9
10

What are your best arguments against evolution? (self.Creation)

mexican_timelordJehovah's Witness/Old Earth が 投稿

全 60 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]buttermybreadwbuttertheistic evolutionist - I have a Fine Arts Degree 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Against evolution what?

Most people would agree life evolves. People differ among whether evolution alone accounts for the diversity of species. Very, very few people argue completely against evolution whatsoever.

[–]SilverRabbits 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (5子コメント)

One can assume they mean against "macroevolution" or Darwinian evolution, the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, instead of being created by God as is.

[–]buttermybreadwbuttertheistic evolutionist - I have a Fine Arts Degree 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I know what happens when I make an assumption.

[–]FucanelliYEC, Pelagian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What is the difference between macro and micro evolution? When does one become the other?

[–]buttermybreadwbuttertheistic evolutionist - I have a Fine Arts Degree 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don’t really think there is a difference. It’s the same thing really. I only see the micro / macro distinction made among people that are typically YEC or OEC so it seems like a more non-evolutionary frame of reference.

[–]MoremoreorJW 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Easy , macro is the kind of evolution no one has found evidence of....a species tracking to become another separate species. You know " the answer to Darwins question. The origin of the species? Or a good title for a book, not really sure if it was a question or an answer ,lol. Micro , still the same species , bird , still bird , still bird , now bird with a bigger beak , still a bird.

To sum up macro , bird now a tomato. Lol

[–]mexican_timelordJehovah's Witness/Old Earth[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Macro. But since you believe in theistic evolution may I ask how you understand Genesis 2 and 3?

[–]buttermybreadwbuttertheistic evolutionist - I have a Fine Arts Degree 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

2 and 3 are kinda hard to read because it moves so fast and leaves out a lot of things. In my opinion it focuses on the core message of why god is doing the work. But there are a lot of range of interpretations possible there.

Personally I think any interpretations of 2 and 3 are highly subjective. Some people go as far as to say all the animals used to speak Hebrew up to the fall. Not everyone agrees on what or who the serpent was. I mean, it’s tricky. However when viewed along with the rest of Genesis it helps me make more sense out of it.

I’m sure you’ve heard some original and seemingly strange interpretations of Genesis 2.

[–]goofproofacorn 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (37子コメント)

Systems failure. The eye doesn't work without all the components, so this obviously leads to some weird 'transitional' specimens(that we've never found). Why would a creature evolve a retina and not be able to use it and then pass this useless body part on? It wouldn't, and goes against every assumption in macro evolution. There are other such examples that I can't remember of systems failure as well

[–]DzugaviliFilthy Evolutionist 119 ポイント120 ポイント  (14子コメント)

The eye doesn't work without all the components, so this obviously leads to some weird 'transitional' specimens(that we've never found).

The nautilus has a lensless eye, so it does work with missing components.

The squid eye is even better than ours: our retinas receive their blood from the front side, while squid receive their blood from the back. The result is they don't have a deadspace from where the vessel emerges into the eye, or a webbing of blood vessels in front of the retina.

Why would a creature evolve a retina and not be able to use it and then pass this useless body part on?

There are also the so-called 'pit eyes', which are simply photosensitive cells in a small depression.

So, why did this proto-retina get passed on? Because having a proto-retina is better than no vision at all.

[–]goofproofacorn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I knew someone would nitpick on the retina thing. The entire system doesn't work if one part is missing. It's useless. That's the point of what I'm saying.

[–]DzugaviliFilthy Evolutionist 81 ポイント82 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So, which parts specifically can I not remove?

[–]indurateape 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

the light sensitive cells?

[–]NebulousASK 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The entire system doesn't work if one part is missing.

Except that's explicitly not true. Every stage of eye development (cluster of cells, pit eye, pinhole eye, stationary lens, mobile lens) is found as a functioning system in animals today. There is a clear and smooth development in eyes where parts are added that increase functionality, but at no point is there a "useless" half-eye.

Really, considering the strong advantages of even primitive vision and the environmental pressures towards increased visual acuity, the eye is a very poor example against evolution. I think you'd be much better off sticking with examples where all the animals that had a less functional precursor have died out, or better yet haven't even been discovered.

[–]MRH2M.Sc. physics, Mensa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The squid eye is even better than ours: our retinas receive their blood from the front side, while squid receive their blood from the back. The result is they don't have a deadspace from where the vessel emerges into the eye, or a webbing of blood vessels in front of the retina.

Please don't propagate this bad information. It has been debunked at least since 1990. It just keeps coming back again and again!

[–]DzugaviliFilthy Evolutionist 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Can you post a source debunking it?

Wikipedia supports it.

Evergreen...

This creationist article from 2000 doesn't list it as debunked.

