Evolution just doesn't make sense

[mczerone]

Why ignore any evidence?

Also, I'm confused. Are you still saying that science has disproved that hypothesis (like you said it had initially)? Or are you no longer saying that?

Science has proved that the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic reproduction could not allow an ant lineage to produce an elephant in any length of real time and with the best designed environmental triggers.

Genetics just doesn't work that way.

But, at the same time, I grant that, given the right environmental pressures, an ant could beget a lineage that evolved gigantism, large ears, grey external skin, big ears, four legs, and a long prehensile nasal appendage. If you want to call that an elephant, fine. But it would still have remnants of ant DNA within it, and wouldn't have the same DNA coding for those things as modern elephants do.

I don't think that you understand the language of science and the related language of logic. "Proof" in the ideal sense, is that the assertion CAN'T be false - this only applies to logic, mathematics, and axiomatic thinking where contradictions can be put on paper to show something MUST be true given the assumptions (axioms). In the area of biology, the thinking relies on hypothesizing, testing, and analyzing. There is no PROOF of a positive claim, there is only evidence. Sometimes that evidence can be conclusive, but there might always be some exception that hasn't been encountered yet. There is also no disproving a potentiality. "It's possible that A=>B" can't be shown to be wrong with observational science - it can only be shown to not usually happen, or to not have happened in every case we've tried so far. But there might be something we're overlooking, or some circumstances that make A=>B, even if it's not the case in our day-to-day circumstances.

You asked:

Has "An ant can't spawn an elephant in X generations, no matter how great X is" been disproven?

I've tried to approach the problem from many different angles, seeing that you were ambiguous in your question. There's a double negative that I'm not sure that you meant. There's no reference to "proof" being the standard of the ideal type where the proposition needs to be shown to be logically certain (or necessarily self-contradictory in the negative) or to the standard of observational sciences. I've tried distinguishing between the specific "elephant" that we are used to, versus "an elephant-like organism that may not be genetically related to modern elephants".

So to answer your question once and for all: Maybe. It depends on what the hell you mean be at least 3 different terms.

 

[robert9712000]

Interesting article here about a shark that walks instead of swims.

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/sci...ew-species-walking-shark-indonesia-01335.html

So going by the theory that evolutionary change happens because the process of survival of the fittest means that creatures with a mutation that gives it a advantage over its counter part in its species, allows it too eventually become the dominant gene in the species,how does a walking shark still exist today?

Clearly a walking shark has no advantage over a swimming shark ,so theres 2 scenarios from a evolutionary standpoint.

A. The walking shark is the original species before its species started swimming ,which one would then ask, why is it still around when it should have died out because the new mutated version that could swim should have become the dominant species since it had a advantage.

B. The walking shark is the mutated version of the swimming shark, which one would again ask how does a mutated version that doesnt swim have any kind of advantage over a swimming shark that would allow its evolutionary path to overtake a swimming sharks genetic code to become the dominate style of the species.

So please explain how a walking shark has any advantage at all over a swimming shark in water?

Also, explain how it is possible for a mutation to become the dominate style in the species when the mutation gives no advantage and most likely gives it a disadvantage to its counter part.

If a mutation in a species can become the dominant style in the species without being a advantage to its survival ,then it calls into question the whole concept that evolutionary change is driven by the progression of mutations that give a advantage to its counterpart,thus allowing a minority style in the species to eventually overtake the original and become the new standard for the species.

 

[erowe1]

I don't think that you understand the language of science and the related language of logic. "Proof" in the ideal sense, is that the assertion CAN'T be false - this only applies to logic, mathematics, and axiomatic thinking where contradictions can be put on paper to show something MUST be true given the assumptions (axioms).

But it wasn't just I who used that language. You did too. You claimed that science had disproved something. And then later you talked about falsification, as though that is within the realm of science. That's what's so confusing. I still can't tell what your position is.

Do the physical sciences involve falsifying hypotheses? Or do they not? If they do, then to falsify something is to prove something. There's no getting around that.

ETA: Considering your final sentences, as I look at the statement you have trouble understanding, I see nothing ambiguous or confusing about it. Perhaps the inability to understand the language of science is yours.

 

[oyarde]

There are walking fish , the snakehead has lungs .

