Give your one best shot - against evolution

Actually, yours seems the same opinion of everyone, at one time or another, on this forum (though they may deny it). The human gross anatomy and physiology defies comprehension, let alone its exceedingly complex microbiology, neurology, psychology, ethics, and spirituality. As a physician (podiatrist) who constantly deals with humans and persons (not synonymous), I perceive that they all, to some extent or other, don’t believe evolution could account for themselves and their illnesses.While in some cursed pain, their sufferings bring about their sobering reality (in their eyes), that evolution just isn’t so. Realizing that evolution(ism) is taboo in medicine, it is never unscrupulously used in counsel and healing. Sure the patient is sometimes a hardened evolutionist (atheist); but this does not stop this physician from seeing the patient’s subconscious redemptive faith in God, i.e., that became darkened by a sin-cursed nature. A physician’s fiduciary redemptive sympathies, too, are tantamount to healing a difficult patient; doctors always play on their patient’s faith. Any counsel that the patient has evolved/mutated into his dilemma is counted as unscrupulous counsel; the verdict reads guilty in any court of law. Moral: the patient is a real person, not an empirically evolved substrate.Now, the evo believes that our bodies and psyches naturalistically came about a molecule or 2 at a time from slime-substrates over a few millennia, like a colossal 3-D puzzle, that has miraculously come together seamlessly, and is now fortuitously manifest. His naturalistic faith is astonishingly greater than mine, a meager YEC physician. I can’t believe in any sort of naturalistic organ creation, organelle creation, or even enzyme creation without some (cursed-redemptive) design by God, let alone the vast harmonious collaboration(s) of these organs, organelles, and enzymes. Not to mention the vast aperceptive and abstracting depths of the human psyche.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan:
I was waiting in the doctors office one day in the exam room looking at cut away diagrams of the human body. Seeing how extreamly complex the design is and how well it works is what convinced me. I just cant possibly imagine that all of this has happened totally by chance. It just works to well to have hapened on its own with no outside help. A million engineers working a million years couldnt even come close to designing somthing as well designed as the human body. And evolutionists expect us to beleive that it created itself?

​

It is harder to beleive that abiogenesis and evolution occured than it is to beleive that there is a god that has created us.

​

Just my opinion.

---

It may be harder to believe, but that doesn't make it false,
does it ?Someone else may point out::1) evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Evolution is about
the diversity of life, and that life evolved from one or more common
ancestors over a period of approx. 3.5 billion years (is that
English or American billions ... does anyone know what the
standard is these days ?)2) Evolution is not pure chance. Evolution relys on the organism
having traits which may or may not be beneficial depending on
the environment it finds itself in. Those traits which are
beneficial help the organism survive, and increase its chance
of reproduction. Since the traits are heritable, the traits of those organisms that breed most will dominate the population.Speciation happens. Even most YEC's accept that (some even rely
on it to account for the numbers of creatures required on the
ark by Noah to be manageable).All evolution is postulating is that if, over a few thousands of
years we can go from some proto-big-cat (for example) to lions,
tigers, pumas, cougars, panthers, leopards, etc. then the accumulation of changes over millions of years could lead us from small shrew-like
mammals to the vast variety of mammals we find today ... and over
billions of years from single-celled creatures to multi-celled
creatures.Is that so hard to believe ... that over the course of several million
years, an accumulation of changes could lead to the diversity of
life we see today ?There is a wealth of evidence that can be interpreted as supporting
evolution ... and more is coming to light as we find out
more about genetics etc.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]Actually, yours seems the same opinion of everyone, at one time or another, on this forum (though they may deny it). The human gross anatomy and physiology defies comprehension, let alone its exceedingly complex microbiology, neurology, psychology, ethics, and spirituality. As a physician (podiatrist) who constantly deals with humans and persons (not synonymous), I perceive that they all, to some extent or other, don’t believe evolution could account for themselves and their illnesses. [/QUOTE]JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:1) evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.Let me rephraise what I said earlier. Its harder to beleive in abiogenesis than it is to beleive in a god that created us.2) Evolution is not pure chance.Then what is it?Is that so hard to believe ... that over the course of several million
years, an accumulation of changes could lead to the diversity of
life we see today ?Yes, yes it is.Evolutionists say that there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution but all Ive seen are pictures of birds beaks to show how they have "adapted" or "evolved". They have never shown how a cell, DNA, ear drums, eyes, electromagnetic navigation, the reproductive system, or the immune system evolved. If they could do that then yes I would accept it.There is just too much complexity to have happened by chance. Thats exactally what evolution is CHANCE. Chance variations starting at nothing and ending with absolute perfection. Im sorry but I just cant buy that.I think that science is too afriad to admit that there is somthing that they cant explain and they will keep making up fantastic scenarios to explain away the unexplainable until they do.Just my opinion.

