Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, Knotical said:

Which would at the same time disprove the theory of evolution.

The lack of life on a few moons would not disprove evolution. It wouldn't even disprove abiogenesis. All it could tell us is that the conditions needed for life have not existed in that single, minute speck of a gigantic universe.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Now, if you made a thread debating authority (the Bible vs secular scientific consensus) THAT would be a discussion worth having.

Agreed - that might be a good idea for later.

I just read multiple people making comments that there were scientific problems with evolution. But when given the opportunity to discuss those problems, they seem to have disappeared.

[David1701]

Just now, one.opinion said:

Agreed - that might be a good idea for later.

I just read multiple people making comments that there were scientific problems with evolution. But when given the opportunity to discuss those problems, they seem to have disappeared.

Okay, here are a couple of question for you:

1) Which evolved first, the blood to supply oxygen to the organs, or the blood vessels to carry it?

2) How did the creature survive, while the other necessary part was evolving?

[Knotical]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

The lack of life on a few moons would not disprove evolution. It wouldn't even disprove abiogenesis. All it could tell us is that the conditions needed for life have not existed in that single, minute speck of a gigantic universe.

How does that hold any water to the fact that scientists have found living organisms in some of the most inhospitable places on this planet?  The assumptions made with evolution is that the building blocks of life were spread all over this universe by the big bang.  So, it would stand to reason that if there is water, which means the environment is warm enough it is not frozen, and cool enough for it not vaporize, there is a chance life would develop.  And, if the suggested age of the universe is anything to go by, and how scientists assume a certain timeframe to become sentient has already passed, then it would stand to reason there is actually intelligent life under the surface of ice planets/moons.

Of course I subscribe to the young earth theory, that being that the universe and everything in it is only a little over 6000 years old.  So, with that in mind it is less likely that there is life of any kind anywhere but on this planet, as God designed it.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, David1701 said:

1) Which evolved first, the blood to supply oxygen to the organs, or the blood vessels to carry it?

There is no reason to believe that one of these would fully develop without the other, without going through the evolutionary process together.

However, blood (or blood-like fluids) are thought to be much older than complex vascular systems. Blood is very similar to fluid found in many other organisms, including insects, called hemolymph. Hemolymph is distributed throughout the bodies of insects (and many other animals) by hearts that are much simpler than our own. Insects have "open" circulatory systems, in contrast to our "closed" ones, in which the transporting fluid is carried by vessels, rather than washing through the entire body cavity.

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/a-bugs-gotta-have-heart.php#:~:text=Like all arthropods%2C insects have,side which moves this hemolymph.

It is interesting to guess how closed circulatory systems developed from open ones, but since these tissues are not preserved in fossils, the best we can do is look at comparative anatomy and comparative genetics to guess how this might have occurred. Here is a good article making those types of guesses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/

[one.opinion]

17 minutes ago, Knotical said:

How does that hold any water to the fact that scientists have found living organisms in some of the most inhospitable places on this planet?

If we were able to identify an exoplanet or moon with a similar atmosphere to earth's (or the earth's suspected atmosphere of billions of years ago), it would be scientifically reasonable to conclude that life should be present. We have yet to identify such a celestial body.

19 minutes ago, Knotical said:

Of course I subscribe to the young earth theory, that being that the universe and everything in it is only a little over 6000 years old.  So, with that in mind it is less likely that there is life of any kind anywhere but on this planet, as God designed it.

There are MANY scientific issues with a planet (and universe) only 6000 years old, but I'm looking to discuss scientific issues with the theory of evolution in this thread.

[Guest theElect777]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, we are starting to get somewhere. What are these branches of Biology? What are these missing links?

The evidence that is available in God's creation, specifically in paleontology, anatomy, and genetics, strongly suggests that evolution has indeed happened. I happen to believe that God used evolution - I do NOT believe evolution is a sufficient answer in itself. However, I base this belief on my belief in God, not because there are scientific problems with the theory of evolution.

Side note - To me, abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life) is a different story.

Evolutionary Biologist claim the LCA is still missing a linear chain connecting us and apes to the Australopithecus Afarensis for one.

