The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Marathoner]

I went from accepting the premises of evolution, to doubting it, and then finally rejecting it. Bear in mind, @Starise, that I did not come from a Christian background. I wasn't familiar with arguments against evolution. I never learned about evolution in grade school but then, it's possible that I didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to it because I dropped out of high school at the beginning of the 10th grade. 

My exposure to evolution happened later on in college. By that time, modern theory was the rule.

Evolutionary theory was a primary focus of my early coursework in physical anthropology. "Apes to man" represents a paradigm that modern theory rejected in favor of "a common ancestor for both." Scepticism of what came before was touted and highly prized by my professors. So, what I have to bring here represents "intel," brother. It's a report, not a retort.

I'll get around to explaining what led me to reject the premises of modern theory. Tristen and Sparks touch upon that in their posts: semantics, assumptions of intellectual and educational superiority, and a pervasive paradigm of reasoning. 

I appreciate the time you devoted to explaining why discussing the contents of your OP is important, because here's what it reveals to me: that pervasive paradigm of reasoning working with different data sets. Is it current? No, but that doesn't diminish the importance. 

I'm a newbie to discussions like this, my friend. It never occurred to me that I ought to address why I ultimately rejected the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution. I believed that the constituent elements of modern theory are so mind-numbingly boring that it would put most people to sleep. 

I'll give it a shot anyway. I'll return to continue later. 

[Marathoner]

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

Keep going.  No one was taught much about evolution in college either.  The only 'evolution' that is seen is microevolution, which won't get you what evolutionists claim.  We see tiny variances within 'species,' not above them, which will get you a sibling that is different between the same DNA source (the same parents).  There are hard limits to microevolution.  Given a trillion years, you won't ever go 'above species' to get you a new kind because there is nothing in the DNA pool to allow it.

I cannot believe evolutionists carry on, as if Darwin was right.  Even Darwin knew better to wait on the evidence to make claims, but the evidence never showed up.

Indeed. Something called genetic recombination occurs during conception. In a simplified nutshell, DNA contributed from both parents are rearranged, broken, and recombined during this process. The result? A unique human being. Some traits are inherited from one or both parents... new traits arise... and errors in this process can produce unique conditions that are good or harmful (or both).

One way to conceptualize recombination: mom and dad's genes play genetic football. 

[Starise]

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

Keep going.  No one was taught much about evolution in college either.  The only 'evolution' that is seen is microevolution, which won't get you what evolutionists claim.  We see tiny variances within 'species,' not above them, which will get you a sibling that is different between the same DNA source (the same parents).  There are hard limits to microevolution.  Given a trillion years, you won't ever go 'above species' to get you a new kind because there is nothing in the DNA pool to allow it.

I cannot believe evolutionists carry on, as if Darwin was right.  Even Darwin knew better to wait on the evidence to make claims, but the evidence never showed up.

I totally agree.

They call it all evolution, lump it all into the same explanation, often using micro changes within species as proof of species to new species using the flippers of whales and our supposed direct connection to apes.

There are multiple problems with this view. In order to prove thier theory they need to prove a solid progression. Not just one progression, but millions of progressions going from rudimentary to complex over whatever number they think works 2 billion years? 10 billion years? Flip a coin.Who will know? Someone please bring up carbon dating. So far no evidence, yet they have the audacity to demand evidence from us? Aren't they the scientists? Before they have any credibility, they,( those scientists and professors making these claims), need to shore up their own camp. 

Problem number two, the various mechanisms of life on this planet are said to evolve in response to changes in their environment. This is where micro evolution comes in, which is really a response that was already programmed into the DNA itself. It looks to be a way the creator has made for animals to change to become better suited for their environments, but never does a species change into another species, like ever. They very cleverly attempted to make some ancient humans into another species and called it Neanderthal man. Many buy into it hook line and sinker. I'll give a very simple example- One of my cousins worked on a farm his entire life in a colder climate than where I came from. It would be 30F outside and he was still barefoot walking across stones that would rip my bare feet to shreds. Did he have thicker bone densilty and thicker pads on his feet? You bet he did. They say we all have Neanderthal genes...go figure. * disclaimer* It might not have been all of us, but many modern men have those genes apparently.

