The Problem with Darwinism.....

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]What do Otakus think of Darwinism (the theory of evolution)? I personally see many [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted2.php]flaws in this theory[/URL] and therefore don't believe that all living creatures evolved from one ancestor, and if they did, then there must have been some sort of intelligence behind its mechanisms.

Anyway, here are some suggested readings:
[URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html]The Origin of Species[/URL]
[URL=http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/]Darwins Theory of Evolution[/URL]
[URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php]Darwinism Refuted[/URL]
[URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php]The Evolution Deciet[/URL]
[URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php#q1]The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions[/URL][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Only 55% of the US population believes in Darwinism, and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.

What you are thinking of, Chabichou, is either Intelligent Design or Nomogenesis. I personally prescribe to the former.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Only 55% of the US population believes in Darwinism, and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.

What you are thinking of, Chabichou, is either Intelligent Design or Nomogenesis. I personally prescribe to the former.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Even if you do believe in God, you could still believe in evolution in some way. We could for instance beileve that God created us, and then other animals have evolved over time or something like that. But let's just look at the theory from a scientific point of view. I'm sure even some athiests disagree with this specific theory.

I do believe in a way that evolution can make a species more adaptable to their environment, but I don't believe that it can give rise to new species. For instance their is a theory that dogs evolved from dolphins. Darwin states that small changes in a species appear over lots of time and this is what gives rise to new species. If this is true, shouldn't there have been fossils found of strange half dogs/dolphins?[/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You are missing a key point of Darwinism. Change and new speices arise from [B]random mutations[/B]. This is the focal point of Darwin's theory that made him so controversial, and yet so scientifically sound.

Random mutation leaves no leeway for the idea that God had any involvement in the creation of man, and so the only kind of belief in God you can have is "Man created God."

Trust me, if you think there's something other than random mutation involved in evolution, then you follow either Intelligent Design or Nomogenesis. These two theories arose from the fact that the probability of random mutations to come so far in such a short time (4.6 billion years) is as probable as a monkey typing randomly on a computer and coming up with a Shakespearean Play.

While some people do believe Shakespeare is a monkey who just wrote ridiculous stuff, it's still a logical series of words. :p[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Darwin states that small changes in a species appear over lots of time and this is what gives rise to new species. If this is true, shouldn't there have been fossils found of strange half dogs/dolphins?[/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]Only if dogs evolved into dolphins, lol.

Personally, I?d put more weight on Darwinism than any existing religious creationism. All of the latter are based on faith, and are completely lacking in the evidence department. Darwinism, while not a perfect theory, is backed up by significant scientific data (fossils, for instance).[/color]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You are missing a key point of Darwinism. Change arises from [B]random mutations[/B]. This is the focal point of Darwinism that made him so controversial, and yet so scientifically sound.

Random mutation leaves no leeway for the idea that God had any involvement in the creation of man, and so the only kind of belief in God you can have is "Man created God."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Just because one believes in God, that doesn't mean we completely ignore science. We know how DNA works and we know that mutations occur in DNA.

The controversial part is how the heck can a mutation be good? How can it give rise to a new species? Sure's it's possible, but what chance does it have of occuring. No scientists have come up with a mutation that is favourable to an organism. They zap them with radiation and even play around with the genes, yet they can only come up with flies that have legs for antenae.

Another thing is that species are so different from each other. How did organs like eyes and ear come about gradually? If they had a single part missing from them they would fail to function, making them useless, they cannot evolve gradually over time because they have to use a creature. Having a non funtioning eye is no better than having no eye at all. Therefore, natural selection would not favour that specific wierd creature with parts of an eye that don't work.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Only if dogs evolved into dolphins, lol.[/quote]Yeah I know what you mean, there's no proof that dogs came from dolphins or anything, just a possibility according to the evolution theory. What I mean is that if we all came from one ancestor where are these wierd transitional forms that made the evolution into different species possible, whatever they may be? [/COLOR]

[poo62.2]

I believe in Darwinism 100%, there is lots of scientific proof to back it up. But as always there is always a flaw, and lots of holes in the subject that will be continually poked into until its proved to be pure fiction or true fact.

