My Case Against Evolution

Layi,

I'll come back to you later this evening to refute each and every one of the arguments you put forth against evolution. You are putting up a strawman and galantly charging him to smithe him to the ground.
Your characterisation of the Theory of Evolution is completely off the mark. Apparently you did not understand one iota of the fundamental forces underlying evolution. I'm a bit saddened that an intelligent man like you is fighting an unwinnable fight in a true Don Quichote manner.

Layi, this is brilliant! I'm waiting to evolve into some higher primate very soon or don't you think it's high time I evolved?

what kind i evolve into o? hmm, lemmie go and design that in the lab

It can only be "Homo Virtualis" - Invisible man

The DNA coding  issue u pointed out is just a finding under "population genomics" that only gives more credence to the  "Recent African Origin" theory. Funny enough it is scriptural.
Secondly it's does not add a thing to the human evolution theory.

Me, I'm evolving into Homo Robotis. I'll become a robot, everything in me will be programmed. Deji, your own is Homo Superis - Superman.

Brilliant write up there, Layi!

This post has evolved  ME into homo happinessis.
Evolu-what?!Joke of the century. Remember,people used to believe the world was flat!The guy who argued differently,was forced(murdered) to take poison.Now we are all much wiser eh!May be someone will soon tell us the world is hexagonal,and some will believe!
I only believe one thing!GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. Period! NO SCIENTIFIC OR OTHER JARGON WILL CHANGE THAT. WANNA TRY,NFERYN?!

your right layi a species can not evolve, scientists no that so when trying to prove a point they always say over a period of time after living in a differnt place they needed to adapt so they changed bull rubbish. if me and my family live in alaska for a billion years we won't evolve but our offspring we'll not have any problem with the wether their body we'll adapt but their physical apperance won't change or their skin color 

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.
The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould explained this issue as:

On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has no understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:

• does not deal with life's origins
• has nothing to do with creation

I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely not be in biology.


There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is plenty for evolution and none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than Creationism in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.

Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?

Why do you keep on hammering that chance bit? Where does that obsession with chance come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As for your example of the evolution of the human eye, here's the evidence for it's evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Overview
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES
This last link gives a very simple description of how eyes can evolve,which I will repeat here (also see attached image for te references):
Very conservative simulations by the biologists Nilsson and Pelger, showed that it takes only about 400.000 generations to develop a camera-lens eye such the human eye (see http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml for a full explanation). It is so astoundingly fast that it would be nearly impossible to detect in the fossil record. It is thus of no surprise that the eye has evolved at least 40 times completely independently in different species.


It is a falsehood that Darwin had second thoughts about the validity of his theory, on the contrary. The Lady Hope story you're referring to has been proven to be a fabrication. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Darwin used to be an avid theist and it took him quite long to muster the courage to go against the prevailing stream and publish his work On The Origin of Species and only after his Theory was scientifically well established did he dare to publish Descent of Man. So strong was the oposition to the idea that humans are also mere animals.

Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe. Would you go and ask your auto-mechanic for help when it comes to performing a complex surgery? I am quite positive though that he is far more qualified than you to work on your car.

1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action. What creationists call macro-evolution (the development of seperate species) has been observed on countless occasions.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. transitional fossils for all major taxa have been found. This in itself is already quite impressive, as the remains of past species only fossilise under very favorable conditions, so only a very tiny number of specimens of the great variety of past lifeforms could ever fossilise and could thus be found. Obviously, this could only be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, if the fossil record were the only line of evidence in it's favor, which isn't the case.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html

This once more shows your lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution really is.  Sexual reproduction provides many benefits, such as a more rapid adaptation rate and quicker evolution of resistance against parasites. The most important benefit though is that it is a mechanism that weeds out non-beneficial mutations quicker within a population. For complex, multi-cellular organisms, these benefits far outweigh the advantage of fast reproduction.
Multi cellular lifeforms have just colonised another niche of nature that bacteria, viruses and protozoa do not occupy and for that reason, they are not in direct competition with these lifeforms. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most beneficial survival mechanism for multi-cellular organisms.

