find dinosaur bones and trilobite fossils, but no fossils depicting any intermediary stages between species. There are places one can go through 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock that stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian layer, yet not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. Even Darwin himself said he could give "no satisfactory answer" as to why no such fossils had been discovered. He was expecting that such fossils would eventually be found in future, and yet nothing to this day. Where are those fossils hiding?

Of course Darwin wouldn't have find intermediate or transitional fossils at that time. Flashforward 150 years and we have come across a lot of those transitional fossils. Heard of homo erectus, homo habilis, homo antecessor, etc, and go back more, the australopithecus? Also, the pakicetus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus)? The cetacean that had features of a whale, but not quite so. These are your transitional fossils right there, but you adamantly deny them and claim that they're forged. Not to mention, the archaeoptery, a bird that had reptilian features such as jawed mouth with teeth and a bony tail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx).

Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his book "The Way of the Cell", "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

There are biologists and scientists who adhere to creationism and are fervently against evolution. They are a minority either way.

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. Even within the same species, there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding, the line becomes sterile and dies out. Of course evolutionists will come and say, we cannot observe evolution because it happens so slowly; it would take tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. Well, we do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria typically grows in about 20 minutes to a few hours. And while we can observe variation in bacteria, they do not change into anything else. They remain bacteria. Or take fruit flies. A generation takes 9 days to grow. Both fruitflies and bacteria have been studies extensively in labs. Why do they not evolve?

Some animals don't evolve as fast the others. For instance, sharks and cockroaches pretty much look the same how they did 250 million years ago or so. Also, horseshoe crabs and coelacanth are considered living fossils for not changing in the past 400 million years. Not all species are the same. Some have contrasting adaptations. If they're well-adapted there's no need for them to 'evolve'.

As fas as the sphericity of the Earth is concerned, this is a misconception that arose beginning of the 19th century, see Myth of the flat Earth. The predominant cosmological doctrine during classical antiquity and even the middle ages was that the earth was round. Aristotle provided evidence for a spherical Earth around 330 BC and this knowledge gradually began to spread beyond the Greco-Roman world from then on. Even the "dark ages" were not so dark. It was only the heliocentric model that was not universally accepted until the Copernican Revolution. And there should be a question mark here.

Aha, Aristotle doubted religion. He was an early scientist and biologist. But I'm not talking about ancient, non-Christian Greek. The truth of the matter is, when Galileo Galilee informed us how the world looked like the way we see it today, he was harshly criticized and threatened with death by religious people (Catholics) at that time. Why? Well, maybe because the bible is discordant with science. According to the bible, the earth is a circle rather than a sphere.

Nobody has claimed this, rather the opposite of brainwashing and indoctrination. It's about being open-minded, questioning things and thinking outside the box. Examining the other side of the argument and not limiting oneself to an option just because it is the only option one has heard of or just because the mainstream science or media presents it as immutable truth or the alternative as "absurd".

I'm speaking of religious fundamentals of the renaissance. I'm pretty sure you've heard of Catholics at that time insisting on the death penalty for those who pretty much discover the truth about the universe. I don't need to go on with this.

Exactly. You're right that we should be open-minded and be inquisitive. That's why I don't need a 2000 year old book to dictate my life and the way how my world works. Ironically, what you said speaks more about irreligious people and science than believers, who fervidly and zealously follow their own ancient myths and legends without even updating their ideas. And you say we're the close-minded ones? However, I do commend the some of them for accepting evolution, whilst believing god was behind it. They are, for me, on the right step and they're what I call "open-minded".

[Zroota]

To all atheists, I have some questions.

1) If it's true that both mammals and birds share the reptile as their common ancestor, where are all the transitional species between reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals? After MILLIONS of years of evolution there should be at least a few types of animals alive today that exhibit traits of both. Personally though, I can't think of ANY. Why is this? Is there something I'm missing (which I confess is a possibility), or did they ALL go extinct?