quote:

---

JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?

---

It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists will use a desease such as sickle-cell anemia as an example of evolution in action! Sickle-cell is de-evolution. It represents a clear loss of information at the genetic level.

Hi, Fred! Welcome back!

Fred Williams writes:

---

It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists will use a desease such as sickle-cell anemia as an example of evolution in action! Sickle-cell is de-evolution. It represents a clear loss of information at the genetic level.

---

If an acceptable definition of evolution is change in allele frequency in a population over time, then isn't Joe's example of the interplay between malaria and sickle-cell anemia independent of whether your point is correct?--Percy

--Welcome to the forum Jonathan!"Is that so hard to believe ... that over the course of several million
years, an accumulation of changes could lead to the diversity of
life we see today ?Yes, yes it is."
--What do you base this on? I have no problem with it as a theory, and a working one at that. Do you have a barrier to these changes or is your unbelief that this accumulation could lead to today's diversity your own subjective opinion?"Evolutionists say that there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution but all I've seen are pictures of birds beaks to show how they have "adapted" or "evolved" They have never shown how a cell, DNA, ear drums, eyes, electromagnetic navigation, the reproductive system, or the immune system evolved. If they could do that then yes I would accept it..
--Sorry this is a bit unreasonable, any biologically inept evo could show you how this could have happened, but we cannot observe an immune system or an eye evolve any any organisms life-time."There is just too much complexity to have happened by chance."
--If there is 'too much' there must be a barrier, what is that barrier and why?"Thats exactally what evolution is CHANCE. Chance variations starting at nothing and ending with absolute perfection. Im sorry but I just cant buy that."
--Your wrong on both points, Evolution doesn't start out with nothing and it doesn't end with perfection. Evolution is controlled by natural selectability of surviving populations. So saying that 'evolution is nothing but chance' is pointless."I think that science is too afraid to admit that there is something that they cant explain and they will keep making up fantastic scenarios to explain away the unexplainable until they do."
--Science is not afraid of anything, the theory of evolution is just one scenario which explains today's diversity of biological life."Just my opinion."
--What would change that opinion?------------------

quote:

---

Let me rephraise what I said earlier. Its harder to beleive in abiogenesis than it is to beleive in a god that created us.

