there are 2 things I have against mass evolution (believing everything evolved from single cell creatures)these are them:

1.if one nerve in the human eye was out of place, we wouldn't be able to see at all. What are the chances that even that could've been made by chance.

2. What makes us different from monkeys? Image, Creativity and what drives us.
the first of the three, image, could very well be evolved.
however how do you evolve creativity and get rid of instinct. It's impossible.

in conclusion we have manuscriptual evidence of the new testament of the bible being true, so why do you people think the old testament isn't true.

Quote from stickmanme1

there are 2 things I have against mass evolution (believing everything evolved from single cell creatures)these are them:

1.if one nerve in the human eye was out of place, we wouldn't be able to see at all. What are the chances that even that could've been made by chance.

You grossly misunderstand evolution. A single light-sensitive peice of skin has been shown through computer simulation to be able to evolve into a fullly-functioning human eye. You are just refusing to think of the process because you know that it will void your argument.


2. What makes us different from monkeys? Image, Creativity and what drives us.
the first of the three, image, could very well be evolved.
however how do you evolve creativity and get rid of instinct. It's impossible.

Firstly, noone ever said that we were evolved from monkeys. They said we're evolved from APES. Ape=/=monkey. Secondly, many chimpanzees have painted pictures, had full conversations in sign language, and show every emotion, from empathy and loss to greed and fear, that humans have. Get off your short-legged horse and try to think on both sides of the argument.


in conclusion we have manuscriptual evidence of the new testament of the bible being true, so why do you people think the old testament isn't true.

I would love for you to prove the above statement. History only shows the exact opposite, that the old testament has NO basis in fact, except for a few stories such as Noah's ark which are enormous exaggerations of real events.

Quote from The Pirate

This sounds suspiciously similar to the idea debunked in this video, especially that last analogy about a tornado and a junkyard.

Yeah, I wanted a better anology than that, but like I said, it was a quicky.
The video oversimplified things, but the basic idea, I think, still holds true.

Refer to my to Pagan's post below, and my response.

Quote from Pagan

"Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

haha this is dumb. completely unrelated. this is like saying it's impossible to sit still because of kinetic theory or something, it's totally out of context.

As a matter of fact, it isn't out of context.
Look, the basic principle of macro evolution is that a simple creature, given enough time, will evolve into a better, more complex creature, correct?
The ones who evolve into more inferior creatures will die out and only the superior ones will remain.

It contradicts the Law of Entropy.
Entropy specifically say that All things tend to disorder.

Look around you; entropy cannot be avoided.
Evolution, with it's most basic principle, violates this law.



I'd go farther with your post, Pagan, but I don't have time right now. You do present valid points.

Quote from Doomdooer

Yeah, I wanted a better anology than that, but like I said, it was a quicky.
The video oversimplified things, but the basic idea, I think, still holds true.

Refer to my to Pagan's post below, and my response.


As a matter of fact, it isn't out of context.
Look, the basic principle of macro evolution is that a simple creature, given enough time, will evolve into a better, more complex creature, correct?
The ones who evolve into more inferior creatures will die out and only the superior ones will remain.

It contradicts the Law of Entropy.
Entropy specifically say that All things tend to disorder.

Look around you; entropy cannot be avoided.
Evolution, with it's most basic principle, violates this law.



I'd go farther with your post, Pagan, but I don't have time right now. You do present valid points.

The law of entropy doesn't apply to living things because a living thing has the ability to create order. Just look at the transistion from Medival Europe to present day Europe. I don't think you'll say that things didn't get more complex and less chaotic.

You can't create order in the long run.
Ok, say what you did was take all the atoms in an area, and seperated them up by element.
Then you put them in seperate jars.
This would be a more orderly system, right?

On the surface, you would say, yes. This system is more orderly than it was before.
How about we look at the overall order, though.
The energy you spent in ordering these atoms decreases the order in the universe because it has turned into now unusable amounts of heat and kinetic energy.
Even the order you created doesn't cancel out the disorder you created by converting energy.

