bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution  (Read 625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« on: October 01, 2019, 07:02:49 PM »

Just watched this and it's worth watching if you can find an hour to spare.

https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE

Ray talks about Darwin being proved wrong a few times. But what's interesting is about half-way thru they discuss the existence of a Designer.

These are four very smart men and I find it interesting that we have some of the answers they search for.

This YouTube channel sometimes has political discussions so be forewarned if you explore.
Logged

Wanda

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • I leave with you my peace
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2019, 04:21:17 PM »

This was an  intelligent and civil discussion on the subject. They consider an intelegent designer who failed because they are missing the plan of the designer in the design. I'm facinated with the mathmatics of the design in creation.

I recently learned that each plant of the same species, has it's own DNA, and as a result forensic science has been able to solve murder cases.
Logged
I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life.
                                     John 8:12

Musterseed

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • God is Love
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2019, 06:49:00 PM »

Excellent video. Is God inching them a little closer. I bet they say 😲 WOW
as many times as we do.😃

I found this quote from Ray
ď The physical and natural will all pass away. The two laws of thermodynamics
are at work on every piece of matter in the physical universe.EVERYTHING PHYSICAL
is growing older, colder, and darker. It will all come to and end one day.

1 Co.15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

Come Lord Jesus❤️ Thy will be done.
Logged
" No man can come to me,except the Father draw him"
                                   (John 6: 44)

Musterseed

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • God is Love
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2019, 04:27:01 PM »

Hi family
Has anyone ever heard of Kinesin? 
The walking Kinesin Molecular Machine. I remember Ray saying something about
something that resembles a little boat with a motor inside the human cell. Well this
little nano sized fella with two legs ( Kinesin)  is apparently the workhorse of a  transporter along
the microtubular highway. Itís amazing. Lots of vids on you tube about it.

In Christ
Pamela💕
Logged
" No man can come to me,except the Father draw him"
                                   (John 6: 44)

AwesomeSavior

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2019, 08:06:12 PM »

The Lord prompted the main skeptic of the existence of God (David Gelernter, on the right) to utter Paul's familiar phrase, "God forbid", at the 39:33 mark of that video. Ha!

To God be the Glory. Amen. 
Logged

Loc

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2019, 07:52:13 PM »

I came across this video a few weeks ago and watched it. David Gelernter wrote an article also which I read. Here it is.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

I talked about this with a friend who knows a lot more about evolution than I do, and it seems there is some misunderstanding among these 3 guys. I donít necessarily have a problem with evolution theologically, but I am interested in legitimate scientific skepticism of evolution. Iíd like to read Berlinskiís book sometime, as well as some books explaining why evolution is true.

Iíll quote my friendís information he gave me. Sorry for the long post, but I think itís important if anyone is seriously interested in the subject.

ďAs of right now, less than 10% of our DNA appears functional. 1% is protein coding and about 9% is regulatory non-coding. That means that 90% of our DNA is mutation-tolerant. To make things simple, though, we can just look at known protein-coding genes. That is a complete crock that our proteins are as sensitive to mutation as he implies. If that were true, why is it that half of a yeast's protein-coding genes can be switched for the human counterpart even when the gene in question is less than 50 percent identical? There are sites in proteins that are critical and sites that aren't. The sites that aren't--the ones that can vary without affecting the function of the protein--are the ones that allow us to make phylogenetic trees. Take amylase, for example. Amylase is a protein that we use to digest starch. All vertebrates possess this protein. Even though the function of the protein is the same in all vertebrates, the percent similarity of the protein differs markedly. The protein is 98% identical between humans and chimps but only 69% identical between fish and humans. This shows that over a quarter of the protein's structure can vary and allow it to work. This is also, surprise, good evidence for evolution because why else would our proteins be consistently more similar to chimps than monkeys if the protein does the same thing? It's because we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps and the differences that accrued were built up in neutral regions and were thus invisible to natural selection. Those less sensitive regions of proteins allow us to compare the same exact gene between species and infer genetic relatedness. If you can take a random human gene that is 40% identical to yeastís and splice it into their genome with no ill-effects it stands to reason you could do the opposite. We are far more mutation-tolerant than implied in creationist literature. Even if we werenít, however, it still shouldnít be surprising as evolution has had 3.5 billion years to select and refine more efficient versions of proteins!Ē

