Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

1. When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more w swers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

As twhitehead has already said, its all lies.
Lets just take one of these lies:

9. One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. (my emphasis)

Not only is that a totally stupid, vague and unscientific statement ( “things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown”? WHAT “things in nature”? In what way do they “tend to dissolve and breakdown”? Both parts of that is just so stupidly vague ) which can only be made by somebody who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about anything becoming “more complex” or “less complex” in a way that would exclude local increases in complexity and certainly any natural process that creates a complex structure such as the growth of crystals or evolution does NOT violate this law by doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
“...
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind.
...”

well, no mention of “more complex” or “less complex” or “dissolve” or “breakdown” there!
You are just talking crap as usual.

Originally posted by sonhouse
About the Southern Ape thing: Read this with an open mind if that is possible for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

I would not expect anything else from a website created to defend evolution. You have your own bias and closed mindedness when I present something from a creationists website or one that defends the existence of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not admit the problems that are pointed out are all lies. If they are all lies then you should be able to prove it then.

I have proved it a number of times and every time you just start a new thread - often repeating some of the lies from the previous one.

Originally posted by humy
As twhitehead has already said, its all lies.
Lets just take one of these lies:

[quote] 9. One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that [b]things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. (my emphasis lex” or “less complex” or “dissolve” or “breakdown” there!
You are just talking crap as usual.[/b]

I did not write this. It was in the reference I gave you. He must be referring to Entropy and Disorder. Heat is disordered energy. There is ordered energy and disordered energy. The motion of a bullet is the kind we call kinetic energy. When the bullet hits a steel plate and is stopped, the energy of its motion is transferred to random motions of the atoms in the bullet and the plate. This disordered energy makes itself felt in the form of heat. The energy in the uranium atom is the kind we call potential energy. When the atom fissions, the energy of motion of the flying fragments is converted by collisions into random motions of the electrons and other atoms nearby in the surrounding matter, that is, into heat. Nuclear reactors convert potential energy into heat.

The natural diffusion of one gas through another when they are mixed involves an increase in disorder. In ALL cases observed in nature there is a tendency for processes to proceed toward a state of greater disorder. There is a connection between the thermodynamic concept of entropy and the statistical concept of disorder that has been worked out mathematically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not write this. It was in the reference I gave you. He must be referring to Entropy and Disorder. [b]Heat is disordered energy. There is ordered energy and disordered energy. The motion of a bullet is the kind we call kinetic energy. When the bullet hits a steel plate and is stopped, the energy of its motion is transferred to random motions o ...[text shortened]... has been worked out mathematically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)[/b]

I did not write this.

but you must have agreed with it else you wouldn't have gave it.

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the fact I pointed out which was:

the Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about anything becoming “more complex” or “less complex” in a way that would exclude local increases in complexity and certainly any natural process that creates a complex structure such as the growth of crystals or evolution does NOT violate this law by doing so

-and please don't insult our intelligence by giving US lectures about physics when we know a lot more about it than you do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In ALL cases observed in nature there is a tendency for processes to proceed toward a state of greater disorder.

As the Wikipedia page you point us to points out this claim is false when the standard meaning of 'disorder' is used.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

1. When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more w swers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

Point 1 is a straw-man fallacy that you have used before and have been repeatedly corrected, only to use it again. Evolution is is categorically not 'blind chance plus time'.

Point 2 is a bare-faced lie, possibly combined with the mis-understanding that every single individual is a transitional form between its parent and its offspring.

Point 4 is another straw-man. Evolution does not demand drastic changes or continuous mutations. So the limited changes allowed within the DNA code is not actually a problem at all.

Point 7 is yet another straw man (or possibly 'moving the goalposts'😉. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, as you have been told again and again and again. It also uses the argument from ignorance fallacy: just because we have not succeeded in replicating abiogenesis or fully explain it in its entirety does not mean it is false.

Point 8 is the same as point 7. What has the origin of the universe got to do with evolution? Nothing.

Point 9 has been answered many times. The second law of thermodynamic applies to complete closed systems. Planet Earth is not a closed system since it gains energy from the sun. If the 2nd law applied to open systems then stars and planets would not form and you would not be able to lift your arm (even if it existed which it could not).