 

[Theocrat]

Another Reason Evolution Doesn't Make Sense: Human Organ Systems

There are 12 organ systems within human beings:

• Integumentary system
• Digestive system
• Cardiovascular system
• Lymphatic system
• Immune system
• Respiratory system
• Urinary system
• Skeletal system
• Muscular system
• Nervous system
• Endocrine system
• Reproductive system

Evolution by means of natural selection cannot make sense of how all of those organ systems (as well as the organs within the systems) all came into being by random mutations. You need all of the systems in place (because they are interdependent upon each other), or else you can't have a living human being. More importantly, there is no evidence of proto-human organ systems in nature, whereby it can be seen that mutations occur in them to evolve into a fully-formed, fully-functional organ system as we observe them today in human beings. All we ever observe (as in the medical sciences) is human beings with human organ systems already intact and already operating, based on intricate design and programmed information to perform their given functions.

So, human organ systems are just another irrefutable evidence that evolution (on a macro level, in terms of the hypothesis that it points to common descent amongst all living organisms) simply does not and cannot happen in nature. Therefore, belief in evolutionary processes is one based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

 

[oyarde]

There are gliding ( flying ) possums in Australia .

 

[James Madison]

There are gliding ( flying ) possums in Australia .

Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight?

Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?

What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.

 

[James Madison]

Interesting article here about a shark that walks instead of swims.

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/sci...ew-species-walking-shark-indonesia-01335.html

So going by the theory that evolutionary change happens because the process of survival of the fittest means that creatures with a mutation that gives it a advantage over its counter part in its species, allows it too eventually become the dominant gene in the species,how does a walking shark still exist today?

Clearly a walking shark has no advantage over a swimming shark ,so theres 2 scenarios from a evolutionary standpoint.

A. The walking shark is the original species before its species started swimming ,which one would then ask, why is it still around when it should have died out because the new mutated version that could swim should have become the dominant species since it had a advantage.

B. The walking shark is the mutated version of the swimming shark, which one would again ask how does a mutated version that doesnt swim have any kind of advantage over a swimming shark that would allow its evolutionary path to overtake a swimming sharks genetic code to become the dominate style of the species.

So please explain how a walking shark has any advantage at all over a swimming shark in water?

Also, explain how it is possible for a mutation to become the dominate style in the species when the mutation gives no advantage and most likely gives it a disadvantage to its counter part.

If a mutation in a species can become the dominant style in the species without being a advantage to its survival ,then it calls into question the whole concept that evolutionary change is driven by the progression of mutations that give a advantage to its counterpart,thus allowing a minority style in the species to eventually overtake the original and become the new standard for the species.

If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.

These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.

Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.

There are 12 organ systems within human beings:

• Integumentary system
• Digestive system
• Cardiovascular system
• Lymphatic system
• Immune system
• Respiratory system
• Urinary system
• Skeletal system
• Muscular system
• Nervous system
• Endocrine system
• Reproductive system

You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.

These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.

Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.



You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

JM, come on, was that post really supposed to be critique or even conversation? Sounds more like belly gowling.

 

[otherone]

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

But he used the word "irrefutable", thereby proving his point.
What's interesting is all of the "irrefutable" evidence of creationism can be refuted by the same argument that is derisively employed against evolutionists: "How do you know...were you there?"

 

[Fred the musician]

Anyone who believes in creation must be blind. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelming that I am not even going to start summing them up. But I do have absolute proof that the story in Genesis 1 can't possibly be accurate: http://superurl.nl/?bible

 

[matt0611]

Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight?

Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?

What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.

So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...

 

[matt0611]

Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight?

Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?

What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.

So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...

 

[acptulsa]

Trashing evolution isn't defending God. Any creator who could come up with such a brilliant system deserves all the praise it's possible to give. Trashing evolution is merely defending the amusing fairy tale at the beginning of Genesis as 'Literal Truth', which is in my opinion a fool's errand. Every word of the Bible does not have to be literal truth for God to be great. It just isn't necessary.

Now, those people mainly concerned with getting into Heaven through a loophole, rather than on their merits, find it worth a whole lot of trouble to fool themselves into thinking that every word of the Bible is literal truth, because that's the stuff loopholes are made of. But that's not necessary at all for God to be great. Not at all.

It makes me think of someone trying to prove The Three Little Pigs is literal truth because they can't handle the thought that their parents might have lied to them about it. If a child asks a question, and you know the correct answer is much too complicated for the tyke to understand at his or her age, what do you do..?

Outgrow it already.

Women favor tall men, the museums are full of armor obviously designed to fit big, tough warriors five and a half feet tall, big guys are closer to six and a half feet tall today, yet 'selection factors' cannot have an effect--we are created to be unchanging. Or some of us were created to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other. Take your pick.

 

[matt0611]

Trashing evolution isn't defending God. Any creator who could come up with such a brilliant system deserves all the praise it's possible to give. Trashing evolution is merely defending the amusing fairy tale at the beginning of Genesis as 'Literal Truth', which is in my opinion a fool's errand. Every word of the Bible does not have to be literal truth for God to be great. It just isn't necessary.

