The one thing that proves evolution wrong


#1

So I accepted the almost impossible chance of life evolving from nothing into a cell.

I accepted the fact that we have never observed a mutation which has been beneficial to any organism which showed an increase in genetic material.

And I accepted the fact that the fossil record is very very very patchy.

But I cannot accept the “fact” that two of those original cells both spontaneously mutated into distinct male/female organisms that required each other to reproduce.

The complexity involved in the reproduction cycle is enormous.

And it is for that reason that I do not accept it.

To the atheists: Are you in the same position I was in a few months ago? This realisation brought me back to my faith.

Those with a belief in God: Of course, the idea that God guided evolution makes all this possible, but why would he do such a thing?

In Christ.

Andre.

p.s The subject is to debate the topic. :slight_smile:


#2

It is called

TalkOrigins.org

Read it, learn it, love it.

Short answer: Origin of life is not evolution. But I’ll go along with that. God initiated the universe and first life, from there evolution took over. God was involved along the way, but science can’t speak to God. All possible creationist claims are addressed here

Index to Creationist Claims

I might have to add you to my list…

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics

OK, one more lame creation-evolution thread shot down in 20 minutes, well it took one hour this time. While I still have time to edit, here is a link

Evolution of Sex and Reproduction from the PBS 2001 Evolution series

Why would God do such a thing? Because all the scientific evidence tells us that’s how it was done: macroevolution. Do not be afraid.

Phil P


#3

[quote=Magicsilence]…

I accepted the fact that we have never observed a mutation which has been beneficial to any organism which showed an increase in genetic material.


[/quote]

That is not a fact. A very nice example would be the nylon bug; also antibiotic resistance in other bacteria.


#4

[quote=EnterTheBowser]That is not a fact. A very nice example would be the nylon bug; also antibiotic resistance in other bacteria.
[/quote]

Actually, if you studied the genetic change, you would see a marked decrease or mutation decreasing genetic material. Antibiotic resistance is a possibility that can arise through the reduction of genetic material.

Like I say, we have never observed a mutation with an increase in genetic material that has been beneficial to the organism. Also, resitance to antibiotics may or may not be beneficial. We dont know if it has an impact on the bacteria in another manner.

In Christ.

Andre.


#5

[quote=Magicsilence]Actually, if you studied the genetic change, you would see a marked decrease or mutation decreasing genetic material. Antibiotic resistance is a possibility that can arise through the reduction of genetic material.

In that case - what do you mean by information?

Like I say, we have never observed a mutation with an increase in genetic material that has been beneficial to the organism. Also, resitance to antibiotics may or may not be beneficial. We dont know if it has an impact on the bacteria in another manner.

In Christ.

Andre.

[/quote]

Antibiotic resistance is definitely beneficial. It increases the reproductive success of the bacteria on balance. Maybe it causes other problems somewhere else - but if it were not beneficial it would not be selected for (they mean the same thing) - and it is definitely selected for.


#6

[quote=PhilVaz]It is called

TalkOrigins.org

Read it, learn it, love it.

Short answer: Origin of life is not evolution. But I’ll go along with that. God initiated the universe and first life, from there evolution took over. God was involved along the way, but science can’t speak to God. All possible creationist claims are addressed here

Index to Creationist Claims

I might have to add you to my list…

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics

OK, one more lame creation-evolution thread shot down in 20 minutes, well it took one hour this time. While I still have time to edit, here is a link

Evolution of Sex and Reproduction from the PBS 2001 Evolution series

Why would God do such a thing? Because all the scientific evidence tells us that’s how it was done: macroevolution. Do not be afraid.

Phil P
[/quote]

I realize Phil that abcdefg has been posting about a billion threads with very bad science but I dont believe your website addresses the issue here.

I have no doubt that sex is advantageous. Genetic variation etc…

What i have a problem with is the chance of a cell arising from nothing and then on top of that TWO more cells mutating exactly so that they could reproduce with each other. Im not sure what the chances are for these two events to occur. But, speaking strictly from a secualr point of view it must be enormous. The age old analogy of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and putting everything together? And thats just for the first cell. What are the chances of two more cells mutating at the same time with exactly the perfect mutations for reproduction to occur. Let alone them FINDING each other.