I would think not having that link to our supposed common ancestor is unsettling for Science and the Evolutionary Chain.   There are other minor Missing Links that Science is banking on such as Genetic Facial Evolution.   There was a debate over a complex series of cells discovered but that turned out to be a dead end as well.   There are also other areas but I see Science is sweeping those areas under the rug to push the Theory of Evolution.

I find it odd when a Poll done by Discovery Institute revealed over 700 Scientists believed in Intelligent Design, the National Center for Science Education produced a petition called "Project Steve."   Actually reveals the level of pettiness to choose not to accept that every Scientist is not onboard with Evolution, in my opinion.

 

 

OK, lets get down to the nuts and bolts of your Faith in Creation here.

 

On a One Day period we read God took the dust of the Earth, spat into it, formed a clay model of some version of humanity.   We can assume within this Creation that God created every cell, DNA, major/minor organs, everything we believe makes up a human life form (Hominid).   Then it claims God breathed into this clay model and it became a life.

^

If we were going to use Evolutionary Standards here, what would that "ONE DAY" consist of for all of Adam to have completely evolved?   In your estimation, what would the length of time here be for "ONE DAY?"  Are we talking million years, 100,000 years, 12 months, 30 days, 24 hours?   And how would Adam tie into the "Common Ancestor" plus our anthropoid progenitors such as the Australopithecus Afarensis (since we are still missing the LINK here connecting us all together as Higher Primates)?

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by theElect777

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Evolutionary Biologist claim the LCA is still missing a linear chain connecting us and apes to the Australopithecus Afarensis for one.

Who claimed this? Where? It is important to look at exactly what was said.

11 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

I find it odd when a Poll done by Discovery Institute revealed over 700 Scientists believed in Intelligent Design

That isn’t accurate. The “Dissent from Darwinism” statement has nothing that states signers should support Intelligent Design. Do you want to see what it actually says?

11 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

the National Center for Science Education produced a petition called "Project Steve."

Project Steve is intentionally silly. The point is that the numbers of people that signed the Dissent from Darwinism is far smaller than the number of people that have signed Project Steve.

Some people are impressed by the sheer number of signees for the Dissent, yet ignore the far larger number of Steve signees.

In full disclosure, it should be noted that a large percentage of Dissent signees are not professional Biologists.

ID is fringe pseudoscience, and every fringe has to have at least a few members.

Edited August 12, 2020 by one.opinion

[Guest theElect777]

"The post-Darwinian 'paradigm' adopted living chimpanzees as stand-ins for the LCA," says Tim White, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

 

"In these characters man finds his counterparts not in anthropoid apes [gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans] but in animals that are clearly regarded… as more primitive," wrote Straus.

 

What Straus and a few others were really getting at is that humans show none of the specialised features that allow other apes to swing through the trees. It made sense to at least consider the possibility that humans split apart from other primates before the apes evolved brachiation, or knuckle-walking for that matter.

 

This is special:  the molecular clock.

 

Over the following decade, other researchers reported similar findings. By 2009, Tracy Kivell – now at the University of Kent, UK – and Daniel Schmitt at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, were arguing that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking LCA.

 

Schwartz thinks DNA is not the infallible witness on evolution many assume it to be, and that there are many anatomical and behavioural similarities between humans and orangutans that should not simply be ignored. For instance, both have thick layers of enamel on their teeth, and female orangutans (like women) do not "advertise" to males when they are most fertile – something biologists call oestrus. "Orangs are the only other mammal I know of that don't have oestrus," says Schwartz.

 

In principle, fossilised remains of the LCA might come to light any time. They might even be discovered this very year. But because there is so little agreement on what the LCA should look like, researchers will interpret the fossils differently.

"It's a problem that we might encounter," says Almécija. "Are we going to be able to recognise the LCA when we find it?"

[Guest theElect777]

That isn’t accurate. The “Dissent from Darwinism” statement has nothing that states signers should support Intelligent Design. Do you want to see what it actually says?

 

 

 

Sure, I will take a look.