ďI canít possibly address everything as there is so much I could talk about. Iíll try to be brief, though. Cambrian precursors arenít missing. Ediacaran fauna are soft-bodied animals that preceded Cambrian organisms. The Cambrian is also when you start to see hard calcium carbonate shells, so obviously fossils from that era will stand out more than the fossils that came before it. The Cambrian ďexplosionĒ also took millions of years.  Precambrian organisms were preceded by bacteria for literally billions of years. Also, what about all the other paleontological evidence for evolution? The transitional fossils, for instance? How about the evolution of whales, horses, birds, manatees, and snakes? The evolution of these groups is pretty well-documented. There are literally whales with legs, horses with multiple toes, and small dinosaurs with feathers. These forms all precede their familiar descendants in time. They are undoubtedly linked through ancestry by features that only exist in those groups. How about the evolution of the mammalian inner ear? You can see the bones in the jaws of a lineage of reptiles slowly work their way into the inner ear of mammals over millions of years. Moreover, the development of mammalian inner ears confirms this. As embryos, bones in the jaw migrate to form the ear! As far as tetrapods go, fish preceded amphibians which preceded reptiles which preceded mammals and birds. The earliest fish are about 400 million years old. The oldest mammal is about 100 million years younger. The evolution of mammals and birds from different groups of reptiles is well-documented. Also, as far as our unique lineage goes, there are many specimens of hominids that are fully bipedal but have brains the size of chimpanzees with facial features that arenít too dissimilar. These fossils are younger than six million years old which is consistent with molecular evidence which suggests that our last common ancestor with chimps lived about that long ago. You could easily falsify evolution through fossils, too. Find a dog in the pre-Cambrianódone. That would completely turn it upside down. Regarding proteins, you donít get complicated proteins randomly. New genes donít come about in a way equivalent to throwing a bunch of random amino acids in a bucket and getting a new protein. Many new proteins come from other proteins through the process of gene duplication and subsequent mutation. Also, many genes are redundant. We have many genes that are in duplicate with several broken ones to go with the ones that work. I remember reading about rRNA genes, I think, of which we have several functional copies with some broken ones. This redundancy also makes it easier for new genes to evolve. We have whole families of genes that undoubtedly arose through the duplication process. Look up the olfactory receptor genes. We have hundreds of them and many are duplicates of others with slight alterations. Moreover, many of them are brokenónon-functional genes that no longer code for an olfactory receptor protein. We have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, for example, which is shared with the other great apes. They have the same mutations in their vitamin C gene. Want to play the statistics game? What are the odds that the other great apes would develop the exact same disabling mutations as humans? Seems more likely that we inherited them from a common ancestor. Same thing with genes for teeth. Birds and toothless mammals have the genes for enamel and dentin but they are disabled by mutations. All birds share their mutations indicating that they share a common, toothless ancestor. The various toothless mammals, as predicted by evolution, have their own inactivating mutations. Going back to the supposed unlikelihood of a new, stable protein evolvingóI can say with confidence that it is not unlikely at all. As I mentioned before, there are thousands of homologous genes found in various organisms that retain the same function despite 50% of the amino acids being switched! Both human and yeast cytochrome C still shuttle electrons in the mitochondrial membrane despite the protein being 58% identical. Cytochrome b is 400 amino acids and the situation is the same. If the chances of getting a stable protein that is 104 amino acids long is 1 in 10^74 then the chances are much more bleak for a 400 amino acid long protein. Yet, the less than 60% identical protein still functions the same in yeast and humans. How does he think bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics? Doesnít he know that there are mutations that lead to protein shape-changes that underlie the new trait? Regarding body plan changesóyes most of them are deleterious. That doesnít mean they canít occur, however. Thereís very good documentation of the evolution of wings from theropod dinosaur forelimbs and tetrapod legs from bony fish fins, for example. Early lobed-finned fish had bones corresponding to our humorous, radius and ulna. These fish preceded amphibians in the fossil record. You can see the limb develop over time in the fossil record. Yes, there are developmental constraints. Just look at insects. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years yet they all have six legs! Obviously, there are huge costs to adding or losing a pair of legs. Despite the constraints, however, there are other arthropods like spiders, scorpions, and the various crustaceans that vary widely in their leg numbers but are undoubtedly closely related. They also differ markedly in their number of body segments and eye numbers. Some insects have one pair of wings whereas others have two or none at all. Many insects have vestigial wings. Some beetles have fully-formed wings under a fused wing cover that doesnít allow them to fly. Hox genes are very important to the evolution of new body plans and should be mentioned when discussing this topic. Duplications and subsequent changes to hox genes can result in new segments and forms. There is very good evidence that duplication of a single ancestral hox gene is what lead to the radical body-plan differences between animals. Tetrapod vertebrates have four clusters of hox genes that insects have only one of. They are mostly identical with some tweaks. This is what youíd expect if we shared a common ancestor. Just because radical differences are usually selected against doesnít mean that advantageous body plans canít evolve. In conclusion, the fossil record, genetics, and embryology fully support evolution with ample evidence for common ancestry. Weíve seen through antibiotic resistance and selective breeding that mutation and selection as a mechanism for adaptation works. Iím not sure where evidence is lacking?Ē

