The Theory of Evolution

[Vangelovski]

An honest evolutionist would have to admit that the theory of evolution is based on the belief that a mindless, unguided, and undirected natural processes produced out of nothing very sophisticated and highly cogent information that in any under setting can only be consistent with a rational intelligent mind.

This is the problem with evolutionary theory. They want to make whopping assumptions and take life and "original" information as a given (claiming they are not required to explain them) and then build a theory about how a molecule could have evolved into a fully functioning creature. Outside of vicsinad, I've never seen an evolutionist claim that there is no need for new information. They've always tried to explain how new information is created but have failed to do so.

Even vicsinad is not sure about whether he thinks new information has been created or not, then he has the audacity to accuse others of changing definitions.

First he tried to answer my question on how new information is produced by fobbing of a few articles that talk about rearranging existing information and a loss of information. Then he claimed that new information is created from old information, but couldn't explain how, other than to rehash the story of rearranging existing information:

You won't accept that new information is created from old information.

Think of it as a musical scale. Given any 12 notes, you can make nearly an infinite number of patterns and combinations of varying lengths.

Genes work the same way. The same bases are always used. Endless combinations are made.

Then he claimed that all the necessary information was already in existence (something naturalists just can't explain but want us to accept on faith) from which evolution could build on but didn't explain how it builds on it:

The original soup, as you called it, contained the information necessary to eventually get to genetic information, even if you don't consider it genetic in nature.

Then he claimed that no new information was needed:

Further, you want me to show how we have gone from molecule to man. The question is the problem, not the answer. For man is just molecules. No new information was added.

Worse yet, he's implying that asking how molecule's turned into man is the problem and that we should not ask that question - we should just accept it on faith I guess. Very scientific.

Finally he admits that no new information is created:

Genetic information is just chemicals. The stuff that leads to genetic information is just chemicals. Thus, no new information is created.

Maybe vicsinad is just a bad representation of what evolutionists believe, but if he didn't worm around so much, it would become blindingly obvious that evolution has massive gaping holes and is built on assumptions (origin of life, "original" information) that we are told not to question, just accept. Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms (e.g. protozoa) have given rise to pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information, but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. If anything, the journey of information is going in the opposite direction to what is required for evolution to be true.

[spitfire]

Behold the truth! The earth is not rectangular then!

Watch out for those edges, you might fall off. From my balcony I can see the moon but not Australia. Therefore the moon is a discus and Australia does not exist.

[George S.]

In the book if isaiah it says the earth is the circle of a round earth.God should know his creation.Man is the one who doesn't.
Guys all who claim that we evolved i'm not inspired.

[spitfire]

Philosopher, I couldn't care less what you think of me, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual.

However, you fail to give a logical understanding of the matter. This is the case with all creationists and that's what makes them less credible than evolutionists.
Science stands on disbelief of those claims, involving logic and that's how it is.
You explain it different but not logically. It is for each one to choose what he thinks is the best way for him.

I'll be waiting your claims about the flat earth.

[Philosopher]

They are excellent examples of natural selection, regardless everything else.
It's what creationists don't seem to grasp when they talk about evolution. They tend to think only in a DNA level, which is a part of the evolution process, not the whole thing.

At this point in time I would have to conclude that you are really, really, dumb – far dumber than I could I have previously imagined – or you are just playing silly games.

Frankly, I'm not sure which it is, but I have no interest in ascertaining this.

The Piltdown man is fake. It is fake. It is fake. It is fake. It cannot be an “excellent example” of anything other than a fake.

No creationist denies natural selection within the realm of microevolution. Plants and species adapt to survive. This is not evidence of macroevoltuion.

We are not debating microevolution because no one denies it. It is an observable fact.

The concept of someone coming in a little spec of dust in the universe, to choose to die in a horrific way, in order to save other specs of dust from their sins is what you'd call illogical.

No. It is called the love of God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son”.

But then again, religion is not explained on the basis of logic. Nor does faith. From this point on, there is a fundamental disagreement between creationists and evolutionists, which I think it is never going to settle. The reason for this is that both sides have a different approach of explaining things.

And it is comments such as these that makes me wonder why I would waste a second of my time discoursing with you.

[spitfire]

Man was created from the dust of the ground in one day by God and he breathed the breath of life in man. Man is not the result of evolution.

From a Christian perspective, the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

Let me explain.

Genesis tells us death came by Adam and Eve's transgression. Evolution, however, teaches death is a natural process of the universe. It would have to be in order for new species to evolve.

If death did not come by sin, as evolution teaches, than the life and death of Jesus Christ means nothing.

