TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Against Evolution
BTW Jigglychu, that article you linked to was actually pretty good aside from some typos.
You should consider it, natie. It is not inherently illogical for something to need no beginning if it didn't come into existence. You believe the laws of mathematics have always existed, right?
To get to the actual topic, I believe God created the world and created many, may different sorts of living things on it. Do I believe absolutely all species were created by God and have remained unchanged since the beginning? No. A post by J.T. from the previous evolution debate clears this up:
There are some Christians who deny that any change has ever happened. But even the most biblically-literal fundamentalists believe a certain amount of change has happened--whether they realize it or not! See, even they recognize that Adam and Eve's descendants have become slightly different-shaded ethnic groups. That's a small change. Is that unbiblical? Not in the slightest. Is it Darwinian? Well, yes...in the slightest.
I don't dispute the fact that some small amount of change has occurred in the history of life. What I dispute is whether this small amount of change can truly be extrapolated into the past to account for every living thing in existence today.
I can give several good, scientific reasons for doubting that this is possible. Evolution is said to proceed by mutations changing the genes of organisms and natural selection preserving beneficial changes.
I've detailed some of this before using the words of expert evolutionist Richard Dawkins, so I should do it again. In a passage of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he describes a computer simulation in which he made "biomorphs" to illustrate evolution. Of course, in his model they changed radically every generation, so he said: “In real life, the probability that a gene will mutate is often less than one in a million. The reason for building a high mutation rate into the model is that the whole performance on the computer screen is for the benefit of human eyes, and humans haven’t the patience to wait a million generations for a mutation!”
(Richard Dawkins, 1996 edition, page 57)
I realize that he is talking about genes, which mutate less often than the nucleotides of which genes are built, but the point still holds to some degree. Anyway, that's my first piece of evidence.
Second, most mutations are harmful: “Of all possible changes that might occur to an existing complex mechanism like an organ, the vast majority will make it worse. Only a tiny minority of changes will make it better.”
(From page 305)
Since some have disputed the previous two points, I further cite World Book Encyclopedia (I'm using the 1994 edition): "Mutations occur regularly but infrequently, and most of them produce unfavorable traits."
("Evolution" E:437)
As a side note, World Book also point out that, "An organism can pass a mutation on to its offspring only if the mutation affects cells that produce eggs or sperm. This type of mutation is called a germinal mutation. The other type of mutation is called a somatic mutation."
("Mutation" M:968-969)
Now, third, Dawkins has also said:
“As a matter of fact, most of natural selection is concerned with preventing evolutionary change rather than driving it. This doesn’t mean, I hasten to insist, that natural selection is a purely destructive process. It can construct too, in ways that Chapter 7 will explain.”
(From page 125)
But those three pieces of data do not completely explain the difficulty of evolving everything from one single-celled life form. For the fourth piece of evidence, I won't give any Dawkins quotes, but instead, point out that time is limited. Nearly all scientists today believe that the evidence supports a universe no older than 14 billion years. (I don't personally believe it is that old, but that's beside the point.) It certainly cannot be older than that. Furthermore, nearly all scientists agree that the earth is no more than about 4.6 billion years, with life appearing about four billion years ago. How many generations are between the first proposed life form, and today's organisms?
But fifth and finally, none of what I've said deals with the fossil record of any specific organisms: Which organisms have the shortest time between generations--hence the quickest rate of genetic change? The answer is shocking: the single-celled organisms! But according to the fossils, unicellular organisms existed for nearly 3.5 billion years before multicellular organisms evolved. What?
So, to recap,
(1) Mutations are uncommon.
(2) Most mutations are harmful.
(3) Natural selection most often hinders evolution, instead of helping it.
(4) There is only so much time (less than 14 billion for the whole universe).
(5) Examining the fossil record shows some extreme difficulties, especially concerning time.
If you doubt what I've said here, please check what I've said--you should be able to find Dawkins books at many libraries. Read encyclopedias, read evolutionists (like Dawkins), and read evolution critics. Don't be afraid to look at both sides of the issue. And like Jigglychu pointed out, this doesn't have to be an issue of "science versus God".
Evolution is a theory that people should be allowed to criticize scientifically. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess," of course, but people should certainly know that evolution is far from the absolute fact some label it. People should be taught, not just the things for which evolution might have a good explanation, but also the facts which strongly challenge evolution.
You mean we aren't supposed to wear hamburgers on our feet? Oh man...