Point 11 could be called Hasty Generalisation, along with Cherry Picking: these particular cases were shown to be mistakes/fraud, therefore the entire evidence base is wrong. This simply does not follow (most catholic priests are probably not pedophiles). Also, although some of those mentioned were fraudulent/mistakes, at least 1 was not: Archaeopteryx has not been shown to be either fraudulent or wrong. So even if generalisation was appropriate here, doing so from this list would still imply there was significant valid evidence for evolution.

I don't have the time and in some cases detailed knowledge to refute some of the other fallacies in your cut-n-paste job. Maybe somebody else with nothing better to do will pick them up.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not write this. It was in the reference I gave you. He must be referring to Entropy and Disorder. [b]Heat is disordered energy. There is ordered energy and disordered energy. The motion of a bullet is the kind we call kinetic energy. When the bullet hits a steel plate and is stopped, the energy of its motion is transferred to random motions o ...[text shortened]... has been worked out mathematically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)[/b]

closed system.

closed system.

that law applies to a closed system.

do you understand how every creationist who mentions the second law of thermodynamics as "proof" against evolution fails at science?

the planet is not a closed system. it gets energy from the sun. as was explained to you by numerous people on this forum. something that you should have known if you were going to smack us over the head with science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

1. When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time.

What some evolutionists believe is not interesting. There are people with many opinions, of which many have been refuted long ago and some are currently debated.

What Darwin's model for evolution by natural selection proposes is that evolution was never random and never took place in giant leaps. In simple terms, each creature must be capable of surviving to reach adulthood and reproduce within its own social and physical environment. All that any species tolerates is a range of differences on given criteria - such as taller and shorter, bigger and smaller, or the possession of one from two or a few variants, such as eye colour or hair colour.

It is not credible to dispute that there are always individual differences within any species. What Darwin proposed is that, when there are changes in the environment, then some of these differences can give an advantage to some members of the species and / or a disadvantage to others, because the difference means that some are better suited than others to survive and reproduce in the new, changed environment.

It is not random. It is adaptation to the environment and as such a highly deterministic process. The species that survive and reproduce are those who are best adapted to their environment. Since the environment is diverse and changes over time, then species also must adapt in order to survive. Those failing to adapt die. That also is not random.

What is random is the nature of diversity and that is helpful, not unhelpful, to the model. It is impossible for any species to predict its future - random differences confer the ability to adapt and survive. The differences remain random only within a narrow range of possibilities. Species do not randomly throw up new limbs. They do, over time, adapt the way a specific limb functions.

Incidentally, this is a variant of the popular agument that a hurricane should, by random chance, throw up a fully working aeroplane with drinks in the trolly. However, it assumes that evolution allegedly takes place by huge, random transformations from one species to another. We know that many birds will rear a cuckoo inserted into their nest, depsite it being quite different to their own natural young. I do not know many other good examples of one species willingly rearing the young of a very different one but I know of none whatever who reproduce with a different species. If they did rear such a monstor and it was an entirely different species, then where would it find its mate in order to reproduce? The idea is nonsensical and not what Darwin proposes. Every single creature in the genetic line has to be, in itself, a viable one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

2. There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links" ) between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

Get a copy of Dawkin's book, The Ancestors Tale, which sets out step by step the ancestors of Man through every stage of evolution, and at each stage sets out the common ancestry of other species. There are plenty of "transitional links" to be seen in this vast collection, all well researched and available for critical study and dispute if anyone was interested in that. Actually, there is a continuing process of debate within evoolutionary biology in which people do indeed question and dispute the ancestry and kinship of various species.

This provides such a painstaking and detailed ancestry that your argument is reduced to shreds. Admittedly, it gets a bit boring after a while but make your own mind up how many examples you need to be given before you are convinced.

Logically, if you want the name of every single individual creature at every point in the long chain, then you have reached the level of absurdity. I know my ancestry for only a few generations in detail but I am fairly confident that I am human. In your case, I would have to consider Turing's test and ask if I am talking with a human or a sentence generator using a restricted range of possible sentences. I am not sure you are human yet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

3. The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered - certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the "record" was conveniently changed to conform to their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

On the basis of the theory of evolution by natural selction, one would anticipate a correlation of species change with environmental change. There would be periods of stability and periods of change.