Jesus Christ is the second Adam. He came to restore what was lost in the Garden of Eve. If death is caused by sin, as the Bible teaches, and Christ lived a sinless life, he can resurrect from the grave because Satan and death had no power over him.

Moreover, if death is a natural process, and it is not the result of sin, then why would God become man to save man from his sins?

So my question to anyone claims to be a Christian evolutionist:

Is death a natural process or is it the result of sin? If it is a natural process, then Jesus is not the second Adam; Jesus did not come to restore what was lost by Adam; and Jesus Christ could not die for anyone's sins; and Jesus Christ could not rise from the dead.

If these things are true, than Christianity cannot be true.

It is one or the other.

Period.

The concept of someone coming in a little spec of dust in the universe, to choose to die in a horrific way, in order to save other specs of dust from their sins is what you'd call illogical.

But then again, religion is not explained on the basis of logic. Nor does faith. From this point on, there is a fundamental disagreement between creationists and evolutionists, which I think it is never going to settle. The reason for this is that both sides have a different approach of explaining things.

[spitfire]

I understand English is your second language, but the examples provided earlier are examples of forgery. They are fake. The story of the moths proves microevolution, which has already been documented, is an observable fact and does not prove the theory of evolution.

The Piltdown man is 100% fake.

They are excellent examples of natural selection, regardless everything else.
It's what creationists don't seem to grasp when they talk about evolution. They tend to think only in a DNA level, which is a part of the evolution process, not the whole thing.

[Philosopher]

Excellent examples of how evolution works through selection of the environment Philosopher. Couldn't have given better examples myself.

I understand English is your second language, but the examples provided earlier are examples of forgery. They are fake. The story of the moths proves microevolution, which has already been documented, is an observable fact and does not prove the theory of evolution.

The Piltdown man is 100% fake.

[Philosopher]

Do you think that maybe the creation of man was not something that was done from scratch, but rather a soul given to him (by God presumably) at some point of his evolution?

Man was created from the dust of the ground in one day by God and he breathed the breath of life in man. Man is not the result of evolution.

From a Christian perspective, the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

Let me explain.

Genesis tells us death came by Adam and Eve's transgression. Evolution, however, teaches death is a natural process of the universe. It would have to be in order for new species to evolve.

If death did not come by sin, as evolution teaches, than the life and death of Jesus Christ means nothing.

Jesus Christ is the second Adam. He came to restore what was lost in the Garden of Eve. If death is caused by sin, as the Bible teaches, and Christ lived a sinless life, he can resurrect from the grave because Satan and death had no power over him.

Moreover, if death is a natural process, and it is not the result of sin, then why would God become man to save man from his sins?

So my question to anyone claims to be a Christian evolutionist:

Is death a natural process or is it the result of sin? If it is a natural process, then Jesus is not the second Adam; Jesus did not come to restore what was lost by Adam; and Jesus Christ could not die for anyone's sins; and Jesus Christ could not rise from the dead.

If these things are true, than Christianity cannot be true.

It is one or the other.

Period.

[spitfire]

Excellent examples of how evolution works through selection of the environment Philosopher. Couldn't have given better examples myself.

[Philosopher]

More evolutionary trickery.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most moths in the UK were an off-white color, highly adapted to hiding from predators, such as birds, by resting on pale, mottled grey tree trunks. But the Industrial Revolution polluted the environment, raining soot down on the countryside. As a result, white moths became highly visible on the now blackened tree trunks. Black moths, on the other hand, such as the peppered moth (which had previously been quite rare), suddenly had a competitive advantage. They were well camouflaged on black tree trunks, and their numbers grew exponentially. By the early twentieth century, they were the dominant moth form in polluted areas of the UK.

The above story is considered the classic example of "evolution in action." It shows how an environmental change can give one form of a species a selective advantage, leading to its dominance. Its validity rests upon experiments conducted by researcher H.B.D. Kettlewell during the 1950s, which demonstrated that white moths do have an advantage over dark moths on pale trees, and a disadvantage on dark trees, and vice versa.

But what made the story of the peppered moth particularly popular was the visual evidence. In 1955 Kettlewell published a pair of photos showing the relative camouflage of the black and white moth forms in the two settings. In the top photo it is easy to see the black moth on the pale, lichen-covered bark and to imagine how a bird could pick it off, but the white moth is almost invisible. In the bottom photo, by contrast, the black moth is almost invisible while resting on a soot-blackened tree.