My friend wrote a little more, but I think thatís good enough.

At the end of the day, I donít care whether someone believes in evolution or not, an old earth or not, etc. There are plenty of more important things in life. But science is quite fascinating.
Logged

indianabob

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1769
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2019, 01:17:16 AM »

Hello LOC,

Thanks for your detailed commentary on the theory of evolution as your friend understands it.
It is apparent that your friend has been studying and teaching for an extended period.
However I hope that both he and you also understand that almost no who reads the forum or with whom we confer on the forum has the background to understand this much detail and foreign to our ears terminology.

Perhaps we could explore a little more in private messages if you are interested.

Kindly offered, Indiana Bob
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2019, 01:48:00 PM »

Quote
In conclusion, the fossil record, genetics, and embryology fully support evolution with ample evidence for common ancestry.

Loc's article is too much for me to wade through (especially in one long paragraph). But I think he is defending evolution. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Instead of a 'common ancestry' a 'common designer' makes more sense.

Humans share the majority of our DNA with a blade of grass which shows a basic starting point/design. But I don't see how a blade of grass can evolve a brain, even a tiny one.

Several years ago the world's leading scientist on the study of DNA announced on CNN that he now believes in some sort of a designer. He came to the conclusion that DNA is much too complicated to have evolved.

One big problem for evolutionist is there are no intermediate fossils where you can trace one species evolving into another, e.g., a bird evolving into a dinosaur. They may show one animal and state something that looks like a dog is half-way between a bird and a dinosaur but you need many intermediary examples to the end product as real proof, but there are none in the fossil records.

And I'm not talking about natural selection which we know happens, but that is not the same as evolution.

Gen 5:1  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 5:2  Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Doesn't say God fashioned man from something biological.
Logged

Loc

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2019, 06:58:37 PM »

Yes, Iím defending evolution. Evolution is largely misunderstood by itís opponents. Let me be clear, I have no problem with evolution being proven false or true, I have no stake in the outcome. Iím interested in what is true. Iím not an expert on the topic, but I do wish to read more about it, both opponents and proponents. As it stands now, I see lots of convincing evidence for evolution, but Iím open to alternate explanations, as long as they come from a place of integrity.

As I said before, evolution is largely misunderstood, leading to a lot of the same arguments being used against it for the past several decades which have been debunked. Transitional fossils are a good example, which Dennis brought up. Many of these fossils have been found, as my friend stated, whales with legs, horses with toes, dinosaurs with feathers. Hox genes are very important for body plan evolution, as my friend stated. Hox genes are one answer to a lot of misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. Certainly a blade of grass canít evolve a brain all of the sudden, but thatís not how evolution works.