But I think we should respect other people?s views into account and use them to build a bigger knowledge of the subject; I can't stand it when stubborn people will automatically shun your beliefs on things like Darwinism. If we all actually listen to each other we may even find out the true answer to evolution, who knows.

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]If you did not already, please see the rest of my post. I must have been editing while you were writing your post, so you could have missed it. Otherwise, read the following (or both, haha): [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f]Just because one believes in God, that doesn't mean we completely ignore science. We know how DNA works and we know that mutations occur in DNA.

The controversial part is how the heck can a mutation be good? How can it give rise to a new species? Sure's it's possible, but what chance does it have of occuring. No scientists have come up with a mutation that is favourable to an organism. They zap them with radiation and even play around with the genes, yet they can only come up with flies that have legs for antenae.[/color][/QUOTE]I never said to completely ignore science. Darwin sure as hell isn't the definition of science. If you don't believe in Darwinism, that doesn't mean you don't believe in science.

Secondly, they already have shown how mutations can be good. How do you think genetic research is done? We give bacteria, an organism, a gene that codes for antibiotic formation. Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR Tuberculosis) arose from continuous mutation and information exchange. Both in the artificial and natural sense, it has been shown how mutations can be good. [QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f]Another thing is that species are so different from each other. How did organs like eyes and ear come about gradually? If they had a single part missing from them they would fail to function, making them useless, they cannot evolve gradually over time because they have to use a creature. Having a non funtioning eye is no better than having no eye at all. Therefore, natural selection would not favour that specific wierd creature with parts of an eye that don't work.[/color][/QUOTE]Ugh... I recommend reading up on the theory of the mitochondria's origin, then biofilm formation, then... It's going to be hell to explain everything bit by bit, but just take my word, there's a good explanation how it came to be. It's just that most of the stuff doesn't work with Darwin and his friend Brown's ideas.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Retribution]

Before I start, Azure, you're one smart dude. In all the threads I read, you seem to bring the hard facts to the argument. Good job.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, but I take Genesis as a symbolic story. In my opinion, there didn't necessarily have to be ONE man and ONE woman to start the human race, named Adam and Eve, who lived in a perfect garden. I also don't believe things were created in 7 days. It's basically a way to explain how days came about, and the order in which things were created. Neither of which is necessarily correct. Who knows? Maybe a 'day' in the author's mind meant trillions upon trillions of years. ::shrugfest::

To the point, I support Darwinism. I don't believe that God created man in a day, but over a long period of time, and the first 'humans' weren't humans in the modern sense at all. I can't remember what came before Neanderthals, but they came before them (IMO). Besides, Darwinism has hard facts supporting it, that to-the-letter Bible readers can't refute. I'm not sure which you'll believe... fossils showing gradual change, or believe in a book that things took place in 7 days. When you look at how genes are passed along, they are shuffled during chromosome combination (forgot the term..), but it basically shuffles the genes, making it so that you get a different human every time. In other words, the chromosomes don't even use all the information on them, like a slot machine randomly choosing which trait will be manifested.

And is Darwinism the same as Evolution...ism? Sorry. I'm a little rusty on this thing.

[Manic Webb]

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
It can if you're Buddhist. It's a religion with no exclusive belief in either divine creation or evolution. Actually, I think it leaves a door open for either one. I'm not Buddhist, but I just thought I could put that out there.

[quote name='Altron']Anyway, I'm a Christian, but I take Genesis as a symbolic story.[/quote]
Agreed. I can buy that God created everything, but I don't take the part about doing it all in a week literally. We determined the length of a full day through 2 things: the Earth making a full revolution, and the time the Sun and moon are in the sky. The Sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day. The Earth itself wasn't created until the 3rd. So how exactly were light and heaven made in 2 days if there was no way to tell it was 2 days? That would mean God was working on a 24 hour clock, right? But there would be no need to keep track of time if time had just begun. It would've been a lot simpler to say light and the heavens were made on the same day.

Personally, a metaphor is just a lot easier for me to understand.