Very easily.  How exactly does the existence of human infants disprove evolution, as the human form and characteristics have proven to be quite successful. We have colonised the entire planet. The main driver for our success as a species is our big brain and our ability to craft and use tools. Such a brain needs a lot of development and consumes a lot of energy. Even at birth, the human brain is huge compared to other species. It still needs to develop considerably to perform the functions humans need for survival. That's why the human infant needs long care and nourishment by it's parents (I won't bore you here with the details as to why we are not born with a fully developed brain, but if you would insist, I can explain the mechanism of the underlying evolutionary trade-offs in another post)

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?

Only a Creationist would say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are successful, yes, but so are the insects and bacteria, and even more so, as they have a higher bio-mass than ourselves.
Anyway, can you explain how exactly human reproduction flies in the face of everything that evolution holds true? It seems to me that it only flies in the face of the validity of your strawman of evolution.

So? See above.

Evolution works on the level of the replicators, not on the level of the individual or group. Investment of time and energy in their offspring increases the chance of survival of the constituant genes of a specimen more than fending for one's own survival. You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Another one of those creationist mock-ups? You can do better than that, layi.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

It's is quite obvious that creationists just love to use quotes, either by famous biologist or by others that could give their ideas credibility. These quotations are either invented, attributed to other people than the ones that made them, a mock up of several quotes by different people, or completely out of context quotations.
This quotation scores high on that index. It passes 3 out of the 4 criteria for good ^(tm) creationist quotations. 

Since when has science been challenged to do that? This is news to me.

Apparently people only listen to arguments they already agree with. Sad but true 

Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

I'm strongly aversed to evolution as the source of human life. Before i start dissecting some points raised in posts above...i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.

Well, as it's your thread I will grant you the courtesy of answering that question.

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor they don't evolve into each other. This once again shows how badly you people understand evolution, but I think you do not have a willingness to learn anyway.
It's actually as stupid a question as you can possibly ask. It's akin to saying "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"

Anyway, I guess the source of this question is a misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. Natural selection does not postulate that because a population evolves into another species because of increased fitness, that the original species dies out. Natural selection is a process that works from:
1. genetic variation within a host species
2. evolutionary pressure coming from a specific environment (ecology)
Selection is a function of positive fitness changes caused by genetic variability within a specific environment. Different environments cause different kinds of adaptations

Hominids evolved from other apes when the climate in Africa changed. The atmospheric CO2 (greenhouse gas) decreased during the ice ages  and it became significantly cooler and dryer. The lush tropical forests retreated to a band closer to the equator and the natural environment of the common ancestor between Chimpansees and Humans changed. It found itself in two different climates with two different evolutionary pressures. One was the tropical forest (where the chimpansee now resides) and the other the savanna (where our Hominid ancestors lived). The two populations became reproductively isolated and evolved in different directions: one leading to humans and the other leading to the common chimp and the bonobo.

Here is the Major Problem With the Theory as regards evolution of Life.

Early theories of the origin of life centered on the ability of a reducing atmosphere of the prebiotic earth to instigate formation of amino acids, and subsequently assembly of proteins. Stanley Miller demonstrated in the 1953 that mixtures of reducing gases, thought to be present in the primordial earth, when subjected to electrical discharges, produced many organic compounds, including several amino acids. Years later, a meteor which landed in Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain the same organic compound and amino acids in roughly the same proportion as those generated through the Miller experiments.

Although the Miller experiments and the Murchison meteor suggested that organic molecules could be synthesized in the absence of life, many questions and problems arose. Although simple proteins could be produced by laboratory manipulations of amino acid building blocks, no model or method of self replication of proteins could be found. In addition, the amino acids which compose all forms of life are exclusively of the "left-handed" variety (L-amino acids). Those produced in the Miller experiments and found in the Murchison meteor are both L- and R-amino acids. No model could be proposed which would explain inclusion of only one form of amino acids to the exclusion of the other, without the aid of RNA's, in the form of ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), and messenger RNA (mRNA). All models would require the spontaneous evolution of both RNA's and proteins simultaneously. In addition, specific proteins are required in combination with rRNA in order for other proteins to be synthesized. This dilemma has led to statements, such as that of Leslie Orgel, "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

To try to avoid the overwhelming problems associated with the self replication of proteins, Carl Woese, Francis Crick, and Leslie Orgel proposed RNA as the original building blocks of life. They proposed that self-replicating RNA could code for proteins and eventually evolve into DNA, because of DNA's superior intrinsic stability. Experiments by several scientists have demonstrated the ability of RNA's to catalyze chemical reactions, similar to that seen by enzymes (which are proteins). But could RNA itself have been synthesized and replicated by chemical means on the prebiotic earth?

