15 Questions for Evolutionists

[DogOnPorch]

Either deal with the questions...or you're deliberately trying to get this thread off-topic.

Deal with the questions, DOP. If not, then please don't try to disrupt my thread.

In order to 'deal with' your 'questions'...I need to know where YOU stand. So let's start here: How old is the Earth?

[Sleipnir]

We're talking about the theory of evolution.

Have you tried searching for the answers online?

[GostHacked]

It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water.

I'll invoke some Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and say that the day you stop questioning things, is the day you stop learning.

If guys like Ben Franklin did not question and wonder, we would not have had the discoveries on electricity.

If guys like Edison did not question and wonder, we would not have had the telephone.

If guys like Newton did not question and wonder, we would not understand gravity as much as we do now.

If guys like Galileo did not question and wonder, we would not have learned that our planetary system is in fact not geocentric.

If ladies like Madame Curie did not question and wonder, we would not have understood radioactivity as we do today.

If ladies like Elizabeth Blackwell did not question and wonder, we would not have any female doctors.

If guys like Einstein did not question and wonder, we would not know about the ****theory of relativity.

So if you don't want to learn anything Betsy, then by all means stick with one unverifiable book called the Bible.

Here is now the scientific method works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.^[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary

defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has

characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in

systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the

formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

So here,, let's try an experiment shall we? Let's do a little science here. I'll even take on the task of doing science for your religion book called The Bible. And let's use the scientific method, which you seem to have utter disdain for.

Formulation of a question : Who wrote the bible? With this question we need to discover who wrote the bible. So we can hypothesise that God did it, so for this experiment this is what we are going with. Based on some evidence we have a book that has been around for a very long time in which people believe this is the true and original word of God (no matter how many times the book has been rewritten to match modern times and scientific discoveries which in turn prove parts of the bible wrong). Which brings us to the next bit in the scientific method.

Hypothesis : God wrote the bible. Based on a long standing tenant of believers around the world, God wrote the bible. What is the bases for this hypothesis? Well one single book called 'The Bible'.

Prediction : God wrote the bible. Fairly self explanatory.

Testing : How can we prove using the scientific method that God did in fact write the Bible. Hmmm ... missing some key information here. I guess we may have to do another experiment with another theory about God existing in the first place. At this time, with god being supernatural, and science cannot deal with the supernatural because we cannot formulate tests on something ethereal. Our evidence currently is one book.

Analysis: Now since we could not do any real testing about what 'god' is, we have no way to verify that god exists and cannot devise any tests to prove (and yes to disprove) something ethereal. We have seemed to reach a dead end here. So maybe we have to go back and rethink our original theory since this one garnered no tangible results.

Conclusion : Since we have to determine if god exists we cannot continue with this experiment as we need more evidence to prove or disprove that the bible was written by god.

The reason we have so much science today, much of which you benefit from on a daily basis and simply could not live the way we do without science, the scientific method. If we simply stopped asking questions, and stopped looking for answers, then I might not be able to enjoy something like indoor plumbing.What you say? Science in plumbing? Well sure, in order for water to get to your tap, we need several things to make that happen. Water treatment plant, water distribution, city plumbing, pump stations, monitoring stations, all derived using science because people asked questions.

Those who waited for god to build their plumbing, are still waiting for god to build their plumbing.

**** yeah yeah, just a 'theory' I know I know .... God of the Gaps.

[WWWTT]

Btw, do you believe that we're here just by random chance?

You got to be freekin kiddin me lady!?!?!?

Space,time,matter and energy.And what you define or interpret as God.

Our awareness/knowledge has evolved,but has not belittled our value,after all it is us who are aware!

It is many religions,not the people who are having difficulty trying to keep meaning,value and purpose!

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

One question for evolution deniers: Why do you think there are new super-bugs that don't respond to anti-biotics?

The crickets will be loud for that one.

[cybercoma]

You miss the point. You call them a "challenge". I say they are irrelevant. If people don't respond it is because they think they are irrelevant. You are beating up on strawman. If you want to understand why they are irrelevant questions that should be ignored then you should make more of an effort to understand my posts.

She should make more of an effort to understand evolution if she's going to criticize it as a theory.

[DogOnPorch]

She should make more of an effort to understand evolution if she's going to criticize it as a theory.

Indeed. One can even create a Mendel Box of petunias or some similar flowers to see how phenotypical traits...thus genotypical traits...are passed on before ones eyes.

[Sleipnir]

Indeed. One can even create a Mendel Box of petunias or some similar flowers to see how phenotypical traits...thus genotypical traits...are passed on before ones eyes.

Or one can breed a great Dane with a poodle to see the result.