And if humanity started with only 2 people, that would mean all people on Earth are distantly descended from (well...) 2 people. This part about Genesis was written when everyone you knew was in the cradle of civilization, and people pretty much looked alike racially. No one was traveling far East enough to pass the Himalaya mountains, and no one was passing through the desert to reach Africa. I get that the story of the tower of Babel can account for the many languages spoken, but it doesn't explain why people around the world look so drastically different. But you know what does? Darwin's theory on adaptation.

This is why, despite being Christian, I don't like to take too many things in the Bible too literally. Some stuff is just too difficult to explain unless it's meant to be symbolic.

[Dagger]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Yeah I know what you mean, there's no proof that dogs came from dolphins or anything, just a possibility according to the evolution theory. What I mean is that if we all came from one ancestor where are these wierd transitional forms that made the evolution into different species possible, whatever they may be? [/COLOR][/quote]

At some point, transitional wolf/whale creatures did exist, heh. The link is not yet perfectly established, but the existence of ancient whale-like animals with either vestigial or actual legs has long since been verified. It makes sense to me: whales, dolphins and sea lions undulate their spines vertically (like land mammals) rather than horizontally (like sharks and other types of fish).

~Dagger~

[EVA Unit 100]

I believe in the theory of evolution. You can even see it in action today with bacteria and stuff. While all life probably didn't evolve from one ancestor, there was probably about 3 or 4 early organisms that came about through a combination of protiens from different sources interacting with Earth, and those early organisms evolved into all the forms of life we have today. However, you can still believe in God and evolution at the same time. Personally, I think that evolution is how new species come about, but God intends the evolution to happen. That's just how I think, though.

[Onix]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']The controversial part is how the heck can a mutation be good? How can it give rise to a new species? Sure's it's possible, but what chance does it have of occuring. No scientists have come up with a mutation that is favourable to an organism. They zap them with radiation and even play around with the genes, yet they can only come up with flies that have legs for antenae. [/COLOR][/quote]

[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]The reason that radiation-caused mutations are detrimental is because mutation is not naturally caused by sudden bursts of radioactive energy. Mutations are caused by the intermingling of genes of two different organisms. As they have a slightly different genetic code, the offspring is different than either parent. Just like you and your parents. You don't look and act exactly like them, now do you?

Evolution happens when these genetic mixtures bring about a major physiological change. Let's use, as an example, a five-legged lizard and a lizard with feathers. The five-legged lizard cannot move as easily, and is thus killed by predators. No more five-legged lizards. Meanwhile, the feathered lizard has no adverse effects due to the feathers (maybe they even prove beneficial) and thus has little feathered lizard babies. Through the years, they grow more feathers, their mouths harden into beaks, and they become birds.

I had more but...my post was deleted. And I don't feel like typing the rest right now '0_0

-ULX[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Japan]

[quote name='EVA Unit 100']I believe in the theory of evolution. You can even see it in action today with bacteria and stuff. While all life probably didn't evolve from one ancestor, there was probably about 3 or 4 early organisms that came about through a combination of protiens from different sources interacting with Earth, and those early organisms evolved into all the forms of life we have today. However, you can still believe in God and evolution at the same time. Personally, I think that evolution is how new species come about, but God intends the evolution to happen. That's just how I think, though.[/quote]

[COLOR=Navy]
How can you believe in both? You either believe one thing, or believe the other.

When you believe in evolution, you believe that the earth came by a big bang. After so many years things evolve into other things and so on.

If you believe in God in a Christian standpoint, you believe that He created all things. Not evolution and a big bang.

If we evolved from apes, how come the other monkeys and apes didn't evolve?
If we evolve, then how come we haven't changed over 2000 years?

Sure, we gotten taller and we live longer, but that's only due to good hygene, modern medicene, and knowledge to harmful things like lead and DDT. [/COLOR]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]If we evolved from apes, how come the other monkeys and apes didn't evolve?
If we evolve, then how come we haven't changed over 2000 years?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Evolution does not have to be something constant; this is a common misconception. It occurs mainly in small, rapid bursts. Once a species finds its niche, there is no particular need for evolution; in the absence of some kind of heavy selective pressure, mutations simply won't offer a marked advantage. Even if harmless mutations occur, the individuals with them probably aren't going to be favored by nature. There is no specific evolutionary pressure affecting contemporary human society (none that I can think of, at any rate)--humans, therefore, are not evolving in any specific direction.