Though, I'll admit, I think I got the connection wrong -- I think it is nerves through the front, rather than blood.

[–]MRH2M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

from the third source you linked to: "A major reason for the retina reversal is that it allows the rods and cones to interact with the retinal pigment epithelial cells that provide nutrients to the retina, recycle photopigments, provide an opaque layer to absorb excessive light, and perform other functions. This design is superior to other systems, because it allows close association with the pigmented epithelium required to maintain the photoreceptors. It is also critical in both the development and normal function of the retina."

This is exactly correct. This is a superior design except in low light conditions like at the bottom of the ocean. Our eyes are extremely active all the time. When people say "The squid eye is even better than ours" - what criteria are they using exactly? Focusing far away -- the eagle's eye is better. Seeing lots of colours -- I assume that we're better. Seeing in very dim light -- there are many nocturnal animals that are better than ours. Having a high enough resolution to read text -- maybe eagle type eyes, probably not octopus. Dynamic range -- there's not much which can compete with our eyes (maybe other mammals). In which way(s) exactly is the squid eye better and how have they measured this?

I'll have to find a well written article to get you. I know all of the things that it needs to say, I just want to find it all in one place.

It is nerves in the front (but they're mostly transparent) as well as a whole lot of supporting cells (glial cells, also transparent, but I have to double check this) and blood vessels, except in the fovea.

Anyway, I'll find something that says exactly what I want it to and get back to you by the beginning of next week. Thanks for your curiosity.

[–]DzugaviliFilthy Evolutionist 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think next time you attack something I state as "debunked", you really need to be specific about what was debunked immediately and bring sources.

Otherwise, you were perfectly welcome to argue about my definition of better -- though, that's subjective and context specific -- but there was no sign that you were doing so.

[–]MRH2M.Sc. physics, Mensa 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The debunked part I'm referring to is specifically people claiming that the cephalopod eye is better than the human eye because the retina is reversed and it does not have a blind spot. This does not in anyway indicate that the human eye/retina is poorly designed or inferior to the cephalopod eye. There are specific and valid reasons for how the human eye is set up. I had assumed that you understood that that is what I was referring to. The source that you mentioned and which I then quoted in italics says essentially the same thing.

[–]MRH2M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry, I apologize. This particular misrepresentation is something that really bothers me - a hot button issue. It's not you that I should be annoyed at, it's the scientists and optometrists who should know better, but don't bother putting things together and keeping up with the research. I wish that I had just replied at some point with a link to well written piece explaining how the eye really works.

[–]afCee 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is all eyes in all animals exactly the same?

[–]SilverRabbits 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The eye doesn't work without all the components

Haha, is this still seriously an argument against evolution people use? This argument has been debunked times over, just look at how RationalWiki explains it

It is claimed that the eye is irreducible complex and that all the parts of an eye are needed for any operation; and that any part "missing" would leave an eye defective. This is not true. You can still see when your lens is removed, and a dysfunctional iris doesn't lead to complete blindness, as anyone who is shortsighted or longsighted can tell you. Various forms of colour blindness is another fairly common eye failure (and may actually be an evolutionary advantage in certain conditions.)

Also the idea that they eye couldn't have evolved in stages is laughable, not only is there the fact that not all the elements required for a human eye to work, but that even the animal kingdom attests this this fact. Some animals have "eyes" consisting of nothing more than photosensitive cells, but even the ability to detect the binary fact of whether there is/isn't light is advantageous.

I'd recommend reading the complete RationalWiki article, it can explain it much better than I can: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eye

[–]ThisBWhoIsMe 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Haha, is this still seriously an argument against evolution people use? … Also the idea that they eye couldn't have evolved in stages is laughable …

Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worth consideration.

Ridicule doesn’t offer any information or disprove the point, only tries to sidestep the point.

I'd recommend reading the complete RationalWiki article…

I’d recommend reading the rules of science. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.

Your RationalWiki article is pseudoscience. “Scientists' inability to explain eye evolution down to every microscopic detail does not demonstrate that the eye can't evolve …”

That’s not how science works; “inability to explain eye evolution.” A scientific theory is an explanation…

Not only do you have to fully explain it, you must also “repeatedly” test it, and pass the testing, before it can be considered Science.

Currently, eye evolution is based on faith, not Science. The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years…

Some animals have "eyes" consisting of nothing more than photosensitive cells…

Because some animals have eyes of whatever nature, doesn’t do anything to support evolution of eyes.

This argument has been debunked…

No it hasn’t. There are no workable theories of how eyes evolved, so there’s nothing in Science to debunk it. There are assumptions, but so what.