Since the mid-1960s most Biology textbooks have included the story of the peppered moth, accompanied by Kettlewell's two photos (or ones very similar to them). The ubiquity of the images made it that much more shocking when the public learned the photos were staged. Finding black and white moths posed beside each other in a natural setting would have been almost impossible, so to create the photos Kettlewell pinned dead moths to tree trunks. Moth experts knew the photos were staged because live moths would not have had extended wings. But no textbook ever disclosed this detail to readers.

The staging of the photos was first raised as an issue by intelligent-design advocate Jonathan Wells in his 2000 work Icons of Evolution. But the controversy reached a more mainstream audience in 2002 when science writer Judith Hopper discussed it in her popular account of the science of the peppered moth, Of Moths and Men.

The staging was an issue, critics argued, because it over-simplified the peppered moth story and made it seem that the camouflage of the moths was a self-evident advantage. However, it wasn't clear that moths rested on tree trunks during the day, as the pictures implied. Some evidence suggested they preferred to remain higher in the tree canopy and beneath branches where their coloration would have been less of an advantage. Also, it wasn't clear that birds were the main predator of moths. Bats also ate moths, and since bats use echolocation to navigate, the coloration of the moths would not have made a difference. Critics also questioned the methodology of Kettlewell's experiments.

Scientists still vigorously defend the peppered moth story as an example of evolution in action. They also defend the use of the staged photos in textbooks, arguing that, although they're not entirely accurate, they offer an invaluable way of presenting the concept of natural selection to students in an easy-to-comprehend form.

Nevertheless, the pair of images has become one of the most famous and controversial examples of staged photographs in all of science.

http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

[Philosopher]

Piltdown Man – an evolutionary hoax.

Sarah Pruitt

On December 18, 1912, at a packed meeting of the U.K.'s Geological Society, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum announced findings that caused a sensation around the world. After a three-year excavation of the Piltdown gravel pit in Sussex, England, Dawson had unearthed human-like skull fragments and a jaw with two teeth, along with a variety of animal fossils and primitive stone tools. Dawson and Woodward announced that one of the skulls and the jaw belonged to a primitive hominid, or human ancestor, who lived some 500,000 to 1 million years ago. The scientific community celebrated Dawson's discovery as the long-awaited "missing link" between ape and man and the confirmation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. As the decades passed and new information came to light, however, it became clear that the Piltdown Man was not what he seemed.

By the time of Dawson and Woodward’s historic announcement, the search for a missing link to prove Darwin’s still-controversial theory had grown intense. Significant evidence of early humans in the British Isles had not yet been found, and the success of the Sussex dig was a major headline-grabber. Woodward, who was the curator of the British Museum’s paleontology department, dubbed the discovery Eoanthropus dawsoni, or “Dawson’s Dawn-man,” but he was more commonly known as the Piltdown Man.

The first doubts about Piltdown Man’s legitimacy surfaced in the 1920s and ’30s, with the discovery of other early human remains around the world (such as the Taung skull in South Africa, now known as Australopithecus). None of them showed the large brain and ape-like jaw of Piltdown Man; instead, they suggested that jaws and teeth became human-like before a large brain evolved. New dating technology based on fluorine testing emerged in 1939, but the Piltdown remains had been locked away after Dawson’s death in 1916 and were not extensively tested until a decade later. At that time, fluorine testing revealed that the remains were a good deal younger than had previously been claimed, closer to 50,000 than 500,000 years old. (Later, carbon-dating technology showed that the skull was actually no more than 600 years old.)

But that wasn’t all: Upon closer examination of the Piltdown Man, scientists found that the presumed hominid’s skull and jaw actually originated from two different species, a human and an ape (possibly an orangutan). A microscope revealed that the teeth within the jaw had been filed down to make them look more human, and that many of the remains from the Piltdown site appeared to have been stained to match each other as well as the gravel where they were supposedly found. In November 1953, authorities of the British Natural History Museum announced these findings and publicly called Piltdown Man a fraud.

http://www.history.com/news/piltdown-man-hoax-100-years-ago

[spitfire]

Well George S, I still haven't got an answer from creationists about the matter.

One more interesting question for the creationists (as opposed to evolutionists I guess).

Do you think that maybe the creation of man was not something that was done from scratch, but rather a soul given to him (by God presumably) at some point of his evolution?

[George S.]

can someone tell me how crocodiles and sharks,cockroaches havent evolved?Look what bible says about creation of animals in genesis.That god made each animal after irs own kind.He created the species.Bio divesity.THe animals didn't just evolve.Did man evove from the monkeys??Man was made after THe god kind.In the image of god.Man has a special place AND NONE OF YOU KNOW IT.Why man was created in the first place.If evolution exists what is man going to evolve into??

[spitfire]