Nothing whatever in the theory of evolution by natural selection requires any increase in complexity whatever. This is a spurious assertion. The meaning of "complexity" is also obscure. Grass only evolved about 50 million years ago [from memory - fact checking welcome] and has many qualities, but is probably not an example of complexity.

The concept of speed or the meaning of "sudden" is highly debatable. It is a tricky use of language that has no value except to confuse. It is a rhetorical device within an entirely empty argument.

Allegations of professional misconduct among scientists do not fit well with the track record of "Creationist Science." However, if you consider the heated debates beween Dawkins and Stephen Gould as just one from countless examples, scientists enjoy nothing better than to debunk the work and the theories of their colleagues and rivals. There are so many scientists working independently and in rivalry with others, that any evidence of falsification or misrepresentation would quickly be exposed and of course, it sometimes is exposed. By other scientists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

4. The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

There is no basis to doubt that individual differences are normal within every species. There is no problem accounting for this within genetics. The rest is as stated in my response to argument 1. Despite the pseduo-scientific references to genetics and DNA, this is nothing other than a repeat of argument 1, which I have answered above. Nothing is added to the argument so I need add nothing to my response.

The reference to a mouse mutating into an elephant is infantile. It cannot be uttered by anyone who has read Darwin without the intention to mislead, misrepresent and to confuse. For this reason, the nature of the material is evident - it is not a sincere expression of doubts but it is propoganda. Also it could not possibly influence an educated audience so it is propoganda aimed at the ill educated and the ill informed. If it works for you then I rest my case.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would not expect anything else from a website created to defend evolution. You have your own bias and closed mindedness when I present something from a creationists website or one that defends the existence of God.

So did you read that link? I read yours.

You seem to not even be open minded enough to admit to the possibility of a god that is not your biblical god.

Suppose there was some kind of god but not the one you envision?

Who maybe just started the universe with the laws of physics and chemistry and inertia and gravity and so forth, tuned to allow life and had it start out as the big bang?

You are not creative enough or open minded enough to even entertain such a thought.

That is the sure sign of a totally closed mind. And you enjoy your closedness.

And the answer which has been given many times to you before about entropy:

"closed system.

closed system.

that law applies to a closed system."

Said by Zahlanzi in this same thread which you haven't even had the decency to respond to. Maybe if you ignore it, it will go away?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

5. Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Diversity is one component of the theory of natural selection. This argument seems to complain that it is only a part of the theory so it should not be used. But how can a theory with many parts be required to not use one of its parts on the ground that the part is not the whole theory? Are we to prove each part of the theory or not?

It is logical to demonstrate that variation is biologically possible and does in fact take place and to show how it takes place. Once that is established, then we have firm foundations for the next part of the theory, which is to enquire about how such variation, which we have shown does occur, will affect the response of species to environmental changes. It is logical to show examples of such change in the present, living world - for example the way drug resistent bacteria evolve - and to establish that natural selection is a helpful and effective model not only to describe change, but also to predict future changes in the example given. Because we have a good and useful explanation of why this happens, then we are better placed to do something useful about it. In the case of drug resistent bacteria, we restrict the use of antibiotics, we try to ensure that people take the whole course of treatment so as to reduce the risk of breeding resistent bacteria and so on. The hardest people to work with are those who fail to understand why they must keep taking the antibiotics even if they already feel better. Such lack of basic education puts them at risk and makes them a nuisance to the rest of us.

If Creationists want to make an argument that biological and environmental processes in the past operated on quite different principles to the way they operate today, that would be interesting to see and explore. I wonder when this great change in the way Nature functions might have taken place, what caused the change, what things were like before the change? Was gravity also different in the past?

This argument is nonsensical. It is contrary to all reason and promotes obscurantism. It is so illogical that the proponents cannot possibly believe their own argument and it fits well into the picture we already have of people motivated by their own agenda seeking to mislead and confuse a target audience lacking the education and the critical thinking to resist their manipulation. It is an example of propoganda.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

6. Evolutionists cannot even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

I have covered this earlier and the argument just reformulates earlier arguments in clever sounding pseudo scienfic jargon words. The theory of evolution by natural selection does not require an inexorable drive for ever greater organised complexity in living organisms.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects that possess delicately-balanced attributes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change.

That is again a special case of an argument already answered before. The explanations are available whenever you choose to look them up and jolly interesting they are too.