The main flaw in the entropy argument is the fact that it applies to a closed system. The Earth is constantly being bombarded with solar energy, which keeps the second law of thermodynamics from acting on us as a whole. Plants can continue to use that energy and add it to the system, thereby adding more complexity to it. And with more plants come more animals and more complexity. Until the sun begins to die out, the Earth's crust will not be affected by entropy as you are saying it should.

Also, evolution does not say that more complex animals will automatically survive. There are many instances were simpler organisms have the upper hand. A starfish that can be split up into several parts and become whole again with each part, could have an advantage over the lobster population who can't do the same. The lobster is obviously more complex an animal, but the starfish's simplicity in comparison allows it to regenerate quickly and fully.

i don't think there's an analogy between "simpler organism" and "disorder," especially considering that our designations of simple and complex are global and completely relative.

does evolution involve the change of disorganized, random things into organized, regular things? not really. it just changes, over time, the physiology of organisms to suit their environments.

i think you're trying to make the law of entropy into something that says "everything gets worse or less effective over time" when i'm pretty sure that isn't the meaning at all.

Quote from OGrilla

The main flaw in the entropy argument is the fact that it applies to a closed system. The Earth is constantly being bombarded with solar energy, which keeps the second law of thermodynamics from acting on us as a whole. Plants can continue to use that energy and add it to the system, thereby adding more complexity to it. And with more plants come more animals and more complexity. Until the sun begins to die out, the Earth's crust will not be affected by entropy as you are saying it should.

Ok, when I mean the "whole system", I'm talking about the universe. So don't assume that I'm not considering everything.
Even the Sun, in it's creation of energy is causing less order in the system through its emissions of unusable heat energy.
All actions and energy conversions cause less order in the universe. Every single one.

Car engines create kinetic energy, but they create useless heat energy in the form of exhaust. Even Muscle motion, though it creates kinetic energy through chemical reactions, emits useless heat energy that causes entropy to continue.


Also, evolution does not say that more complex animals will automatically survive. There are many instances were simpler organisms have the upper hand. A starfish that can be split up into several parts and become whole again with each part, could have an advantage over the lobster population who can't do the same. The lobster is obviously more complex an animal, but the starfish's simplicity in comparison allows it to regenerate quickly and fully.

Would you call that ability simplistic?
Honestly, that ability contributes to the starfish's complexity.
Have you ever dissected a Starfish? They are amazingly complex creatures.

Now, I get your point, and yes, sometimes simpler creatures get the upper hand.

Quote from pagan

i don't think there's an analogy between "simpler organism" and "disorder," especially considering that our designations of simple and complex are global and completely relative.

Ok, lets not look at the creature itself, then. Lets look at the genetic code.
Originally, it was just protiens and amino acids floating in the primadorial soup, or so Evolution basically says, right?
Now, how can these simple amino acid strands organize themselves into complex protiens, and finally, organize themselves into DNA, and a code so complex, that a thousand encyclopedias would fit in it.

There is a thing called "Irreducible complexity". It is basically the fact that, in a certain system, all parts of the system need to be present and functioning in order for the system not to destroy itself. Such is the case with the link between protiens and DNA.
DNA codes how protien is made, and protien is used as a sort of life-support for the DNA.

Both would have had to have been present at the same time and working together for the system of a single cell to evolve.



does evolution involve the change of disorganized, random things into organized, regular things? not really. it just changes, over time, the physiology of organisms to suit their environments.

Which implies gradualized complexity, yes.

i think you're trying to make the law of entropy into something that says "everything gets worse or less effective over time" when i'm pretty sure that isn't the meaning at all.

I think that is exactly the meaning.
Can you name me a single thing that doesnt, if left to itself, get worse or less effective over time?

(Don't say Fine Wine. It would just be ludicrous.)





Oh, replies in Bold.