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, you have been provided with the answers many times. I expect the same pattern will repeat. You state your premise, it is countered, you refuse to answer questions then later you repeat your original premise as if no counter arguments were ever made. Willful ignorance of the facts does not mean they cease to exist.

Here I go wasting my time again.

1. How did life originate?
Not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution deals with the diversification of self replicating lifeforms. Similarly, the germ theory does not explain the creation of microorganisms and your religion does not explain the creation of your god.

The answer to this question though is...we don't know yet; but, we have some good ideas supported by evidence. You don't know either but have chosen a belief solely supported by the fact that you believe.

2. How did the DNA code originate?
We don't know for sure yet; but, then again neither do you. However, we can now demonstrate how the precursors to DNA can form from the chemicals and conditions present on an early earth. Life probably began with RNA, but it seems possible that DNA nucleotides were present in the environment and were originally taken in by organisms before being produced.


3. How could mutationsaccidental copying mistakes (DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

It just takes time. Microorganisms and less complex lifeforms tend to evolve at a much faster rate as they reproduce so frequently. For the whole story I recommend reading up on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
It's not 'taught as evolution'. Natural selection is one of the processes that results in evolution. Over time organisms better adapted to their environment will live long enough to reproduce more often and spread their genetic material.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
Like life itself. Simple organisms didn't simply spring into complex plants and animals; there are an infinite string of steps. Some biochemical pathways have become more complex over time as well. As new variables including proteins and enzymes are introduced existing enzymes aren't rendered null and void. They may be able to work in concert with the new variable. Hence, like symbiotic relationships a chain is built one at a time with one enzymatic process uses the results of another.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
First of all under close inspection most life does not look designed. Organisms are littered with inefficient processes and vestigial elements that no competent designer would include. Second, there is absolutely no evidence for a designer so it is better to look for real natural answers. At one time God was responsible for lighting, fortunately, we didn't accept that answer and continued to investigate.

It is said that gremlins break machinery. When machines break should be shrug our shoulders and say a gremlin did it or should we look at ways to improve the design?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
Unicellular organisms form symbiotic relationships with other organisms and even form massive colonies that work together. We can observe this. Multicellularity is an inevitable natural consequence of cell colonies that can grow continuously.

8. How did sex originate?
We don't know for sure yet, but we have some good ideas. Again, you don't know either.

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
We do have countless transitional fossils. You are aware that fossilization itself is a rare event though right? You and the creationist producers of your questions list should read up on this.

10. How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
Some organisms have remained well adapted to their environments and have not yet become extinct.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
Much of our advancements in altruism and morality have nothing to do with chemical or biological changes. They are the result of accumulated knowledge.

12. Why is evolutionary just-so story-telling tolerated?
I'm not sure what this means. I think it has something to do with ignorance of scientific theories. Tim G handled this earlier. Theories are stories built on facts not facts themselves. They must encompass all know facts in order to remain viable. Theories change as we fill in gaps and become closer and closer to the truth.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

I'm not sure if I understand, but have you ever heard of a vaccine, antibiotic, birth control, ecology, botany selective breading, animal husbandry, etc? Plus evolution by natural selection is the largest breakthrough in the history of biology.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
What? Evolution is not historical; it is continuing and will continue to 'operate' as long as life exists. Members of this forum, myself included, have provided you with countless links to experiments and studies that confirm the theory of evolution. Betsy, you should have read over this list prior to posting it.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme .13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.14 If you cant teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught?
Again, you should have read your own list before posting. Evolution is testable, has been tested and holds up. Betsy, you yourself subscribe to most of it. You simply believe the amount of change must be stopped by some invisible, non-existent barrier, despite the fact that speciation events have been witnessed and verified. You have been provided with links to the studies several times but you simply do not respond. Willful ignorance of the facts does not mean they cease to exist.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Mighty AC

[BubberMiley]

That was such a thorough, patient and compelling response that I think the OP will have no choice but to deny it ever happened.

[g_bambino]

[The origin of life is n]ot part of the theory of evolution. .

The answer to this question [of the origin of life] though is...we don't know yet... You don't know either but have chosen a belief solely supported by the fact that you believe.

This is all you needed to provide as an answer, because it outlines betsy's unwavering modus operandi: create an otherwise non-existent synonymy between one thing--evolution--and another--the origin of life--and debunk the first as a hoax because the latter hasn't yet been proven, despite the fact that her own theory on the origin of life hasn't been proven, either (and, indeed, has less evidence to support it than any other scientific theory on the same subject). When any of this is pointed out, her response is to falsely accuse the responder as "making excuses" or "deviating" and direct them back to start the whole cycle over again. The result: she thinks she's mounted a debilitating attack on evolution when all she's really done is maintain the walls around her own ignorance.