---

​

Harder, for you. Not for agnostics and atheists who find it hard to picture a divine creation when they do not see any evidence of God. This argument (both sides) is from personal incredulity and useless for you to attempt to use because of personal subjectivity and prior assumptions. [QUOTE][b]Then what is it?[/QUOTE][/b]Weighted probability. There is some chance in it but you've forgotten or are not aware that these dice are loaded. [QUOTE][b]Yes, yes it is.[/QUOTE][/b]Again, an argument from personal incredulity. [QUOTE][b]but all Ive seen are pictures of birds beaks to show how they have "adapted" or "evolved". [/QUOTE][/b]It is your own fault if you are not adequately informed. Look around this forum and you'll see that there is a lot more to it than beak adaptations in finches. [QUOTE][b]If they could do that then yes I would accept it.[/QUOTE][/b]Multiple (evolutionary) theories can attempt to explain those features but we cannot narrow it down to THE ONE WAY it happened. Much like we know gravity exists but there are multiple competing theories to supply the mechanism. Your request is unreasonable, the best we can expect to do is to show that it *could* happen one way or another. [QUOTE][b]There is just too much complexity to have happened by chance.[/QUOTE][/b]How did you reach that conclusion? Do you have a mathematical proof or empirical observation to back it up? If not, this is not a competant argument either. [QUOTE][b]Thats exactally what evolution is CHANCE.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually evolution is a theory to account for the genetic diversity of life on Earth. Part of that is "chance" but not entirely. [QUOTE][b]Chance variations starting at nothing and ending with absolute perfection.[/QUOTE][/b]Whether our bodies exhibit "absolute perfection" is a point in itself
to debate. If our bodies were 'absolutely perfect' we wouldn't have Presidential colonoscopies (sp?) and the podiatrists wouldn't be quite so busy. Besides, Philip needs room for a "cursed creation"--I don't think this classical humanistic notion of people being "absolutely perfect" can fit too well with most Christian theology either. [QUOTE][b]Im sorry but I just cant buy that.[/QUOTE][/b]See, this is another flawed argument due to it being based upon personal incredulity.My opinion is that evolution is the best way to account for the diversity of life on Earth, but it does me little good to just repeat it, I have to respond to the issues you raise and present evidence.As for this Sickle-Cell Anemia issue:The mutation does not reduce "information" at all because the length of the DNA molecule does not change. Also it causes a change in cell property that did not exist before, therefore, information has changed. Therefore, information was added.(It does not matter if I turn a 0 into a 1 or a 1 into a 0 in binary code, either way, "new" "information" is added to the system to bring about a change)It is a substitution of valine for glutamic acid at position six in the beta hemoglobin chain. This alters the water solubility of the molecule, causing them to assemble into crystals, altering the shape of the cell. Individuals heterozygous for the sickle-cell allele have a selective advantage when exposed to falciparum malaria. (Biology, Fifth Edition, Solomon, Berg, Martin, Saunders College Publishing. 1999.)

Sorry but I didnt mean to sound unsubjective. Its just very hard for me to accept that billions of mutations would result in anything but failure for a living organism.For example. Lets say you have a single celled organism (one of the very first) but its immune system hasnt evolved yet. All it would take to wipe out each and every living cell would be a paper cut and then youre back to square one. There would be millions of similar "weaknesses" for the early life forms.That being said. What percentage of the mutations are beneficial? How many mutations would it take to produce the reproductive system? Wouldnt the addition of the reproductive system cause potential harm to the mother? Then by natural selection all of those carrying the reproduction traits would die off. Now you have no reproductive system and you have to start all over. It would take billions if not trillions of organisms to allow for the process of natural selection to work without killing all of them off. There are too many processes that have to be just right.The millions of steps that have to be exact for the process to function at all is the over complexity that I see. 5 billion years is not enough time.I agree that it may be possible for a cat to evolve into a lion, but not for an ameba to evolve into a human. Once life has been established with a large population to work with, natural selection is feasable. But to start with the first cell and to have it grow and multiply, that is very difficult. The process of creating life would have tremendous odds aganst it.Im just saying that IN MY OPINION the whole theory of abiogenesis, and to a lesser degree evolution, is at best very very difficult to naturally occur and have posotive results. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different?When I referred to evolution as chance I mean chance mutations that ultimately result in progress. Like chance when throwing dice. Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Did you go home with more money or less?

[QUOTE][b]. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different?[/QUOTE][/b]Richard Dawkins does not think that the nervous 'system' is over and above the genetic "system" but I CAN NOT THINK it otherwise so the difference as per question within post herein is that bevhavior is over and above the "better green thumb growth" which if neophenogenesis is true the plants grow by coactions that do not invovle any higher order (level) coations with non plants for the life of the kind. This is not dependent on a created kind definition but on the better resolution of coations in the experience split by gardner not the garden of Eden all though it could be that too.