All I wanted to do with my post was to provide facts as a counter to the points being raised by the men in the video. They bring up amino acid chains being very specific and if you change it a little, it wonít work, which is false. My friend cited a study (I can post the study if anyone is interested) in which researchers switched out important yeast genes for their human equivalents. Half of the yeast genes could be successfully switched out despite a genome-wide average similarity of only 32%. The point is you can mess up proteins a lot and they still work.

Thatís interesting about that DNA scientist Dennis. Do you have his name so I can read more about it? I donít doubt that DNA and biology as a whole are very complex. There is plenty that we donít understand about how life works. Complexity doesnít necessarily disprove anything, we just donít understand how everything works.

Hi Indiana Bob, yes, I do understand that this topic is very technical and not everyone will immediately understand everything, or even be interested in it at all. Itís not something that can be learned in a day, just like one canít understand all scripture in one day. Iím still learning myself. I wouldnít mind discussing it further via PM if you wish. I donít expect everyone to be interested in this subject and explore it further. I also donít see it being very important scripturally, which is why I donít mind if someone believes one way or the other about it. Iím much more interested in how all the Bible stories apply to us, learning the spiritual aspect of the law, learning about the prophets and the meaning of their prophecies, overcoming the flesh, learning that God rules and He is the potter, and there are vessels for honor and dishonor, etc. etc.
Logged

AwesomeSavior

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2019, 09:20:06 AM »

Loc:

A couple of questions for you:

1) Does your friend believe in God, or is he agnostic/atheistic?

2) What does he believe is the so-called "common ancestor"?

Dean
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2019, 09:58:25 AM »

Quote
Thatís interesting about that DNA scientist Dennis. Do you have his name so I can read more about it?

I couldn't find the exact news story I saw on CNN but I did find a short video on CNN: https://youtu.be/w5bPbwkjKMM

"As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book."

The scientist is Francis Collins and he is a big deal. Here he is talking to Bill Gates:  https://youtu.be/hUylrQ35114  Google "Francis Collins" and you will find many articles about him.

You can search for "DNA" on YouTube and find many videos about the insane complexity of DNA. Much too complex to evolve by natural selection or any other means.

Couple "3.1 billion letters of the human genome" with why I started this topic ( https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE ) and it gets very hard to be a believer in evolution.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 10:07:35 AM by Dennis Vogel »
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2019, 10:21:03 AM »

Quote
Many of these fossils have been found, as my friend stated, whales with legs, horses with toes, dinosaurs with feathers.

I looked up "whales with legs" and found https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47822228

All this shows is one well-adapted animal designed for that age.

But where are the numerous in-between fossils? There are none that I can find.

Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4116
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2019, 12:39:08 PM »

Yes, Iím defending evolution. Evolution is largely misunderstood by itís opponents. Let me be clear, I have no problem with evolution being proven false or true, I have no stake in the outcome. Iím interested in what is true. Iím not an expert on the topic, but I do wish to read more about it, both opponents and proponents. As it stands now, I see lots of convincing evidence for evolution, but Iím open to alternate explanations, as long as they come from a place of integrity.

As I said before, evolution is largely misunderstood, leading to a lot of the same arguments being used against it for the past several decades which have been debunked. Transitional fossils are a good example, which Dennis brought up. Many of these fossils have been found, as my friend stated, whales with legs, horses with toes, dinosaurs with feathers. Hox genes are very important for body plan evolution, as my friend stated. Hox genes are one answer to a lot of misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. Certainly a blade of grass canít evolve a brain all of the sudden, but thatís not how evolution works.

All I wanted to do with my post was to provide facts as a counter to the points being raised by the men in the video. They bring up amino acid chains being very specific and if you change it a little, it wonít work, which is false. My friend cited a study (I can post the study if anyone is interested) in which researchers switched out important yeast genes for their human equivalents. Half of the yeast genes could be successfully switched out despite a genome-wide average similarity of only 32%. The point is you can mess up proteins a lot and they still work.