Also, humans didn't evolve from "apes" as we know them today--it's not as though gorillas or orangutans suddenly developed into people or something. We share a lot of genetic material with chimpanzees and so forth, but all of the modern primates branched off from various common ancestors eons ago. Monkeys and apes did evolve--they separately evolved into their current forms, just as we evolved into ours.

~Dagger~

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I believe in Intelligent design...or rather, a more appropriate term would be that I think Intelligent Design is the best theory I've seen put forth. I don't believe in God. I see flaws in Evolutionary Theory.

I think that Evolution is definitely something with a lot of merit, but on it's own has trouble standing. It needs some kind of guiding force...be it a God, or aliens, I don't know, lol. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, as long as they can accept the [b]fact[/b] that there is a reasonable likelihood that they're wrong.[/size]

[RabidInuFanboy]

[QUOTE=Manic Webb]
And if humanity started with only 2 people, that would mean all people on Earth are distantly descended from (well...) 2 people. This part about Genesis was written when everyone you knew was in the cradle of civilization, and people pretty much looked alike racially. No one was traveling far East enough to pass the Himalaya mountains, and no one was passing through the desert to reach Africa. I get that the story of the tower of Babel can account for the many languages spoken, but it doesn't explain why people around the world look so drastically different. But you know what does? Darwin's theory on adaptation.

This is why, despite being Christian, I don't like to take too many things in the Bible too literally. Some stuff is just too difficult to explain unless it's meant to be symbolic.[/QUOTE]

Not to get in an argument about the Christian religion, but I just want to point out that God created two races of man. Adam and Eve, who were literally children of God, and the Nephilim, who were a race of humans meant to subdue the earth. That's why we have the scripture "The sons of God slept with the daughters of man"
Plus, it makes no sense, because if we came from Adam and Eve only, that would mean that there was some incest involved somewhere along the line (Due to the fact that Adam and Eve had three sons).

But, I'm getting off on a tangent. Now, I believe in Creationism, but I also believe in evolution. I believe we evolve to adapt to our surroundings, but we didn't evolve from monkeys. That's where I draw the line.

[Dagger]

[quote name='RabidInuFanboy']But, I'm getting off on a tangent. Now, I believe in Creationism, but I also believe in evolution. I believe we evolve to adapt to our surroundings, but we didn't evolve from monkeys.[/quote]
In the first part of your sentence, what is the pronoun "we" referring to? Do you actually believe that human beings are currently evolving, or are you referring to living things in general? To me it sounds as though you're saying that God created all the different species and so forth, but they have changed over time. Do you think that one or more new species can sprout from a single parent species, or not?

[quote]That's where I draw the line.[/QUOTE]
Why? I'm curious.

~Dagger~

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

DaggerIX1 is totally on a roll in this thread. Modern-day apes are the result of as many years of evolution as man is, because they diverged from a *different* common ancestor.

Chabichou, think about this. To say that evolution cannot give rise to a new species, you are going to have to show to us how there is [I]no evidence of a common ancestor between any two species[/I]. And that you CANNOT do and we all know it. Since you are making this powerful claim in opposition to evolution, the burden of proof rests on you. You lose.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]DaggerIX1 is totally on a roll in this thread. Modern-day apes are the result of as many years of evolution as man is, because they diverged from a *different* common ancestor.

Chabichou, think about this. To say that evolution cannot give rise to a new species, you are going to have to show to us how there is [I]no evidence of a common ancestor between any two species[/I]. And that you CANNOT do and we all know it. Since you are making this powerful claim in opposition to evolution, the burden of proof rests on you. You lose.[/QUOTE]

Ugh, remind you of a certain thread a while back, Sciros. Back when he and I were debating casually on the subject, we homed in on specifics... know why? Because the scientific theory of evolution is just like any religion. You've got your historical evidence (fossil records, etc) so does religion (religious figures, text, etc. We've got our evidence, and the faith that pieces it into some sort of belief... some reality that we shall accept for whatever reason; to answer a question, explain something, give us some sort of feeling of worth.

