Moderator: Moderators
I have begun reading about the theory of evolution and I've already found that, at the very least, I had major misconceptions about it before. I have now actually refuted all of my own previous arguments against evolution, not to mention those found in TFOC, so I'm looking for new ones 
.What reasons do you have for thinking that macro-evolution is false?
I wouldn't do justice to the question to answer it shortly -- neither it is possible to give a good answer in this way, nor I am able to do it as it has to be done. But I can recommend two scientifically rigorous books -- "Forbidden Achaeology" and "Human Devolution" by Michael Cremo. I've not finished them yet, but they are great. BTW there's an interview with Michael that I've posted on this forum but I pulled it offline because it's copyrighted.Meedan wrote:What reasons do you have for thinking that macro-evolution is false?
I'm looking into Michael Cremo, and based on the mixed reviews I have read, I'm not sure whether I should spend my time/money on his books. Don't some of his views about how long humans have been on this planet also contradict Thiaoouba Prophecy? So, I'm assuming you understood the arguments you read, could you not briefly explain why you think this?Vesko wrote:From what I've read and thought, I personally think that neither gradualism nor the contemporary punctuated equilibrium can explain observable reality.
Yes, Michael Cremo thinks some specimens date from much more than the 1.35 million years in "Thiaoouba Prophecy", but there are also many more that fit into that and are much older the 100,000 years ago beginnings of man proposed by contemporary evolutionists.Meedan wrote:I'm looking into Michael Cremo, and based on the mixed reviews I have read, I'm not sure whether I should spend my time/money on his books. Don't some of his views about how long humans have been on this planet also contradict Thiaoouba Prophecy? So, I'm assuming you understood the arguments you read, could you not briefly explain why you think this?Vesko wrote:From what I've read and thought, I personally think that neither gradualism nor the contemporary punctuated equilibrium can explain observable reality.
There is widespread misconception about the fossil records. First of all, fossils are rare anyway, because of how they are formed. However, I'll bet that if you were to look into it, you'll find that the record is a lot more detailed and less 'gap-filled' than you think. Fossils are often jumped on by zoologists and categorised as either one species or another. We know that the process of becoming an adult from a child is a gradual one, but we won't find any intermediates between child and adult when the split in definition is '18yrs old'.isn't it evident that there are huge gaps between single-celled and multi-celled creatures, invertebrates and vertebrates -- where are the numerous intermediate forms found in the fossil record?
I haven't actually come across the Cambrian Explosion before, which even seems strange to me because it looks like quite a well-known and discussed topic. I found this page on it http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html but I will be looking into it further myself.how to otherwise explain the Cambrian explosion; organs appearing fully formed from the start without evidence for any evolution and also with enough morphological differentiation which is impossible without any supposed preliminary evolution
This sounds a lot like the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument, one of the main arguments I used to have. Tom actually uses a form of this very loosely in TFOC. The answer to the problem actually seems quite clear and obvious after you understand the theory of evolution.the impossibility that a complex organ such as the eye formed by natural selection because its constituents have no reason to be created (because they give no advantage by themselves).
When I look into it, I expect to find hundreds of millions of transitional fossils, because conversions between one species to another cannot happen overnight -- there must be very minute changes reflected in the transitional fossil that make it slightly different but also very similar to the immediately preceding and following in any evolution scale. Doesn't it strike you that the page that you supplied, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html, is extremely poor on that. It has less than ten counterexamples, and contains the text "plausible intermediate forms"! Where is the very long list and detailed explanations? It's nowhere, because it doesn't exist.Meedan wrote:There is widespread misconception about the fossil records. First of all, fossils are rare anyway, because of how they are formed. However, I'll bet that if you were to look into it, you'll find that the record is a lot more detailed and less 'gap-filled' than you think. Fossils are often jumped on by zoologists and categorised as either one species or another. We know that the process of becoming an adult from a child is a gradual one, but we won't find any intermediates between child and adult when the split in definition is '18yrs old'.
* found this site http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html along with the Cambrian Explosion one.
It's well known (and it has been mentioned already on the forum) but it's far from settled.I haven't actually come across the Cambrian Explosion before, which even seems strange to me because it looks like quite a well-known and discussed topic. I found this page on it http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html but I will be looking into it further myself.