Additional issues. God created eco 'systems'. It isn't just animals that are systems, it's all of the systems which handshake and could not one exist without the other. In order for the theory of evolution to have any weight those systems should not interfere with the others it relies on. This isn't a setup that allows a lot of wiggle room. Conditions need to be exact in order for everything to live. They might counter that it's survival of the fittest. I'm sorry, but if something dies, it's dead. If you suddenly take my heat away in the winter and put me out in the tundra naked, I'm not evolving. I'm frozen meat. Are men then not fit enough to survive? Why yes we are, given our pre existing ability to make clothing and machines. Men back 1000 years ago needed to be brighter than we are. No grocery stores. No clothing stores.

 

[Starise]

25 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I went from accepting the premises of evolution, to doubting it, and then finally rejecting it. Bear in mind, @Starise, that I did not come from a Christian background. I wasn't familiar with arguments against evolution. I never learned about evolution in grade school but then, it's possible that I didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to it because I dropped out of high school at the beginning of the 10th grade. 

My exposure to evolution happened later on in college. By that time, modern theory was the rule.

Evolutionary theory was a primary focus of my early coursework in physical anthropology. "Apes to man" represents a paradigm that modern theory rejected in favor of "a common ancestor for both." Scepticism of what came before was touted and highly prized by my professors. So, what I have to bring here represents "intel," brother. It's a report, not a retort.

I'll get around to explaining what led me to reject the premises of modern theory. Tristen and Sparks touch upon that in their posts: semantics, assumptions of intellectual and educational superiority, and a pervasive paradigm of reasoning. 

I appreciate the time you devoted to explaining why discussing the contents of your OP is important, because here's what it reveals to me: that pervasive paradigm of reasoning working with different data sets. Is it current? No, but that doesn't diminish the importance. 

I'm a newbie to discussions like this, my friend. It never occurred to me that I ought to address why I ultimately rejected the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution. I believed that the constituent elements of modern theory are so mind-numbingly boring that it would put most people to sleep. 

I'll give it a shot anyway. I'll return to continue later. 

No pressure @ Marathoner. I'm not here to do anything but share scientific truths.

I hope you know how much I truly value you as a brother in Christ. Can I give you a call sometime? If so and you don't mind, PM me your number.

[Starise]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

What is everyone going on about?  The theory of evolution describes the gradual variation in the phenotypic characteristics of organisms. These variations are genetic and are passed on to the next successive generation by an organism. These variations can have both positive and negative consequences on the organism.

According to the theory, individuals with traits that enable them to adapt to their environments will help them survive and have more offspring, which will inherit those traits. Individuals with less adaptive traits will not survive over time to pass them on.

Quite obviously organisms do change over time, both positively and negatively.  Some organisms change and adapt to a changing environment, as is true of most organisms that exist today, and some do not, for example, dinosaurs and mastodons.  Species that do not evolve to cope with environmental changes die.

There are species that are no longer on earth, the most obvious being dinosaurs.  Because they were unbale to sufficiently change to adapt to the changing physical environment they died off.  The same is true with animals such including the saber-tooth tiger, wooly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger, Steller's sea cow, Pyrenean ibex, dodo, Labrador duck, and others.  There are also many plant species that are extinct.

So what is the problem?

Changes within species. Do you agree?

[JimmyB]

8 minutes ago, Starise said:

Changes within species. Do you agree?

Yes.

[The Barbarian]

15 hours ago, Starise said:

Changes within species. Do you agree?

And new species.  Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact that new species evolve from older ones.    They just don't want to call it "evolution."  

