Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution......?
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 60 (8259)
04-07-2002 8:26 AM


Over the past weeks I have come to doubt the theory of evolution, although I strongly maintain my belief in a billion year old universe.
Here is what I have been thinking about:
>How does a bat get echo location through random mutations? The problem is that you cannot go halfway- a bat with a fully-formed echo-location system is necessary to prevent natural selection from crossing out an animal with something completely useless, like high-pitched sounds.
>How does a fully formed nervous system develop from a single-celled organism? Certainly, any animal that was born with, quite literally, half a brain, would die.
>Where are those transitionals?
>The number of mutations required to create something like a human from an ape is enormous? Why do we not see such a transition in the fossil strata?
>How does the venus fly trap evolve? Any plant that developed, for example, a highly sensitive "mouth" that would close when touched, but happened to be unable to reopen, or lacked the necessary digestive fluids and the mechanism of releasing these fluids, would quickly die. Developing such a complex system would be extremely complicated and extremely lucky!
>In many cases, as in the venus fly trap or bat, we would require massive mutations and miraculous luck to produce a healthy and competitive animal/plant that would survive the "forces" of natural selection. Why is it that we do not see such massive leaps today? Why do we not see more than just albinos or retarded animals?
>In cases where large scale mutation occurrs, it is extremely likely that at least one negative mutation would spoil the animal. This makes the chances of a highly mutated animal surviving long enough to reproduce unlikely.
>The low volume of mutations and high-number of negative mutations makes it very difficult to create such diversity in the plant and animal kingdom.
>The fossil record is compatable with evolution, but it does not give any evidence of evolution. The diversification indicates gradual evolution, but what created these differences, and what embeds diversity in a population? There is no evidence of mutations in the fossil strata. Where are transitionals? Where are grossly mutated organisms?
Don't get me wrong- my stance on creationism has not changed in the slightest. Creationism uses miraculous rates of evolution as well,and is more likely to be a fable than a factual record. I am not a creationist. And, believe it or not, I still am an atheist.
But recently I have come to challenge what I took as granted- mutations.
Demonstrate that mutations are not sufficiently abundant, or that the ratio of positive mutations is small, and you completely dismantle the evolutionist argument.
Darwin had some very sharp ideas, but at the time that he formulated such ideas, he was unable to test his theories of mutations.
The problem came when others ran with the idea. They, too, lacked the devices to test his radical and appealing concepts. But nonetheless, the concept sounded so good to them, that they propagated it. They planted it into the scientific community so quickly that by the time the methods to test it [mutations] came about, people had taken the concept for granted.
And that's what evolution is- a concept. This concept is not inherently false- the concept that you can travel faster than the speed of light is inherently false. Evolution is wholly possible, as long as you solidify the notion that random mutations could create diversity. Because science had grown around evolution, it forgot about testing it.
It's my opinion that there's another explanation to life and diversity on this planet. But no one's looking for a scientific alternative, because no one sees a reason to. Evolution is taken with a blind faith.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 12:36 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2002 3:42 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 47 by John, posted 06-07-2002 9:39 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 07-15-2002 4:12 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 51 by singularity, posted 07-29-2002 6:24 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 60 (8307)
04-08-2002 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
04-07-2002 6:22 PM


I understand exactly what you said. I think you misunderstood me-I never claimed that evolution occurred. I claimed that random mutations were not responsible for macroevolution (sorry for the confusion)
You claim that even though we cannot identify what brought about echolocation, doesn't mean that animals didn't evolve. Again, I never claimed this.
It's my opinion that we have not yet identified the nature of the changes that are responsile for evolution. To believe that an entire human could be formed from random mutations is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Look at yourself for a moment. You have extremely complex eyes, a fully developed though imperfect skeleton, veins that pump blood from a heart, lungs that extract oxygen from the air and transfer this oxygen into your blood, which then carries the oxygen through your body.
The complexity of the human body alone is to great to contemplate. But to turn all these various features into random mutations is simply ludicrous.
How is it possible to "evolve" a heart? How could a cow suddenly be born with an extra stomach (if a cow were born with an extra stomach, it would die, as it would have no need for such an organ. And all this is assuming that the stomach is functional. A disfunctional second stomach would certainly kill the animal.)
The issue of evolution is so vital to all aspects of science that it is scary. It explains are origin and the means by which we came into being. To say "mutations created the diversity around us, but don't ask me how" is a sad and insufficient answer to such an enormous question. We most certainly have the means to determine whether mutations could be responsible for the diversity we have today. The truth is, it is a stretch of faith to believe that mutations could create millions of species, all adapted for the world around us.
I'm not denying evolution- I'm denying mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 6:22 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 9:34 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 60 (8309)
04-08-2002 5:51 AM


I find myself siding with cobra_snake. Although I believe that the universe came into being without the assistance of god, I cannot beleieve that random mutations, most of which are neutral, are responsible for the complexity of life.
What makes me proud is that I am an atheist, an not an evolutionist, per se. I believe that either evolution did not occur, and we lack the devices to find the reason for the strata (just like we lack the devices to understand mutational evolution). or (and most likely) we have not yet found the mechanism that created genetic change in a specie.
These two things seem to tear me apart. On the one hand, it is very possible that we are yet to discover what causes genetic change. But you could substitute the "genetic change" with genetic mutation, couldn't you. And I deny that mutations created diversity. So I find myself doubting evolution happened at all. I hate it!!
But you may be wondering what caused this sudden change of heart. Well, it happened quite simply. In Borneo, I found this tiny and extremely elaborate gold bug. It was a miracle of nature, as I would like to say. And it fascinated me.
Suddenly it occured to me- I believe that this exquisite organism came from a protein through a blind process of genetic mutation. yeah right!! I really began questioning my views, and it was scary. Suddenly, the keystone was falling out. Everything that I had believed was collapsing- a long shadow of doubt had been casted across my faith in a naturalistic universe. I even started leaning to the YEC argument.
But then I stopped myself- YEC is ridiculous- it used quantum leaps in evolution anyway. So what would I do. I would stand in the middle, and wait for an answer. If I went to my grave wondering, fine. But I would refuse to accept randomness and miraculous faith as science, and as my belief.
When I was a Darwinist, if that's the correct word, things were simple: evolution was real, no matter what. Now, things are confusing, but clear at the same time- it's a mystery.
Evolutionists and creationists refuse to accept that they are wrong in many areas, just like the Israelis and Palestinians.
Surveying the battle from the middle ground, I can tell the evolutionists that there are argument is a definite hanging chad. Muttled transitionals, miraculous mutations, and the like. the jury's out on the issue, and you have to accept that. There is not smoking gun or slam dunk- evolution has problems and strangths, all of which will or will not be ironed out in the future.
quote:
In short, criticisms of evolution never give positive evidence, it is always an unsubstantiated claim that xyz COULDN'T occur.
There is not positive evidence to disprove evolution doesn't exist, unless your a creationist. But where would you find positive evidence that mutations were responsible for evolution?

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 60 (8310)
04-08-2002 6:02 AM


How many positive mutations can be found in one individual organism?
How many positive mutations could be indentified in 10 generations?

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 9:38 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 11:26 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024