Thatís interesting about that DNA scientist Dennis. Do you have his name so I can read more about it? I donít doubt that DNA and biology as a whole are very complex. There is plenty that we donít understand about how life works. Complexity doesnít necessarily disprove anything, we just donít understand how everything works.

Hi Indiana Bob, yes, I do understand that this topic is very technical and not everyone will immediately understand everything, or even be interested in it at all. Itís not something that can be learned in a day, just like one canít understand all scripture in one day. Iím still learning myself. I wouldnít mind discussing it further via PM if you wish. I donít expect everyone to be interested in this subject and explore it further. I also donít see it being very important scripturally, which is why I donít mind if someone believes one way or the other about it. Iím much more interested in how all the Bible stories apply to us, learning the spiritual aspect of the law, learning about the prophets and the meaning of their prophecies, overcoming the flesh, learning that God rules and He is the potter, and there are vessels for honor and dishonor, etc. etc.

I pretty much agree with every statement made.  I'd only add that creation did not begin with plant and animal life.  Nor did it spring out of nothing.  "Evolution" provides reasonably workable explanations of how "the earth brought forth".  The "Creationism" that I grew up with doesn't offer me anything but their own imaginations. 

There is a line of thought in Natural Sciences that contends that, given the state of the earth and with enough time, life was inevitable.  I don't know that that's "true", but it is comforting.  I don't think that the rest of the physical universe is merely the stage for life, but is much more the physical reason for it.  I think it all fits together, and (taken together) speaks of a God who isn't outside of "it", but that "it" is in Him.  And that's where "science" (and religion) break down.  Scripture, on the other hand, doesn't break down--only understandings of it.

This is an interesting lift from the article Loc linked to:

"Darwin is no Newton. Newtonís physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales." 

Perhaps when Natural Science can integrate the "extreme ends" into their understanding...
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 01:37:29 PM by Dave in Tenn »
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

Wanda

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • I leave with you my peace
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2019, 03:13:27 PM »

There is truth on both sides, but each is missing an essential  component, the word of God. The creationists believe in God, but don't understand his word, and the Evolutionist consider his word a myth. Perhaps this thread will lead some to doing more critical thinking. I used to be opposed to anything relating to evolution until I had a better understanding of the creation account in Genesis, of how the earth brought forth, and continues to do so.
Logged
I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life.
                                     John 8:12

Loc

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2019, 03:36:05 PM »

AwesomeSaviour, my friend is agnostic. Common ancestor is a generic term and doesn't refer to any one organism. It's a way of referring to a previous organism that links two or more later organisms. But I suspect you're asking that question from a certain angle, insinuating that God is our common ancestor, which I would agree with. I do like Dennis' term "common designer." I don't think it's mutually exclusive with evolution though.

I apologize in advance for the information bomb. I don't expect people to read all this, but skimming will provide some useful information.

Since Dennis looked up "whales with legs" and posted an article, I'll stick with whales. The evolution of whales is pretty well documented. Here's a short 2.5 minute video going over it. (I didn't realize at first, but the website is from a Christian perspective.)

https://biologos.org/resources/how-evolution-works-part-2

Here's a short article from Berkeley showing some helpful pictures of some transitional forms.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

This wikipedia page has a lot of info on whale evolution showing many transitional forms and whale ancestors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

This is a long article but the more relevant info is at the beginning. It shows transitional forms of several animals, including whales. The article has an anti-creationist slant which may be off-putting to some, but ignore that and focus on the facts and fossils.

https://askepticalhuman.com/religion/2019/4/2/debunking-creationism-transitional-fossils-dont-exist

Its important to know that evolution doesn't happen in a direct line, it's much more like a tree with many branches. There seems to be a stigma among creationists about evolution, as if it detracts something from God and makes Him less amazing and powerful. Quite the opposite, I think. It makes God and his creation more amazing. He commands and it happens. "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" The phrase "according to their kinds" brings to mind a tree branching in many directions.
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2019, 04:53:29 PM »

Quote
The evolution of whales is pretty well documented.