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Most of them will accept new species and genera,and sometimes, new families.   If they retreat just a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

 

[Starise]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

And new species.  Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact that new species evolve from older ones.    They just don't want to call it "evolution."  

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Most of them will accept new species and genera,and sometimes, new families.   If they retreat just a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

 

I give little credance to your source. Mainly because they have said suspect things in the past. Not that they aren't correct in a lot of what they say.

The bible clearly tells us God made the animals to "produce after their own kind".

Let's get past what someone said and look at the proof for what you claim. No need to repeat that species have wide variation and adapt. We know that.

Unless they changed the definition of "species" in the same way the term "evolution" has been toyed with, I don't see new species coming from older species. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I give little credance to your source. Mainly because they have said suspect things in the past. Not that they aren't correct in a lot of what they say.

The bible clearly tells us God made the animals to "produce after their own kind".

Actually, it doesn't.   That's a common myth, but it's false.    Here:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.  25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Not "reproduce according to kind", but "made according to kind."     God's version is true; the issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Yes, AIG does say a lot of things that are false.   But they realized there was no longer any point in denying the fact that new species and genera evolve.   But they still don't want to use the "e-word."

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Unless they changed the definition of "species" in the same way the term "evolution" has been toyed with,

Actually, Darwin merely defined it as "descent with modification."    After the discovery of Genetics, the scientific definition became "change in allele frequency in a population."    And there it remains.   

"Species" has had a lot of definition issues, for the reason that Darwin pointed out; if evolution were true, there would be lots of intermediate cases, quarter-species, half-species, and the like.    If creationism were true, there would be easy and distinct definitions for "species."   But of course, it's not true, so we have a lot of transitional forms in nature and even more in the fossil record.   It's a major embarrassment for creationists.

For sexually-reproducing organisms, it's defined as an interbreeding population of organisms in the wild."

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/

My bachelor's degree is in bacteriology.    We can't use that definition (bacteria don't sexually reproduce), so it gets pretty difficult, sometimes.    My Bergey's Manual from the 1970s is entirely out of date, because of better genetic data since then.

 

 

[Starise]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, it doesn't.   That's a common myth, but it's false.    Here:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.  25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Not "reproduce according to kind", but "made according to kind."     God's version is true; the issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Yes, AIG does say a lot of things that are false.   But they realized there was no longer any point in denying the fact that new species and genera evolve.   But they still don't want to use the "e-word."

How do you see a difference between those two statements? 

"reproduce according to kind" and "made according to kind." 

I believe any fair search of the original terms will agree God made everything to reproduce it's own kind. I mean, it's very clear to me in the translation, but if we must, we can go to those words in ancients texts. If God made only one set of animals capable of reproduction, what else is there to infer? 

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, Darwin merely defined it as "descent with modification."    After the discovery of Genetics, the scientific definition became "change in allele frequency in a population."    And there it remains.   

With all due respect, I don't give any credence to Darwin's theory of species to species evolution. I see no proof for it at all, and Darwin never proved it. ̶I̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶H̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶S̶i̶m̶p̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶D̶a̶r̶w̶i̶n̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶N̶e̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶t̶a̶h̶a̶l̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶w̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶.̶  Sorry just having some personal thoughts there. 

The only reason anyone still looks at Darwin as a source of  data is he fits into their  narrative, and even some of Darwin's own statements have him saying  some things that would bring doubt to the views people say he had.

58 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"Species" has had a lot of definition issues, for the reason that Darwin pointed out; if evolution were true, there would be lots of intermediate cases, quarter-species, half-species, and the like.    If creationism were true, there would be easy and distinct definitions for "species."   But of course, it's not true, so we have a lot of transitional forms in nature and even more in the fossil record.   It's a major embarrassment for creationists.

I'm not embarrased about anything Darwin said because I don't take the man seriously. Which creationists do you speak of? And what are you? 

I would agree that the word species has been raped seriously.I read the link. Where does it support species to a different species?