3 Problems with Evolution Theory (Darwinism)

Forums: Science, Evolution, Batman, Darwinism, Evolution Theory Darwinism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

1- According to this theory, animals evolved from simple to complex. We know that a one-eyed animal is much simpler than a two-eyed one. So how come we don't have any one-eyed animal?
2- Random processes are blind and don't know the difference between a "good" animal and a "draft" animal. You say that a draft animal (an animal with grotesque shape and corrupted structure) vanishes. On the other hand the possibility of being draft is 99 times more than being correct. So where are they? Why all fossil records are of all-right animals?
3- Many plus characteristics of animals are not vital. It means if they didn't have those characteristics they wouldn't die or vanish. So how did these characteristics appear?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 3,417 • Replies: 32

No top replies

1. There are one-eyed animals.
2. There are plenty of evolutionary "mistakes" in the fossil record.
3. Evolution doesn't work that way.

If you are being brainwashed by Christian fundamentalists, you can get guidance on clear thinking from a number of sources. Here's one:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php

1 Reply

@Tes yeux noirs,

Tes yeux noirs wrote:

1. There are one-eyed animals.
2. There are plenty of evolutionary "mistakes" in the fossil record.
3. Evolution doesn't work that way.

If you are being brainwashed by Christian fundamentalists, you can get guidance on clear thinking from a number of sources. Here's one:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php

If you truly desire to learn, this is a good first step.

0 Replies

@emehri,

Don't understand how natural selection works, huh? Any trait which neither helps nor hinders reproductive opportunity, may be retained. Any trait which hinders reproductive opportunity will disappear sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, because individuals with that trait are unlikely to be reproductively successful, and won't pass the trait on. Any trait which enhances reproductive opportunity will soon be set in the genome, because individuals with that trait will have a high probability of reproducing themselves, and passing the trait on.

Natural selection is not a random process--it saves what works, eliminates what doesn't work and hinders, and it ignores neutral characteristics. Whenever i see someone babbling about "random" in a discussion of evolution, i know the odds are very high that said individual is religiously motivated, but not sufficiently honest to state that a the outset. They've been brainwashed, and are not interested in actually learning anything.

1 Reply

@emehri,

emehri wrote:

3- Many plus characteristics of animals are not vital. It means if they didn't have those characteristics they wouldn't die or vanish. So how did these characteristics appear?

Crossbreeding possibly. For example, when humans left Africa they were too dark complected to make vitamin D to prevent rickets. So, many may have died off from the initial exodus out of Africa. However, some might have had less productive melanin cells, and others might have crossbred with Neanderthal, all leading to something that produced enough vitamin D to not have children that died from rickets. God had nothing to do with it.

0 Replies

@emehri,

1- You don't know what you're talking about
2- You really don't know what you're talking about
3- You're not even going to try to learn anything when we burn all your straw-men to the ground, are you?

0 Replies

@emehri,

Quote:

We know that a one-eyed animal is much simpler than a two-eyed one. So how come we don't have any one-eyed animal?

so how do you know this? What if I can point out several examples of animals with all numbers of eyes.

Quote:

According to this theory, animals evolved from simple to complex

Except where animals evolved from complex to simple forms (What about parasites or sexual dimorphism?)

Quote:

Random processes are blind and don't know the difference between a "good" animal and a "draft" animal. You say that a draft animal (an animal with grotesque shape and corrupted structure) vanishes. On the other hand the possibility of being draft is 99 times more than being correct. So where are they? Why all fossil records are of all-right animals?

This doesnt even make sense? Youve apparently reached a conclusion without any knowledge of the facts. (Most evolution deniers are like that)

Quote:

Many plus characteristics of animals are not vital. It means if they didn't have those characteristics they wouldn't die or vanish. So how did these characteristics appear?

You dont seem to undesrtand the roles that genetics, sexual reproduction , and TIME play in evolution.
As Ken Miller said"Evolution is taking something you have and doing something different with it"

If you dont know of what the heck youre going on about, why not take some time and try to learn before you opine. Your 3 "problems" are each unsound conclusions based on lack of knowledge.

Do they teach biology in your country?

0 Replies

@emehri,

I'm not satisfied by your answers. Two more questions:
4- What was the first warmblooded creature and how it was evolved from its ancestor?
5- What was the first animal with a womb and how come it bore its child while itself was out of an egg?