Juan Or— discovered in 1961 that the nucleic acid base adenine could be synthesized in a mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. Since then, scientists have shown that the remaining nucleic acid bases, guanine, uracil, and cytosine, could be synthesized from mixtures of hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen, and cyanoacetylene. When the nucleic acid bases are combined with the sugar ribose and phosphate, nucleotides form, which in the presence of an appropriate catalyst, form random strands of RNA. The spontaneous formation of a self-replicating RNA (which acts as a catalyst for replication of itself) ensures perpetuation of the RNA, according to the theory.

It is at this point that the theory encounters major problems. First, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of ribose in the absence of enzymes.1 All chemical reactions which synthesize ribose, produce it as a very minor product. The major products are other sugars, which combine with nucleic acids to form products which inhibit RNA synthesis and replication. In addition, any ribose formed is racemic, that is, both left- and right-handed. Only right-handed ribose can be used to form nucleotides. Left-handed ribose interfers with RNA synthesis.

The next major problem is that nucleotides do not form under prebiotic conditions. If the phosphate is left out, purine nucleosides (adenine and guanine) will form under these conditions, but no pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) form. Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication.

In order to get around the problems of nucleotide formation, scientists have proposed that certain minerals may serve as catalysts for specific formation of only proper nucleotides. To date, no such catalysts have been found.

Even if nucleotides could be formed by some method, both right- and left-handed versions would be formed. When both right- and left-handed nucleotides are added to RNA templates, replication is inhibited.

Beyond the problems of nucleotide formation are still more problems regarding how RNA polymers might replicate in the absence of proteins. The addition of nucleotides will produce a complementary strand of RNA. However, there is, at present, no explanation for duplication of the original RNA polymer from the complementary strand, in the absence of enzymes.

A key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems:

• 
  Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. It is completely unreasonable to expect these concentrations on the prebiotic earth.
• 
  Adenine is susceptible to hydrolysis (the half-life for deamination at 37°C, pH 7, is about 80 years). Therefore, no adenine would ever be expected to accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup."
• 
  The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup."

Similar problems apply to the abiotic synthesis of cytosine:

• 
  Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites.
• Cytosine is not produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere."
• Synthesis based upon cyanoacetylene requires the presence of large amounts of methane and nitrogen, however, it is unlikely that significant amounts of methane were present at the time life originated.
• Synthesis based upon cyanate is problematical, since it requires concentrations in excess of 1 M (molar). When concentrations of 0.1 M (still unrealistically high) are used, no cytosine is produced.
• Synthesis based upon cyanoacetaldehyde and urea suffers from the problem of deamination of the cytosine in the presence of high concenrations of urea (low concentrations produce no cytosine). In addition, cyanoacetaldehyde is reactive with a number of prebiotic chemicals, so would never attain reasonable concentrations for the reaction to occur. Even without the presence of other chemicals, cyanoacetaldehyde has a half-life of only 31 years in water.
• Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time.
• Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate).

According to Robert Shapiro, a prominent origin of life researcher, the spontaneous formation of a nucleic acid replicator is a "very improbable event." this is because the mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any replicator.

In addition, all current synthesis schemes require concentration of reactants by a factor of at least 100,000. Robert Shapiro, in his analysis of the "drying lagoon" scenario said:



It is becoming increasingly apparent from over 30 years of research in the field, that the RNA model will never adequately explain life's origin. Increasingly, investigators are looking at alternative models, including pyranosyl RNA and peptide nucleic acid polymers. These models, too, have major problems, which are probably insurmountable.

The current trend in origin of life research is to look for simpler, pre-RNA molecules to serve as genetic material. These models will suffer the same fate as all the rest, namely, the incredible increase in information content required to produce self-replication is not possible in the time frame in which it was supposed to have occurred. The simpler the first step, the more likely it is to occur, but the harder it is to get from step one to step two.

Leslie Orgel recently stated, "The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."
But ermm We Believers in Christ  know that the Creator of life has already been revealed through the Bible. Even those who search for a creator other than God will, in fact, have the Creator of life revealed to them in the near future, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

ooops how can i miss wes' post?
Where are they? Point them out.

Is it not?