Comparing an economy with the eye is comparing apples with oranges. An economy is created by intelligent live humans, not by the supposed natural selection process.This sounds a lot like the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument, one of the main arguments I used to have. Tom actually uses a form of this very loosely in TFOC. The answer to the problem actually seems quite clear and obvious after you understand the theory of evolution.
Consider a major economy of a first-world nation. The key constituents of the economy would be useless on their own, plus, if any part of that economy wasn't there, none of it would function, the whole system would collapse. The economy of that country can be referred to as Irreducibly Complex, as is the eye. However, we know that the economy 'evolved' over time! It probably started as small barter systems in villages, and gradually grew to its current infrastructure and complexity. It is clear now that it was able to do this because it performed its function slightly differently at every stage. If you compare the way the current system works, to a village that used the barter system in the past, they would be totally different. Organs can work in different ways, or even perform totally different functions, at different 'stages'.
And there have been quite thorough explanations why the eye could not have formed. So what?There have actually been quite thorough explanations on the ways in which the eye could have formed.
I'm no expert on fossils, but I don't understand why you'd think there would be so many. It is not that common to find any preserved fossils, plus fossils can only form where there is the right type of sedimentary rock I believe. The page I gave you was about one specific type of transitional fossil that you asked about, here is another page on some of the others: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html .Vesko wrote:When I look into it, I expect to find hundreds of millions of transitional fossils, because conversions between one species to another cannot happen overnight -- there must be very minute changes reflected in the transitional fossil that make it slightly different but also very similar to the immediately preceding and following in any evolution scale. Doesn't it strike you that the page that you supplied, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html, is extremely poor on that. It has less than ten counterexamples, and contains the text "plausible intermediate forms"! Where is the very long list and detailed explanations? It's nowhere, because it doesn't exist.
Comparing an economy with the eye is comparing apples with oranges. An economy is created by intelligent live humans, not by the supposed natural selection process.
I think you missed the entire point of the example. It shows that irreducibly complex systems can be broken down. It illustrates that there is a way that these types of systems can be formed gradually.You could easily insert the word 'yet' as a response to these arguments. This is why I always used to prefer trying to show that it is impossible, logically or mechanically.If "electric impulses in the brain" are indeed all there is to life, someone would copy these impulses, make gadgets producing them and we all would live forever.
It is true fossils are hard to find, but transitional fossils ought to be a significant percentage. I reason that to convert from species A to species B, from A you must pass numerous intermediate steps C, D, E, F, G, H, and so on, before reaching B. Of course, the number of intermediate steps varies, but they must be numerous because we are talking one species to another different species conversion here, i.e. there are enough differences to warrant more than a couple of conversion steps! So, how come that for any two related endpoint species A and B preserved in the fossil record, their much more numerous intermediate conversion states C-H... are scantily preserved, when by the nature of the latter, they ought to be a significant portion of the total? In short: why are there so many different species preserved in the fossil record, whereas intermediate forms representing a more or less gradual conversion from one to another are scanty, when the likelihood of a fossil being preserved is equal for all fossils? The laws of probability dictate that the more numerous are going to be better represented, irrespective of the total number of fossils (within reasonable limit of course -- if there are 2 fossils total in the world, which fortunately is not the case, nobody can prove anything this way).Meedan wrote:I'm no expert on fossils, but I don't understand why you'd think there would be so many. It is not that common to find any preserved fossils, plus fossils can only form where there is the right type of sedimentary rock I believe.
That one type ought to include far more numerous examples -- it is supposed to represent the transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, which are just as significant as the transitions within vertebrates that you new link covers (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). Now, looking for adequate numbers (as percentage of all discovered fossils) that are transitional, let's look at only one poor example among many -- dogs, since Lachie mentioned them. On http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... art2a.html, we find:The page I gave you was about one specific type of transitional fossil that you asked about, here is another page on some of the others: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html .
Excuse me, but how many are there to illustrate its development? Can such a poor list prove its development from "undifferentiated dog/bear" to our dogs? Is the reader supposed to do a kind of a fill-in-the-blanks exercise with (by probability law) the much more numerous transitional forms that are not preserved for no reason, whereas the different species "endpoints" are?Dogs:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).