1 Reply

@emehri,

Ive actually asked you questions, including "HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU POST?" ie Where does the scientific inquiry arise that supports your "beliefs"
As far as where the first warm blooded animal and first womb, we have a very complete fossil record in several ckades of animals. The amassed data and evidence surrounding them is quite complete and I invite you to engage in some self education, rather than trying to pose "Zingers" that you think have no answer.

Warm bloodedness can be inferred from heat regulating structures in Permian reptiles (fins and leg structures that favored upright stances and several other structures).

"Evidence of a "womb" is not how live birth was developed. Diapsid and Therapsid Reptiles had been able to deliver by "live birth" and this was back in the very early Triassic.
Little steps, lotsa time, and the earths geology is always getting in the way (with volv=canoes and dea floor spreading etc)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Natural selection is not a random process--it saves what works, eliminates what doesn't work and hinders, and it ignores neutral characteristics.

Then why does this natural selection always end in extinction? All life forms on earth will become extinct as part of the natural process of life. 99% of all life on earth are extinct so the natural selection you fawn over must be flawed. Wallace stated that natural selection has nothing to do with coloration as some reptiles have the ability to alter their appearance so they represent a more dangerous threat as a mode of self protection. Obliviously, both species are already evolved and outside the process of natural selection, these changes infer that self protection of living creatures has nothing to do with genetics-therefore the natural selection process is flawed. If you have a closed environment and two different species of snakes-one is highly poisonous and aggressive, the other harmless, it goes through coloration and takes on the appearance of the dangerous reptile as a form of self protection.
Natural selection played no part in this transformation-but it must if the model of evolution is flawless.

'Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection' 1870 4th Ed

3 Replies

@spooky24,

Quote:

Then why does this natural selection always end in extinction?

False assumption that assumes that there is never any change in the environment.

Quote:

All life forms on earth will become extinct as part of the natural process of life.

Very possibly. The earth itself will be consumed by the sun over time. That doesn't argue against evolution. It only points to your first question being based on a false assumption.

1 Reply

@spooky24,

spooky24 wrote:

Then why does this natural selection always end in extinction?

Why wouldn't it? The distribution of alleles in a population changes over time, it's dynamic. Some populations stay relatively static for a very long time, but those are usually very well adapted to their environment, and they live in very stable environments. Most species live in a changing world in which natural selection guides their evolution in the direction of effective adaptation.

0 Replies

I wish those damn mosquitos would hurry up and evolve into something less annoying.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I wish those damn mosquitos would hurry up and evolve into something less annoying.

I think we're about to help them an their way with CRISPR Smile

0 Replies

The only 3 problems I find with Darwinism is that in spite of looking obvious stuborness, dumbness, and collective cultural clashes prevail above common sense and good reasoning.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Then why does this natural selection always end in extinction

as Mayr once said
"Any organism, well adapted to its environment, is also trapped by it"

1 Reply

@spooky24,

99.9999% 0f life that ever existed, is extinct. Hows that for odds. Extinction is one of the very tools of evolution and its a tool that is quietly ignored ore denied by the Creation/ID crowd. (It doesnt fit their "model" without making up a story that "this was what the Intelligent Designer used as its method. "

Hence the name "Stupid design" would fit much better .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Then why does this natural selection always end in extinction

That wasn't me, but OK.

@ros:
Yeah, I'm real hopeful about CRISPER. We seem to have discovered the keys to the 'design language of God' as one recent scientist quipped. I think the language is still a long way from being reverse engineered. Those damn genes are so interactive that it makes predictable changes very difficult. Not to mention epigenetics which we are only beginning to decode.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Id expect nothing less from you. Conclusion with no analysis.

Quote:

We seem to have discovered the keys to the 'design language of God' as one recent scientist quipped

I assume the scientist was Mary BAker Eddy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

@ros:
Yeah, I'm real hopeful about CRISPER. We seem to have discovered the keys to the 'design language of God' as one recent scientist quipped.

You have an unfortunate talent for twisting even the most hopeful of comments into a smear against the very science these people admire.

Leadfoot wrote:

I think the language is still a long way from being reverse engineered. Those damn genes are so interactive that it makes predictable changes very difficult.

We already know a lot about genetics. And CRISPR in particular is well understood and very precise. We now have the ability to edit single genes and to change the germ line. The possibilities inherent in this technology are staggering.

Scientists are already debating the ethics and efficacy of altering species (like the mosquito) and replacing it with a new variant, or eliminating them from the biosphere completely. And we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of what this technology will be able to do.

CRISPR adoption is happening very rapidly and is already in use at thousands of labs.

0 Replies

3 Problems with Evolution Theory (Darwinism)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know