"Sorry but I didnt mean to sound unsubjective. Its just very hard for me to accept that billions of mutations would result in anything but failure for a living organism."
--I know what you mean, but it is a subjective line of thinking. I don't have a problem with the ToE, it seems just fine in scientific logic. As long as you realize concepts such as indirect evidence, direct evidence, and interpretation. I don't agree that the ToE is actually what was the developmental process in the formation of the earth geologically and biologically."For example. Lets say you have a single celled organism (one of the very first) but its immune system hasnt evolved yet. All it would take to wipe out each and every living cell would be a paper cut and then youre back to square one. There would be millions of similar "weaknesses" for the early life forms."
--There was no paper for a single celled organism to have a paper-cut, not to mention that this is an unrealistic threat. Natural selectability, in theory, is what guided the evolutionary process in preserving life on earth."That being said. What percentage of the mutations are beneficial?"
--I don't think this is the question to be asking. Reason being is that beneficially is decided by a factor of environmental conditions which may vary considerably."How many mutations would it take to produce the reproductive system? Wouldnt the addition of the reproductive system cause potential harm to the mother?"
--Can't see why it would."Then by natural selection all of those carrying the reproduction traits would die off. Now you have no reproductive system and you have to start all over. It would take billions if not trillions of organisms to allow for the process of natural selection to work without killing all of them off."
--Not really, you can do it with thousands. Isolating populations and bottle-necks will even increase this rate."There are too many processes that have to be just right."
--Depends on what the organism needs at its current stage of speciation/evolution."The millions of steps that have to be exact for the process to function at all is the over complexity that I see. 5 billion years is not enough time."
--Can you show me the mathematics you used to calculate this?"I agree that it may be possible for a cat to evolve into a lion, but not for an ameba to evolve into a human."
--Why not? the mutational process is effective in both of them and we carry the same sequential nucleic acid bases. I've heard of arguments for 'barriers' though."Once life has been established with a large population to work with, natural selection is feasable. But to start with the first cell and to have it grow and multiply, that is very difficult. The process of creating life would have tremendous odds aganst it."
--Evolution and Abiogenesis are different theories, not coherently one in the same."Im just saying that IN MY OPINION the whole theory of abiogenesis, and to a lesser degree evolution, is at best very very difficult to naturally occur and have posotive results. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different?"
--Because its needs for survival were much different, the first living organisms would not have had photosynthesis to obtain food for instance."When I referred to evolution as chance I mean chance mutations that ultimately result in progress. Like chance when throwing dice. Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Did you go home with more money or less?
--The problem is that your not including the process of natural selection. Its like you rolling your dice and picking the one that it takes to win the game.------------------

quote:

---

If an acceptable definition of evolution is change in allele frequency in a population over time, then isn't Joe's example of the interplay between malaria and sickle-cell anemia independent of whether your point is correct?

---

It depends how you define "evolution". I'm not talking about micro-evolution, which has never been in dispute between evos and creationists. Some time ago I wrote an article describing how the word evolution has "evolved": http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htmI'm talking about evidence for large-scale, mud-to-man evolution. Joe's example is the opposite. It's man-to-mud de-evolution.