Now, those people mainly concerned with getting into Heaven through a loophole, rather than on their merits, find it worth a whole lot of trouble to fool themselves into thinking that every word of the Bible is literal truth, because that's the stuff loopholes are made of. But that's not necessary at all for God to be great. Not at all.

It makes me think of someone trying to prove The Three Little Pigs is literal truth because they can't handle the thought that their parents might have lied to them about it. If a child asks a question, and you know the correct answer is much too complicated for the tyke to understand at his or her age, what do you do..?

Outgrow it already.

Women favor tall men, the museums are full of armor obviously designed to fit big, tough warriors five and a half feet tall, big guys are closer to six and a half feet tall today, yet 'selection factors' cannot have an effect--we are created to be unchanging. Or some of us were created to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other. Take your pick.

1. Creationists believe in change in species over time. Including natural selection. I have no problem with even humans changing over time. But again I believe that change has limits.

2. You know that height difference today has a lot to do with our health style and diet today compared to medieval and ancient times right? Genetics are not the only factor.

3. I don't take every word of the Bible as literal truth, there are parts of the Bible that are poetry, parts that are parables, parts that use metaphors and imagery etc. But I do use a plain straight-forward reading as my interpretation for Genesis, Exodus etc. As real history. I think not doing that is very inconsistent and opens things up to much more problems and questions etc. I take the Bible as a whole as the word of God so my understanding of the past will have to be interpreted through it.

4. I still believe you can believe in evolution and go to heaven. I don't believe that's required to be a Christian. I just believe its inconsistent and incorrect.

 

[James Madison]

JM, come on, was that post really supposed to be critique or even conversation? Sounds more like belly gowling.

I'm tired of the wilful ignorance in this thread. I addresed their questions and provided an adequate response.

So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...

Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?

 

[matt0611]

I'm tired of the wilful ignorance in this thread. I addresed their questions and provided an adequate response.



Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?

Answer what question? Why do all things have to fly in the same way? Why would an insect fly the same way as a bird? They are entirely different creatures, different sizes, difference needs, different functions etc. Why does everything have to be the same?

If everything flew the same way or every eye was built the same you the evolutionist could just say "see! everything that has an eye came from a common ancestor so that's why they're all built exactly the same way!"

and if dolphins didn't have lungs and breathed like fish the evolutionist could just say "see! they went back into the ocean and lost the ability to breathe air and started to breathe like fish, evolution!".

How does this prove anything?

 

[James Madison]

Answer what question? Why do all things have to fly in the same way? Why would an insect fly the same way as a bird? They are entirely different creatures, different sizes, difference needs, different functions etc. Why does everything have to be the same?

If everything flew the same way or every eye was built the same you the evolutionist could just say "see! everything that has an eye came from a common ancestor so that's why they're all built exactly the same way!"

and if dolphins didn't have lungs and breathed like fish the evolutionist could just say "see! they went back into the ocean and lost the ability to breathe air and started to breathe water, evolution!".

How does this prove anything?

The scenario you described would actually be evidence against evolution, not for it. Evolution is not forward-thinking and it lacks the ability to create perfect imitations from wildly divergent species. We'd expect to see general similarities, but an exact copy would be nigh-impossible to produce.

Also, smh at 'breathing water'. If you wanna talk science you better do your homework.

 

[matt0611]

The scenario you described would actually be evidence against evolution, not for it. Evolution is not forward-thinking and it lacks the ability to create perfect imitations from wildly divergent species. We'd expect to see general similarities, but an exact copy would be nigh-impossible to produce.

You miss the entire point, if all creatures with eyes came from ancestors that first evolved an eye then they would be basically the same design. I never said anything about evolving an exact copy over time either.

Either way it doesn't prove a thing. and I never said evolution has "forward thinking".

If they are all the same then "they came from the same ancestor, of course they are the same!"
If they are different then "well they evolved separately so of course they will be different!"

How is this proof of evolution again?

 

[erowe1]

Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?

That's an argument against evolution, not for it. The human eye and the cephalopod eye are remarkably similar. And yet they supposedly didn't get these from a common ancestor with such an eye. So we're supposed to believe that this remarkable organ that couldn't possibly come about by evolution, actually did two different times and came out the same way both times.

The theory of evolution does not predict this. It's an embarrassment to the theory.

Your dismissing the miraculous as a cop-out would rule out the very possibility of accepting miraculous creation from the outset. You're not even willing to engage the question of whether miracles ever have happened. You just take for granted that none ever have. You're not looking for the truth, you're playing a game.