I don't think I have missed anything here.
Yes, complex systems can be broken down. Yes, there is a way that these types of systems can be formed gradually. There is a way... but can it be done without sophisticated intelligence?We are discussing Darwinian natural selection here, not the general term. I'm sorry, it's Darwinian natural selection that is supposed. According to Darwin, natural selection has produced every species. Whereas according to contemporary scientific observations, if you survive longer, and have more children, your children are of the same species like you, and no ongoing species-to-species transition has been proven so far.Also, what do you mean "supposed natural selection process"? Those who survive longer, have more children... What is there to disagree with about natural selection itself?
Micro-evolution is not a fact, because the effects observed could be due to built-in functionality that switches on or off according to environmental factors. It is indisputable that micro-adaptations happen, but they do not necessarily represent micro-evolution. Before you extrapolate, you first need to ensure all bases are covered.Do you accept the fact of micro-evolution?
[Micro-evolution is a fact. What stops you from extrapolating from this, to macro-evolution?
I don't think that a simple natural selection process can build the ultra-complex living creatures that even a single-celled organism is, not to speak of multi-celled organisms, and let us not even mention man with his (potentially) extreme intelligence.If you understand evolution though, do you think it is significantly possible? Do you think that there is anything about evolution that can't have happened?
Yep, it seems you've missed the point. I quote your original argument:I don't think I have missed anything here. Yes, complex systems can be broken down. Yes, there is a way that these types of systems can be formed gradually. There is a way... but can it be done without sophisticated intelligence?
What the example did was show that this argument was wrong. The eye's constituents in their current form have no advantage by themselves, but those constituents did not start exactly as they are now. You can't say that the economy couldn't have gradually been built over time because its constituents give no advantage by themselves. In the past, the economy didn't work the same as it does today.the impossibility that a complex organ such as the eye formed by natural selection because its constituents have no reason to be created (because they give no advantage by themselves).
Are you aware of the fact that we inherit traits from our parents?We are discussing Darwinian natural selection here, not the general term. I'm sorry, it's Darwinian natural selection that is supposed. According to Darwin, natural selection has produced every species. Whereas according to contemporary scientific observations, if you survive longer, and have more children, your children are of the same species like you, and no ongoing species-to-species transition has been proven so far.
I see now. You are right that my argument about the eye is weak in this form. Perhaps there are other similar arguments about it. The main one I'll resort to right now is provided below.Meedan wrote:What the example did was show that this argument was wrong. The eye's constituents in their current form have no advantage by themselves, but those constituents did not start exactly as they are now. You can't say that the economy couldn't have gradually been built over time because its constituents give no advantage by themselves. In the past, the economy didn't work the same as it does today.
Yes.Are you aware of the fact that we inherit traits from our parents?
If you read up on that there are mutations happening all the time, actually. But there are also entire systems present in all organisms that are dedicated to repair mutated DNA and counter this process.Are you aware that there can sometimes be mutations?
Yes.Do you accept that a mutation may shorten a life?
I don't think this is probable (see below).Do you accept that a mutation may prolong a life?
Yes.Do you understand that those who have longer lives, can have more children?
My problem is that a random mutation cannot introduce new functionality to the organism because the DNA is so complex that any random mutation would only introduce errors. Modern science has found that observed mutations have produced not even one single protein, so all evolution requires an incredible leap of faith. Mutating DNA is an insurmountable problem, and if we start arguing from here, the development of a single cell, let alone the eye which is made of many different specialized cells, becomes impossible. Here's an article titled "Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!" that supports its claims with mathematics and probability:This is a simple explanation. What problems do you have with this?
Proof enough for you? Carefully considering all of the above, how do you propose to assemble a protein in the evolutionary way?Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 -- for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!
The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that's the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a "room" full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our "room" full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!
That doesn't sound right. I thought proteins replicate themselves at every new life? I'll have to check it out. Never fear, Meedan is on the case.Vesko wrote:Modern science has found that observed mutations have produced not even one single protein
Well, that example showed that, actually, any argument you have shouldn't even mention a specific organ anymore.Vesko wrote:I see now. You are right that my argument about the eye is weak in this form. Perhaps there are other similar arguments about it. The main one I'll resort to right now is provided below.