[Canuckistani]

Yep, and it seems we all enjoy playing along. She should get an award.

[GostHacked]

Yep, and it seems we all enjoy playing along. She should get an award.

She is not my favorite troll for no reason.

[betsy]

are you refusing to debate me? Are you, as you say, "on the run"... are you another?

Create your own topic if you want to go that way.

[betsy]

You got to be freekin kiddin me lady!?!?!?

Space,time,matter and energy.And what you define or interpret as God.

Our awareness/knowledge has evolved,but has not belittled our value,after all it is us who are aware!

It is many religions,not the people who are having difficulty trying to keep meaning,value and purpose!

WWWTT

Well, that's your opinion.

[GostHacked]

Well, that's your opinion.

When you deal with the subject of god and creationism, it is nothing but opinions.

[betsy]

Betsy, you have been provided with the answers many times. I expect the same pattern will repeat. You state your premise, it is countered, you refuse to answer questions then later you repeat your original premise as if no counter arguments were ever made. Willful ignorance of the facts does not mean they cease to exist.

Here I go wasting my time again.

1. How did life originate?

Not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution deals with the diversification of self replicating lifeforms. Similarly, the germ theory does not explain the creation of microorganisms and your religion does not explain the creation of your god.

The answer to this question though is...we don't know yet; but, we have some good ideas supported by evidence. You don't know either but have chosen a belief solely supported by the fact that you believe.

2. How did the DNA code originate?

We don't know for sure yet; but, then again neither do you. However, we can now demonstrate how the precursors to DNA can form from the chemicals and conditions present on an early earth. Life probably began with RNA, but it seems possible that DNA nucleotides were present in the environment and were originally taken in by organisms before being produced.

3. How could mutationsaccidental copying mistakes (DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

It just takes time. Microorganisms and less complex lifeforms tend to evolve at a much faster rate as they reproduce so frequently. For the whole story I recommend reading up on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

It's not 'taught as evolution'. Natural selection is one of the processes that results in evolution. Over time organisms better adapted to their environment will live long enough to reproduce more often and spread their genetic material.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Like life itself. Simple organisms didn't simply spring into complex plants and animals; there are an infinite string of steps. Some biochemical pathways have become more complex over time as well. As new variables including proteins and enzymes are introduced existing enzymes aren't rendered null and void. They may be able to work in concert with the new variable. Hence, like symbiotic relationships a chain is built one at a time with one enzymatic process uses the results of another.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

First of all under close inspection most life does not look designed. Organisms are littered with inefficient processes and vestigial elements that no competent designer would include. Second, there is absolutely no evidence for a designer so it is better to look for real natural answers. At one time God was responsible for lighting, fortunately, we didn't accept that answer and continued to investigate.

It is said that gremlins break machinery. When machines break should be shrug our shoulders and say a gremlin did it or should we look at ways to improve the design?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Unicellular organisms form symbiotic relationships with other organisms and even form massive colonies that work together. We can observe this. Multicellularity is an inevitable natural consequence of cell colonies that can grow continuously.

8. How did sex originate?

We don't know for sure yet, but we have some good ideas. Again, you don't know either.

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

We do have countless transitional fossils. You are aware that fossilization itself is a rare event though right? You and the creationist producers of your questions list should read up on this.

10. How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Some organisms have remained well adapted to their environments and have not yet become extinct.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Much of our advancements in altruism and morality have nothing to do with chemical or biological changes. They are the result of accumulated knowledge.

12. Why is evolutionary just-so story-telling tolerated?

I'm not sure what this means. I think it has something to do with ignorance of scientific theories. Tim G handled this earlier. Theories are stories built on facts not facts themselves. They must encompass all know facts in order to remain viable. Theories change as we fill in gaps and become closer and closer to the truth.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

I'm not sure if I understand, but have you ever heard of a vaccine, antibiotic, birth control, ecology, botany selective breading, animal husbandry, etc? Plus evolution by natural selection is the largest breakthrough in the history of biology.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

What? Evolution is not historical; it is continuing and will continue to 'operate' as long as life exists. Members of this forum, myself included, have provided you with countless links to experiments and studies that confirm the theory of evolution. Betsy, you should have read over this list prior to posting it.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme .13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.14 If you cant teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught?

Again, you should have read your own list before posting. Evolution is testable, has been tested and holds up. Betsy, you yourself subscribe to most of it. You simply believe the amount of change must be stopped by some invisible, non-existent barrier, despite the fact that speciation events have been witnessed and verified. You have been provided with links to the studies several times but you simply do not respond. Willful ignorance of the facts does not mean they cease to exist.