[–]SilverRabbits 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ridicule doesn’t offer any information or disprove the point, only tries to sidestep

It wasn't an argument however, merely a way to frame the upcoming debate. I layed down my opinion right off the bat, that the idea was ridiculous, then moved on to present some of the reasoning.

Because some animals have eyes of whatever nature, doesn’t do anything to support evolution of eyes.

It however undermines the argument that OP made, that an incomplete eye (whatever that means) would be unable to function. Looking at animals that exist today we can find examples of eyes that vary from the extremely rudimentary to those that are even better than our own. It puts forward the notion that an eye need not be complete like ours in order to function, opening the door to the idea that eyes could have evolved from one form to another. It is quite easy to come to the conclusion that eye evolved, one minuscule change at a time, each step only improving slightly on the design, to what us humans have today.

There are assumptions, but so what.

The entirety of science are assumptions, assumptions that are reached after looking at the available evidence. We've looked at the available evidence, the fossils for example, which all point to the idea that life evolved overtime. We the look at the eye and say "well everything else evolved, that must mean the eye evolved too". We then look for more evidence, and find living breathing examples of eyes that aren't as advanced us ours yet still function. It is therefore logical and quite reasonable to assume that it is in fact possible for eyes to evolve overtime, going from less complex to more complex, since we can see examples of what would be similar to these different stages throughout nature. We then draw up a flowchart of what might have happened, and after finding no evidence to the contrary (and no a story from inside a 2000+ year old book doesn't count), we are content and label it a scientific theory. Note that it's a theory, our best conclusion we came to after looking at the evidence. If more evidence was to come along it can change, but as of now it still seems to be a pretty strong theory.

RationalWiki article is pseudoscience. “Scientists' inability to explain eye evolution down to every microscopic detail does not demonstrate that the eye can't evolve …”

This is an interesting claim you're insinuating, that if we can explain something yet can't explain every minute detail of it then it isn't science. Whelp guys, pack it up, turns out the laws of motion aren't science since we haven't been able to perfectly explain how the quantum fields interact with forces and what they even are as of yet.

And yes that probably was a fallacy I just used to emphasis my point

[–]ThisBWhoIsMe 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It is quite easy to come to the conclusion that eye evolved…

That’s called circular reasoning; a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion.

Eyes being different doesn’t support evolution without first assuming evolution. You’re basing your conclusion on your assumption.

Let’s say we have a hypothesis that eyes evolved. So, we do some test and prove that eyes evolved. Then that would be considered scientific knowledge. Someone might prove it wrong later, requiring a change in the hypothesis and more test.

There aren’t any proven hypothesis for eyes evolving, now. Therefore, it can’t be considered knowledge because it’s not known to be true. Anyone can assume anything, but we can’t draw a knowledgeable conclusion without proof.

We've looked at the available evidence, the fossils for example, which all point to the idea that life evolved overtime.

Circular reasoning again. You’re basing your conclusion on your assumption, and then assume that your conclusion proves your assumption.

Whelp guys, pack it up, turns out the laws of motion aren't science since we haven't been able to perfectly explain how the quantum fields interact with forces and what they even are as of yet.

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. … This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"

[–]DEEGOBOOSTEROld Earth - Young Life 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rational wiki is horribly biased and therefor should not be trusted as a primary source. Two can play at this game.

[–]SilverRabbits 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh definitely not as a primary source, no wiki should be. It's just that instead of essentially paraphrasing their arguments I can just link directly to them.

[–]cptbryan 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dude. This is an amazing point I've never considered. Thanks for that.

[–]mexican_timelordJehovah's Witness/Old Earth[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thank you

[–]SilverRabbits 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'd recommend avoiding this argument, it is flat out wrong and will only result in you being laughed out of the room if you try to bring it up in a serious debate against anyone who has even a passing interest in the eye. Refer to my other comment for an explanation.

[–]mexican_timelordJehovah's Witness/Old Earth[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Alright thanks. That's the beauty of it. Seeing what everyone has to say.

[–]Madmonk11 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Irreducible complexity. Others are stating it variously. Living organisms are fully functioning systems. They don't work without their parts functioning together as parts of the whole.

Statistical appearance. There is evidence of organisms that have features that could be transitional or vestigial, but these are quite rare. According to the evolutionary mechanism, instead of finding evidence of one possible transition per thousand distinct systems, we should see a thousand transitional features per distinct system. So thinking of these features as results of a common design pattern is more logical than thinking of them as chance transitions or vestiges.

[–]afCee 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Irreducible complexity. Others are stating it variously. Living organisms are fully functioning systems. They don't work without their parts functioning together as parts of the whole.

This claim fail quite hard when you consider that all organisms are unique with different number of traits and different variants of all traits.