In Christ.

Andre.


#7

[quote=EnterTheBowser]In that case - what do you mean by information?

Antibiotic resistance is definitely beneficial. It increases the reproductive success of the bacteria on balance. Maybe it causes other problems somewhere else - but if it were not beneficial it would not be selected for (they mean the same thing) - and it is definitely selected for.
[/quote]

Information? I didnt actually say that word.

By genetic material I am referring to the capacity to code for parts of the organism and how much of it is actually used. No doubt you know of the genetic “spam” that sits inside our DNA.

In Christ.

Andre.


#8

magic << Like I say, we have never observed a mutation with an increase in genetic material that has been beneficial to the organism. >>

Sorry evolution got that one wrapped up. :thumbsup:

Are mutations harmful? covers favorable mutations, types of mutations, etc.

Five examples of beneficial mutations: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Bacteria that eat nylon, Sickle cell resistance to malaria, Lactose tolerance, Resistance to atherosclerosis, Immunity to HIV.

Most mutations harmful?
Mutations adding information
Mutations and new features
Apolipoprotein AI beneficial mutation and new information
More examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection
Beneficial mutations in humans
All about the Nylon bug (Nylon eating bacteria)

What??? You doubt the TalkOrigins powers of omniscience? :smiley: :thumbsup:

Phil P


#9

magic << What i have a problem with is the chance of a cell arising from nothing and then on top of that TWO more cells mutating exactly so that they could reproduce with each other. >>

OK I’ll go along with that. So long as you don’t say that giraffs, whales, or humans didn’t or couldn’t evolve from previous common ancestors and we may be all right. :smiley:

I just don’t like the evolution objections that take 10 seconds to answer. The ones that take 1 hour or more to answer may be all right. :thumbsup:

Phil P


#10

[quote=Magicsilence]But I cannot accept the “fact” that two of those original cells both spontaneously mutated into distinct male/female organisms that required each other to reproduce. How does your refusal to accept anything disprove evolution?
[/quote]

Peace

Tim


#11

[quote=Magicsilence]Information? I didnt actually say that word.

By genetic material I am referring to the capacity to code for parts of the organism and how much of it is actually used. No doubt you know of the genetic “spam” that sits inside our DNA.

In Christ.

Andre.
[/quote]

To say that no beneficial mutations add genetic material is nonsense. Whoever told you that is ignorant or lying. Both insertions and duplications can be beneficial; and duplications are a major source for new genetic material. Read this:

evolutionpages.com/Streptomyces.htm

Also this:

evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20proteins.htm

particularly the section under ‘gene familes’

As for the evolution of sex, this will tell you something about it . You won’t be able to see the full articles unless you are a subscriber, but the abstracts are interesting:

nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/index.html

Here is asimilar review in Science with similar constraints to see the entire papers:

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/281/5385/1979

Here is another paper:

pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/24/13774

When you’ve finished reading and digesting this material would be a good time to come back.

I guess you know that some bacteria exchange genetic material and that they have ‘sexes’?

Of course there are a lot of hard scientific problems with the evolution of sex and there’s a lot we don’t know about it. But you are just making the old tired ‘Argument from Personal Incredulity’.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


#12

Alec to the rescue!!!

Quick close this thread before abcdefg posts something stupid. :smiley:

Phil P


#13

You mean GodnCountry …


#14

[quote=Magicsilence]Those with a belief in God: Of course, the idea that God guided evolution makes all this possible, but why would he do such a thing?
[/quote]

Well… why not??


#15

[quote=Magicsilence]So I accepted the almost impossible chance of life evolving from nothing into a cell.

I accepted the fact that we have never observed a mutation which has been beneficial to any organism which showed an increase in genetic material.

And I accepted the fact that the fossil record is very very very patchy.

But I cannot accept the “fact” that two of those original cells both spontaneously mutated into distinct male/female organisms that required each other to reproduce.

The complexity involved in the reproduction cycle is enormous.

And it is for that reason that I do not accept it.

To the atheists: Are you in the same position I was in a few months ago? This realisation brought me back to my faith.

Those with a belief in God: Of course, the idea that God guided evolution makes all this possible, but why would he do such a thing?