I've explained this above. Transitional species are ubiquitous. Let images do the talking:

Reptile to bird:


Cetaceans:



Fish to tetrapods (which includes reptiles, mammals, amphibians):


Ape to man

2) Whether it be birds or dragonflies, how in the hell did flight evolve? Think about it.

Think about what? How did teeth evolve? Think about that as well. How did brains evolve? What makes flight so special in this case? Perhaps to easily escape predators and to glide off. It's a typical evolutionary trait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying...on_and_ecology

3) How and why did fish evolve into terrestrial animals? Gills to lungs; swimming to walking. It seems awfully far-fetched if you ask me.

Well, we evolved from bacteria. You can say that this is far-fetched as well. Evolution takes million of years. Within that time frame, anything can happen. What about the idea of a supernatural creator? Isn't that also far-fetched? But let's not go too far. You were a sperm once. You were goo during the moment of your conception. And that wasn't so long ago.

By the way, look how similar tetrapod embryos look and how the compare to each other (when you find it bedazzling how fish evolved to walk)?

4) How can you use your alleged intelligence to come to the conclusion that your brain was not created by anything remotely intelligent but was, in fact, nothing but the result of a random and meaningless explosion several billions of years ago?

This question can backfire right back at you. Who made your deity? Who is 'his' creator? And does that creator has its own creator? FYI, evolution is not random.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...faq/cat01.html

[Defiance]

Shelati, your response says very little.

I'm referring to LIVING animals, not drawings. As for my point about flight, just....think about it. Would you concede that it's very difficult to imagine how it just slowly evolved over the course of millions of years?

By the way, we ALLEGEDLY evolved from bacteria. The whole point of this thread is to question such assertions.

[Zroota]

Shelati, your response says very little.

I'm referring to LIVING animals, not drawings. As for my point about flight, just....think about it. Would you concede that it's very difficult to imagine how it just slowly evolved over the course of millions of years?

Not really. You referred to intermediate species, and I provided you the evidence. They don't have to be living (and that's the point, since we evolved from them).

By the way, every species on the planet is "transitional" - this is because there is no ultimate or final species. Species branch out from one another, sometimes species go extinct, leaving gaps between the extant branches. But it also comes down to how you look at it; if you were comparing blue whales and humans, then chimpanzees (and many other species) would be "transitional", so some "transitional" species are extant, others are extinct. In fact, it is estimated that 1% of species that have ever existed are extant, the remaining 99% are extinct.

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor ape. Our common ancestor is now extinct, as are all of the so-called "transitional species", another term which is incorrect because all species on Earth are "transitional", because we are all evolving (at varying rates, to be sure). In between our last common ancestor (LCA) and modern Homo sapiens there were many species that existed for various amounts of time, then died out for various reasons, in some cases because of direct competition from more recently-evolved and better-adapted species.

FYI, these are not mere "drawings". They're detailed sketches based on actual fossils found in museums.

Please don't tell me that you want me giving you living intermediate animals. Because this goes against the idea of evolution (you cannot evolve from a living animal and living animals cannot be exactly like those in the past).

However, if you want an extant animal that possesses "transitional" features then mudskippers may fit the bill (they are air-breathing fish that walk on land with their fins):



Although an amphibian, this primitive-looking, fish-like tetrapod lives strictly in the water and has limbs, almost akin to our Devonian ancestors that stepped out of water (it's called an axolotl, also known as Mexican Walking Fish):



This is the only bird species (Hoatzin) that retained its claws, akin to its reptilian ancestor (though only when juvenile):



And why the hell does a mammal have webbed feet and beaks like a duck (platypus)?



Again, why do you want me to think about how flying happened? What makes it so special? Would you also concede it's very difficult that some deity magically gave them wings? It can go the other way around as well. But at least I don't insert supernatural phenomena. That's even more harder to imagine, don't you think? Natural assertions should be cardinal here.

By the way, we ALLEGEDLY evolved from bacteria. The whole point of this thread is to question such assertions.

Just the same we ALLEGEDLY were created by god. I hope, for the sake of this thread, you also question the asseveration of god's existence as well. Just to be fair, no?