Statistical appearance. There is evidence of organisms that have features that could be transitional or vestigial, but these are quite rare. According to the evolutionary mechanism, instead of finding evidence of one possible transition per thousand distinct systems, we should see a thousand transitional features per distinct system. So thinking of these features as results of a common design pattern is more logical than thinking of them as chance transitions or vestiges.

How do you detect a transition?

[–]MRH2M.Sc. physics, Mensa 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are lots of complicated systems and lots of things that are far better designed than we could ever make: the eye is better than any camera (aside from single use specialized ones. Our eye sees over an incredibly range of light intensities and adjusts for colour changes, does image enhancements etc). Our ears are a "masterpiece of engineering" involving acoustics, mechanics, hydraulics, electronics, miniaturization.

In order to get oxygen to your cells (assuming that you're a warmblooded vertebrate) you need lungs, blood vessels, red blood cells. The red blood cells need hemoglobin and are made in bone marrow. Hemoglobin will not work without iron. Iron requires the intestines to digest food, and release iron. It also requires the molecules ferroportin, hepcidin, transferrin, transferrin receptors, ferritn. These molecules are made in the most complex chemical factory we know: the liver. Oh, you also need a heart to pump the blood.

Ribosomes are some of the tiniest organelles in the cell. The read strips of RNA and create proteins from the instructions in the RNA. But for a ribosome to exist and function you need a lot of things: DNA, molecules to read the DNA and transcribe it to RNA, amino acids to join together to make proteins and ATP to power everything. Just to get ATP you need to have one of two incredibly complex chemical processes: if you're a plant, you can make ATP (and glucose) from sunlight, CO2 and water by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is very complicated process. If you're an animal you get various types of food energy (sugars, starches, fats) and have the very complicated process of cellular respiration to convert these to ATP. I'm sure that I'm vastly oversimplifying things.

This won't really convince people and it's not a proof, but it is impressive.

[–]afCee 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you determine if something is complex or not? What is it that stop evolution from arranging complex structures?

[–]ThisBWhoIsMe 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Evolution’s timeframe is based on invoking the tooth fairy: New York Times, Cosmologists have another saying they like to cite: You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once, meaning dark matter…

Evolution’s time is based on a fudge factor, or invoking the tooth fairy as some Cosmologists call it. A fudge factor is the scientific term for something added to observation, to change observation to agree with a theory. The scientific observation is that the Milky Way is flying apart and can’t be billions of years old, NASA, “the speed at which galaxies spin is too fast to be held together by the gravity.”{1}

The fudge factor, dark matter, is added to galaxy, and cluster, orbits to exhibit them as being in sustained orbits; contrary to observation. This is called the Anthropic Principle. Scientific observations are adjusted to agree with evolution under the assumption that evolution is true, meaning that the Universe must be old enough for evolution to take place or we wouldn’t be here.

{1} question: Can you tell me how dark matter affects galactic spin? (Submitted June 30, 1997)

[–]JoeCoder 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been cross-posted by u/VestigialPseudogene, which explains the vote brigading:

  1. Fun thread to watch: "What are your best arguments against evolution?"
  2. /r/Creation members get together to discuss the "best arguments against evolution"
  3. /r/Creation members get together to discuss the "best arguments against evolution"

[–]Bman409 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pick up the book, "Evolution's Achilles Heel" http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

I think that is what you are looking for, OP

[–]nomenmeum 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are arguments for common descent.

And there are arguments for evolution as the mechanism of common descent.

Some of the arguments for common descent give me pause.

None of the arguments for evolution seem credible to me. Below are the reasons I do not believe in either evolution or common descent.

Neither seems compatible with Genesis.

Evolution (the claim that every living organism has descended from a single ancient cell by the process of natural selection acting on random mutation over the course of billions of years) is both unobservable and unimaginably improbable. The leap of faith from what is observed to what is inferred requires a degree of extrapolation that is unjustified and incredible. (Incidentally, saying this does not make me guilty of the fallacy of personal incredulity. I am not saying, “Since I cannot believe it, it is of necessity false.” I’m only saying I cannot rationally justify believing in it. One might make the same argument for not believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster.)

As for the broader claims of common descent, the only arguments that have given me pause are those which cite shared mutations (like the the vitamin C pseudogene) among species as evidence of common descent. These are good arguments; however, as Jonathen Wells notes “If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome [between humans and chimps] are presumably evidence against it… If humans and chimps were recently descended from a common ancestor, one would expect their Y chromosomes to be very similar. Genome researchers recently reported, however, that the male-specific portions of the human and chimp Y chromosomes ‘differ radically in sequence structure and gene content.”

I suspect, that as our knowledge of genetics increases, the idea of common descent will have more and more evidence against it.