In Christ.

Andre.

p.s The subject is to debate the topic. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Why did God create at all :slight_smile: ?

I find the reality of a creation, of a thing existing that is not God, far harder to accept. Accepyting evolution as being involved in the process of creation is a push-over in comparison :slight_smile: ##


#16

[quote=zian]You mean GodnCountry …
[/quote]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Give the boy a prize!!!:smiley:

Peace

Tim


#17

Orogony << Ding! Ding! Ding! Give the boy a prize!!! Peace Tim >>

Oh? I didn’t notice that. OK, moderators now need to evaluate the last 50 posts of abc and GodnCountry, and ban them both.

And for good measure, ban abcdefgh i j k L M N O P, the rest of the alphabet, and GodnNation, UNTIL any of them write something sensible about macroevolution and Catholic teaching on evolution, or ignore that topic altogether. Thank you and good night. :yawn:

Phil P


#18

In reply to the statement made by Andre on evolution, I agree to a point. Andre, you stated that you cannot accept the theory of the chances of a male and female cell (Zygote) occuring at the same time to reproduce a species. Whilst I agree with your comments, I disagree with your statement that you cann accept everything else. I am an aromatherapist and have consequent qualifications in anatomy & physiology. The body of a human, animal, reptile, etc. is enormously complex. They are like little worlds, with little factories, power plants, armies…I could go on and on… For instance, immune system. Did you know there are independant (lymphocytes) that roam the body just searching for foreign bodies. Cells talk to each other using chemical messengers. Totally amazing. There is no way I can accept the miracle of life happening by accident!


#19

[quote=pachman]…I am an aromatherapist and have consequent qualifications in anatomy & physiology…
[/quote]

I’ve never quite heard that claim made before…

Welcome pachman.
I was under the impression that aromatherapy had more of an empirical approach and was not as into the underlying mechanisms.

[quote=pachman]… There is no way I can accept the miracle of life happening by accident!
[/quote]

(1) What do you mean by accident? Are you refering to probability? and how dooes this “accident” of life compare to the “accidents” involved with conception?
(2) Do you have any objections other than personal incredulity?


#20

[quote=PhilVaz]magic << Like I say, we have never observed a mutation with an increase in genetic material that has been beneficial to the organism. >>

Sorry evolution got that one wrapped up. :thumbsup:

Are mutations harmful? covers favorable mutations, types of mutations, etc.

Five examples of beneficial mutations: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Bacteria that eat nylon, Sickle cell resistance to malaria, Lactose tolerance, Resistance to atherosclerosis, Immunity to HIV.

Most mutations harmful?
Mutations adding information
Mutations and new features
Apolipoprotein AI beneficial mutation and new information
More examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection
Beneficial mutations in humans
All about the Nylon bug (Nylon eating bacteria)

What??? You doubt the TalkOrigins powers of omniscience? :smiley: :thumbsup:

Phil P
[/quote]

Evolution is a theory. It posits and as such suggests that such a thing happened and such does not have it “all wrapped up”. Evolution is the only possible option without God saving aliens puttng us on the planet. As such, all evidence has to be made to fit with it. I have yet to see a scientist showing off his latest mutation find. Fact is, they exist very very very very rarely.

What you gave me above was a list of organisms ability to naturally adapt. Within the genes and their margin for error is the ability to adapt through chance to a new environment.

Evolution seeks to have us believe that that something like a kidney, or the immune system just happened by chance through a huge mutation that suddenly caused it. Remember the argument that your appendix is useless “proved” evolution? That was wrong, the appendix is used in part of the immune system producing lymph cells or similar. I know full well that bacteria are capable of adapting to antibiotics. However what you are observing is natural adaptation which i have no doubt happens. Part of Gods brilliant plan to allow species to survive despite a change in the environment.

Serious question Phil. Have you read the link you gave me to the “Beneficial mutations in humans”. Its a lot of heavy jargon designed to put off the casual reader. That article is for scientists/microbiologists. Im just lucky i studied it last year. But it boils down to not a lot. Slightly improving the life span of a person with heart disease is not what i call evolution. Its adaptation to the environment.

In Christ.

Andre.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.