Thank you for your response, Mighty AC. It will take a while for me to do a rebutt on each - I didn't expect anyone to answer all!!

So here's the rebutt for #1

1. How did life originate?

Not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution deals with the diversification of self replicating lifeforms. Similarly, the germ theory does not explain the creation of microorganisms and your religion does not explain the creation of your god.

The answer to this question though is...we don't know yet; but, we have some good ideas supported by evidence. You don't know either but have chosen a belief solely supported by the fact that you believe.

Rebutt:

Of course it is part of the theory. In fact it's the most important factor! Without life, there wouldn't be any self-replicating life-forms to begin with. There'll be nothing to diversify!

By its very definition natural selection could not work on non-living chemicals. Emphasizing the same point that Dobzhansky makes above, the famous philosopher Antony Flew (long known as a leading proponent of atheism until abandoning that belief in the light of increasing knowledge about the cell’s amazing complexity—see “Atheism in decline”) explained:

‘It seems to me that Richard Dawkins [a fanatical advocate for all things Darwinian] constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.

http://creation.com/ns-origin-of-life

To repeat what I've said before: if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water.

What ideas that are supported by evidence would they be?

But I do know. Creation. The theory of Intelligent Design does point to creation by a Designer - which of course to us Christians mean the Judeo-Christian God. And yes, science gives more support to design than to evolution!

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Mighty AC:

2. How did the DNA code originate?

We don't know for sure yet; but, then again neither do you. However, we can now demonstrate how the precursors to DNA can form from the chemicals and conditions present on an early earth. Life probably began with RNA, but it seems possible that DNA nucleotides were present in the environment and were originally taken in by organisms before being produced.

But I do know. It's been designed by the Designer.

So where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life?

Second, the RNA world hypothesis is fraught with difficulties. RNA is even less stable than DNA, and that is saying something—about a million DNA ‘letters’ are damaged in a typical cell on a good day, which then requires repair mechanisms to be in place (another problem for origin-of-life scenarios). And it is extremely unlikely that the building blocks for RNA would come about by undirected chemical interactions, and even if this happened, it would be even more improbable that the building blocks would self-assemble into any RNA molecule, let alone an informational one. And this is only the tip of the iceberg!

[betsy]

Mighty AC:

3. How could mutationsaccidental copying mistakes (DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

It just takes time. Microorganisms and less complex lifeforms tend to evolve at a much faster rate as they reproduce so frequently. For the whole story I recommend reading up on evolution: http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_01

I don't think that really dealt with the question. It's about mutation accidental copying mistakes.

Anyway, to rebutt your answer....where's the evidence?

We know that evolutionists have so many suppositions. We all can have ideas.

It's the evidence that counts.

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

For the what .. millionth time .... the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life, never had, never will. No matter how many times this is point is put out, the ignorant idiotic creationists still have not learned anything and use this as a simple talking point to confuse people with.

Science at least has the humility and humbleness to admit that not everything is or can be known.

[betsy]

To be continued.

[Mighty AC]

So here's the rebutt for #1Rebutt:

Of course it is part of the theory. In fact it's the most important factor! Without life, there wouldn't be any self-replicating life-forms to begin with. There'll be nothing to diversify!

To repeat what I've said before: if you cant explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water.

That's ridiculous. The theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the creation of matter and the germ theory doesn't have to explain the creation of microbes. Other theories do that.

Evolution does not have to explain the creation of life, other theories like abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. have that task.

[betsy]

Science at least has the humility and humbleness to admit that not everything is or can be known.

Supernatural cause then?

If the answer cannot be found in the natural - they've had more than a century to find it - then perhaps science would be humble enough to admit that it's possible the answer could come from the supernatural.

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Supernatural cause then?

If the answer cannot be found in the natural - they've had more than a century to find it - then perhaps science would be humble enough to admit that it's possible the answer could come from the supernatural.

It is humble enough to admit it. You aren't humble enough to admit, however, that you don't understand that.

[g_bambino]

Supernatural cause then?

If the answer cannot be found in the natural - they've had more than a century to find it - then perhaps science would be humble enough to admit that it's possible the answer could come from the supernatural.

Scientific cause, then?

If the answer cannot be found in the supernatural--they've had more than 5,000 years to find it--then perhaps religion would be humble enough to admit it's possible the answer could come from science.*

* In order to mimic betsy, I'm misrepresenting religions and segments of religions that do, in fact, accept scientific theories, even on evolution and the origins of life. Not all are as closed-minded as betsy.

[ed.: +]

Edited March 18, 2013 by g_bambino