BTW Jigglychu, that article you linked to was actually pretty good aside from some typos.
You should consider it, natie. It is not inherently illogical for something to need no beginning if it didn't come into existence. You believe the laws of mathematics have always existed, right?
To get to the actual topic, I believe God created the world and created many, may different sorts of living things on it. Do I believe absolutely all species were created by God and have remained unchanged since the beginning? No. A post by J.T. from the previous evolution debate clears this up:
(Please note that, if this isn't obvious, J.T. believes evolution has occurred. With this quote, I'm not trying to claim he said anything different.)
There are some Christians who deny that any change has ever happened. But even the most biblically-literal fundamentalists believe a certain amount of change has happened--whether they realize it or not! See, even they recognize that Adam and Eve's descendants have become slightly different-shaded ethnic groups. That's a small change. Is that unbiblical? Not in the slightest. Is it Darwinian? Well, yes...in the slightest.
I don't dispute the fact that some small amount of change has occurred in the history of life. What I dispute is whether this small amount of change can truly be extrapolated into the past to account for every living thing in existence today.
I can give several good, scientific reasons for doubting that this is possible. Evolution is said to proceed by mutations changing the genes of organisms and natural selection preserving beneficial changes.
I've detailed some of this before using the words of expert evolutionist Richard Dawkins, so I should do it again. In a passage of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he describes a computer simulation in which he made "biomorphs" to illustrate evolution. Of course, in his model they changed radically every generation, so he said: “In real life, the probability that a gene will mutate is often less than one in a million. The reason for building a high mutation rate into the model is that the whole performance on the computer screen is for the benefit of human eyes, and humans haven’t the patience to wait a million generations for a mutation!”
(Richard Dawkins, 1996 edition, page 57)
I realize that he is talking about genes, which mutate less often than the nucleotides of which genes are built, but the point still holds to some degree. Anyway, that's my first piece of evidence.
Second, most mutations are harmful: “Of all possible changes that might occur to an existing complex mechanism like an organ, the vast majority will make it worse. Only a tiny minority of changes will make it better.”
(From page 305)
Since some have disputed the previous two points, I further cite World Book Encyclopedia (I'm using the 1994 edition): "Mutations occur regularly but infrequently, and most of them produce unfavorable traits."
("Evolution" E:437)
As a side note, World Book also point out that, "An organism can pass a mutation on to its offspring only if the mutation affects cells that produce eggs or sperm. This type of mutation is called a germinal mutation. The other type of mutation is called a somatic mutation."
("Mutation" M:968-969)
Now, third, Dawkins has also said:
“As a matter of fact, most of natural selection is concerned with preventing evolutionary change rather than driving it. This doesn’t mean, I hasten to insist, that natural selection is a purely destructive process. It can construct too, in ways that Chapter 7 will explain.”
(From page 125)
But those three pieces of data do not completely explain the difficulty of evolving everything from one single-celled life form. For the fourth piece of evidence, I won't give any Dawkins quotes, but instead, point out that time is limited. Nearly all scientists today believe that the evidence supports a universe no older than 14 billion years. (I don't personally believe it is that old, but that's beside the point.) It certainly cannot be older than that. Furthermore, nearly all scientists agree that the earth is no more than about 4.6 billion years, with life appearing about four billion years ago. How many generations are between the first proposed life form, and today's organisms?
But fifth and finally, none of what I've said deals with the fossil record of any specific organisms: Which organisms have the shortest time between generations--hence the quickest rate of genetic change? The answer is shocking: the single-celled organisms! But according to the fossils, unicellular organisms existed for nearly 3.5 billion years before multicellular organisms evolved. What?
So, to recap,
(1) Mutations are uncommon.
(2) Most mutations are harmful.
(3) Natural selection most often hinders evolution, instead of helping it.
(4) There is only so much time (less than 14 billion for the whole universe).
(5) Examining the fossil record shows some extreme difficulties, especially concerning time.
If you doubt what I've said here, please check what I've said--you should be able to find Dawkins books at many libraries. Read encyclopedias, read evolutionists (like Dawkins), and read evolution critics. Don't be afraid to look at both sides of the issue. And like Jigglychu pointed out, this doesn't have to be an issue of "science versus God".
Evolution is a theory that people should be allowed to criticize scientifically. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess," of course, but people should certainly know that evolution is far from the absolute fact some label it. People should be taught, not just the things for which evolution might have a good explanation, but also the facts which strongly challenge evolution.