But where are the in-between fossils? They don't exist as far as I can see. All I see is a common design used on many animals.

Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
 
Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I don't see where the earth brought forth anything from plant life other than its own kind. And the plants came before any fish, birds, animals, etc.

So somehow an animal evolved from a plant and whatever it was crawled into the sea? Then came back out and ate the plants? Is that right?

Dogs and cats look very similar but they cannot breed and neither can whales and hippopotamuses which are on both ends of the whale diagram, if indeed they are after their own kind, as they must be according to the evolution diagram.

You can get a few species of birds and animals to crossbreed but they cannot reproduce, for example mules. Dead end.
Logged

Loc

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2019, 07:02:43 PM »

I presented many "in-between" fossils, and many more have been discovered as that 2.5 minute video stated. "In-between", "intermediate", and "transitional" are kind of misnomers, as these are fully functional animals in their own right. They're only "transitional" from our point of view in the sense that we're trying to figure out how we got to the animals we see today.

No matter how many fossils are shown to you, will you still ask for more? I'm sure you understand how rare fossils are. Conditions have to be just right, and even then it's mostly hard body parts like bones and shells that are preserved. Even if fossils are preserved, they can be destroyed by geologic processes, such as rock metamorphosis and erosion. Considering the innumerable amount of organisms that have ever existed, the incredibly large volume of rock that hasn't yet been searched for fossils, and the rarity of fossils, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we don't have a complete record of the history of life in fossil form. Even so, we do have plenty to work with, as indicated by the information which I posted, which hardly scratches the surface.

Quote
So somehow an animal evolved from a plant and whatever it was crawled into the sea? Then came back out and ate the plants? Is that right?

No, that's not right. I fully admit I don't know enough to give a proper response in exact scientific detail, but the information is out there. I only have a vague superficial knowledge currently. Bacteria existed for billions of years before the Cambrian explosion, where you start to see shells and such. Animals didn't evolve from plants, or vice-versa, they evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is like a tree, not a line.

Sorry for another link, but it's short and has a couple good pictures. I did a quick search for evolution of plants and animals.

https://www.quora.com/Did-animals-evolve-from-plants

Basically, before plants and animals existed, there were just simple celled organisms, one being eukaryotes. Eukaryotes developed into different branches that eventually lead to plants and animals. There are many variables that govern evolution. Transitional fossils don't always exist. Changes can happen rapidly as well as slowly. This is the idea of punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism. Both can happen. In my opinion, the most convincing evidence for evolution lies on the small scale, such as genes. "Birds and toothless mammals have the genes for enamel and dentin but they are disabled by mutations. All birds share their mutations indicating that they share a common, toothless ancestor." Genes hold the information to produce whole body parts, and they can be switched off to not produce that body part.
Logged

Wanda

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • I leave with you my peace
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2019, 07:13:19 PM »

These links are to the Khan Academy.  I think it's important information for those reading,  who may not be familiar with  Species & Speciation , and Biodiversity and Natural Selection, as relates to this complicated subject. The first link is on Species and Speciation.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/a/species-speciation

Biodiversity and Natural Selection

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/v/biodiversity-and-natural-selection-two

« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 04:47:28 PM by Wanda »
Logged
I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life.
                                     John 8:12

Loc

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2019, 08:06:27 PM »

Thanks for the information Wanda, and thanks for the discussion Dennis. I appreciate the back and forth. I'm going to bow out at this point. I think enough has been said and people can do their own further learning if they wish. I know I plan to.
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Mathematical Challenges to Darwinís Theory of Evolution
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2019, 06:11:41 AM »

I would invite anyone interested to watch the video I first suggested where they talk about how evolution is mathematically impossible:  https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE

Then listen to this 7 minutes audio by Ray recorded May 21, 2007, in Nashville, TN. where he also talks about how it's mathematically impossible for people to have evolved:  https://youtu.be/XqeYSZxZkVg

And I'll try and leave it at that.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.107 seconds with 28 queries.