[QUOTE][b]For example. Lets say you have a single celled organism (one of the very first) but its immune system hasnt evolved yet. All it would take to wipe out each and every living cell would be a paper cut and then youre back to square one.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually cell membranes are composed of a double-layer of phospholipids (with a hydrophobic head and a hydrophilic tail) that spontaneously form their shape when exposed to water. No energy or input from the cell is needed to fix leaks, it happens automatically because that is the lowest-energy configuration of those phospholipid molecules. In fact they will assume that formation without the rest of the cell present when immersed in water.By the way, I'm confused at what the immune system would have to do with it. Single-celled organisms don't have an "immune system" as we know it, that requires cellular differentiation. [QUOTE][b]There would be millions of similar "weaknesses" for the early life forms.[/QUOTE][/b]"Apparent weaknesses" would be a better way to describe it, depending on the conformation of early life. There are probably quick solutions, like for the one above. [QUOTE][b]What percentage of the mutations are beneficial?[/QUOTE][/b]That depends upon the environment. One set of conditions could make a mutation detrimental, another environment could make it beneficial (see sickle-cell example). The vast majority are neutral. [QUOTE][b]How many mutations would it take to produce the reproductive system?[/QUOTE][/b]Quite a few, I admit. But how many living things have existed on the Earth by now? [QUOTE][b]Wouldnt the addition of the reproductive system cause potential harm to the mother?[/QUOTE][/b]The human reproductive system is a significant potential harm to a mother. Yet you have already claimed that we are 'perfect'.... [QUOTE][b]Then by natural selection all of those carrying the reproduction traits would die off.[/QUOTE][/b]Unless the "new" reproductive system (which would evolve step by step so that it wouldn't ever really be "new") decreased infant mortality, in which case it would be selected for and would proliferate. [QUOTE][b]There are too many processes that have to be just right.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually that isn't so. If everything had to be "just right" most of us would no longer be alive. Most organisms can run around just fine with proteins slightly different that what their parents had. This is why antibiotic resistance is such a problem today, some of those mutations actually make the microbe more virulent. [QUOTE][b]5 billion years is not enough time.[/QUOTE][/b]More like 3.5 if we're talking about the age of life. Why can't an amoeba evolve into a human if a cat can evolve into a lion? Is there a barrier? [QUOTE][b]Im just saying that IN MY OPINION the whole theory of abiogenesis, and to a lesser degree evolution, is at best very very difficult to naturally occur and have posotive results. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different? [/QUOTE][/b]Because the first life forms would be composed of chemicals that were already floating around in the environment. To exist in the environment they must be stable there. Hence, unlike the plant that dies because its new environment is too different from its last one, the protocell would be right at home from the beginning. [QUOTE][b]Like chance when throwing dice.[/QUOTE][/b]But, like I said, the dice are loaded. [QUOTE][b]Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Did you go home with more money or less?[/QUOTE][/b]I wouldn't waste my money. But somebody there probably hit the jackpot. In this biological jackpot, it would be because the organism had a trait that was beneficial. Then the next generation of gamblers consists of hundreds of individuals with the same trait--a few of which will hit that jackpot again. As individuals the chances are very low, but as a whole the chances are almost fixed.I like the analogy.

Im sorry that Im not up on my evolutionary biology right now. I just graduated high school and I restore boats for a living, but do you see the point that Im getting at? Its not easy to create life.The immense complexity of the human body is mind boggling. Evolutionists see this as evidence of natural selection. I see it as evidence of a damn good design. I will admit that abiogenesis/evolution is possible. but not probable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?

---

--Thanks, for your input, Joe.--Ah, back to that old micro- vs. mega- evolution ship-wreck.--Yes, Joe, I treat malaria in Haiti almost every month; the strain is far less resistant than some of those in Central America, Africa, and Southern Asia (to the best of my knowledge). Haitian malaria goes into permanent remission in most cases when treated by quinine (Quinamm) or chloroquine. ‘Appears this strain is no where near as evolved (in resistance) as the other strains, which require repeated regimens of quinine; expect re-occurrences in the resistant strains.--What a curse this parasite has evolved into; albeit, not as bad in Haiti. Perhaps because of the shortage of medicines in Haiti, the malarial-bug (I forgot its name and the mosquito vector) is not hard pressed to evolve via mutation-spots, extra-chromosomal DNA, plasmids, meiotic anaphase mutations, mitotic DNA-replication errors, and/or other built-in limitations of variability.--What? I don’t like the connotation(s) of built-in limitations of variability; sounds too designed, deterministic, unoptimistic, etc.? But consider the alternative (my brain) (or should I say my soul?), when mutations occur without limitations of variability: Microbial population extinction would result, due to unrestrained decay within the non-neutral chromosomes of the holistic organisms/population violating the set-in interdependent biochemical and physiological complexities. The malarial strains will never thus become anything more than the mosquito-vectored parasites that they are.--How coincidental and concocted that all organisms are currently doomed as punctuated into their limited variability under the Mega-ToE, and are thus punctuated forever into the kinds that they are. The rest of this discourse is probably spam to you:--Its not too late too jump off the (Mega-ToE) boat, Joe. You may be quickly forced to jump on the god-of-the-gaps life-raft . From there proceed to theistic OEC and/or the theistic gap-theory of Genesis 1.1-2. Once, that Titanic begins to sink, a YEC-Gospel ship awaits you, one with a benevolent cursed-redemption design that unabashedly sails well with all the cosmic observed data.--Respectfully, does this answer your question?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 07-02-2002]