Sciros, you of all people should know that the burden of proof is on science. Just as it is the burden of the missionary to convince the unbeliever of God.

Evolution's greatest flaw is in its design; it takes the end product of all living organisms and begins to pre-impose assumptions upon it. We cannot testify to a single act of macroevolution, we cannot explain the origin of life. We can try, we can guess... inevitably all of the holes in each theory leave the disillusioned knowledge-seeker with nothing less than [i]faith[/i]. Probably a bitter taste in the mouth of a realist.

[Morpheus]

I believe in Evolution. Religion is the product of man, not vice-versa. It was made to explain the unexplainable(most of which has been explained today). I believe that we evolved from monkeies. As Sciros said, there is evidence to support this. All religion has is a book. A piece of paper that could have been written after you were born. Written by men. The idea that we were all created is preposterus. If god created us, Why would he fill us with so much doubt?

[Delta]

[COLOR=#B33D79]Whoa... *blinded by Azure's brillliance*

Last I heard in our Biology class, living mutants (ehrm, for lack of a better term) have variations limited to only a few chromosomes. Mutations in the other chromosomes may result to abortion of the fetus. My point is, even before them mutants are born, those that won't survive get exterminated immediately. That's why we don't see the results of Nature's failed experiments.

Not a Biology person though so, hey, I might be wrong.

Love and Peace![/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='RabidInuFanboy']Adam and Eve, who were literally children of God, and the Nephilim, who were a race of humans meant to subdue the earth. That's why we have the scripture "The sons of God slept with the daughters of man"[/quote]
Well, Fanboy, I think you might be mixing religions together or something. I can't remember any mention of the 'Nephilim,' and the way you used your quote is certainly wrong.

"The sons of God slept with the daughters of man" is referring to (Old Testament) the Hebrews mixing with the pagans, which was completely against God's commands. He said not to do this because syncretism would take place (mixing of religions together). The sonsof God in this instance are the Hebrews, while the daughters of man are non-Christians.

Sorry about the tangent. Sort of off-topic.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Secondly, they already have shown how mutations can be good. How do you think genetic research is done? We give bacteria, an organism, a gene that codes for antibiotic formation. Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR Tuberculosis) arose from continuous mutation and information exchange. Both in the artificial and natural sense, it has been shown how mutations can be good. [/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]First of all I'd like to point out that gene splicing is different than mutation. Scientists have decoded the human genome, so they would know where to find a defective gene. They could splice a working gene and put it in it's place.

If a good mutation does happen to occur, it's never actually changed the species. The tubercolosis you mentioned did not change into another pathogen. It simply remained as tubercolosis. Some of us are more resistent to pathogens than others. Even if those with no resistance are wiped out, we still remain human.

Another thing I would like to point out is this: The law of entropy states that as things are let on their own, they tend to spontaneously move to more and more dis-ordered states, or a higher entropy as you would call it. Organisms however, are highly ordered systems, therefore energy would be required to keep them from become more disordered. How could the first cells have spontaneously, by chance, fromed on their own when they obvviously can't due to the law of entropy? They can't do this spontaneously; this reaction will never happen unless some sort of interference occurs. That's something to think about.
[QUOTE][I]It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination.

The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been explained, is one of the major difficulties facing the theory of evolution.
[/I] [B]-Harun Yahya[/B][/QUOTE]
[/COLOR]

[Manic Webb]

[quote name='RabidInuFanboy']Not to get in an argument about the Christian religion, but I just want to point out that God created two races of man. Adam and Eve, who were literally children of God, and the Nephilim, who were a race of humans meant to subdue the earth. That's why we have the scripture "The sons of God slept with the daughters of man"[/quote]
Actually, as I understand it, the Nephilim were a sect of angels who willing descended to Earth to teach humanity. They gave in to temptation while on Earth, and slept with the mortal women (which, I believe, was more than one at the time). Thus, they became fallen angels. The sons of God in your quote are the angels/nephilim, and the daughters of man are the women they slept with.