Ok, lets not look at the creature itself, then. Lets look at the genetic code.
Originally, it was just protiens and amino acids floating in the primadorial soup, or so Evolution basically says, right?
Now, how can these simple amino acid strands organize themselves into complex protiens, and finally, organize themselves into DNA, and a code so complex, that a thousand encyclopedias would fit in it.

proteins are just long strands of amino acids. the nature of amino acids is such that they bond to one another particularly well. so if you had an amino acid, which would form very easily on its own accord, come near another amino acid, they would bond to each other nicely. when this happens over and over and over again, you get a protein.

the function of a protein is determined by its shape, and with all the hundreds or thousands or however many amino acids that are in a single protein molecule all interacting in terms of positive and negative charges, each protein has a very specific shape. so you see how proteins can show up pretty easily?

DNA isn't made up of proteins. the three components of a DNA molecule are a Sugar, a Base, and a Phosphate. these are simple organic compounds and show up just like proteins do, of their own accord because of the nature of their molecular structure. evidently they have some attraction to one another too, so we get these long double helices that we call DNA.

do you see where i'm going with this or do you want me to condense introductory genetics into another post?

i think the mistake you're making is not taking into account the fact that these things aren't "by chance," natural selection and evolution and the formation of proteins doesn't just happen because of random coincidences. the atomic structure of amino acids cause them to link up really easily, and the subsequent structure of proteins let's them have very specific functions.

DNA codes how protien is made, and protien is used as a sort of life-support for the DNA.

what?

Can you name me a single thing that doesnt, if left to itself, get worse or less effective over time?

evidently a system of organisms... i mean, if you have an ecosystem and you put a disease in the ecosystem and some of the animals survive the disease and they keep reproducing, then the system has become "better" and more "effective," by your standards. if you keep doing that over and over and over again, substituting a new predator or a drought or whatever for the disease, then you get evolution, and the population gets more and more "better" and "effective." how can this scenario possibly not happen?

Which implies gradualized complexity, yes.

complexity =/= organization

which is more complex: a metal cube, or a child's bedroom?
which is more organized?

just because something is more refined and complicated doesn't mean it is more regular or any less random, there just isn't an analogy. it's apples and oranges.

what the hell, atheists have morals. I should know i'm an atheist myself. Sure I think science makes more sense then religon and that something should happen for a reason not "because god said so damnit go to bed Tommy >=l"

anyway, I think the evolution thereoy is correct if anything. but of course some has to come and throw in some stupid comment saying "were's the proof, or I don't care what you say god s the reason for everything".

as an Atheist, i'm not saying god isn't real it's just that really what the chance of haveing this big entity/man/god up in "heaven" makeing EVERYTHING happen?

Lastly if you do believe in god to an extreme point. what created god? and why should god be since the begining of time... and really is there a beginning of time?... sorry of topic...

Quote from Doomdooer

Ok, when I mean the "whole system", I'm talking about the universe. So don't assume that I'm not considering everything.
Even the Sun, in it's creation of energy is causing less order in the system through its emissions of unusable heat energy.
All actions and energy conversions cause less order in the universe. Every single one.

Car engines create kinetic energy, but they create useless heat energy in the form of exhaust. Even Muscle motion, though it creates kinetic energy through chemical reactions, emits useless heat energy that causes entropy to continue.

Would you call that ability simplistic?
Honestly, that ability contributes to the starfish's complexity.
Have you ever dissected a Starfish? They are amazingly complex creatures.

Now, I get your point, and yes, sometimes simpler creatures get the upper hand.

Entropy is the result of energy being displaced evenly throughout space. Though the entire universe is slowing moving toward this, at the moment, energy is constantly being added to the Earth's crust. So - as we're looking at the theory of evolution in this discussion - entropy does not occur in an ecosystem that's even partially exposed to the Sun. It doesn't matter that everything is moving toward entropy because we're talking about evolution. And as pagan mentioned, order is not the topic. Evolution clearly causes less order by concentrating and moving energy. Order would be if all energy and matter were evenly distributed.

A starfish in comparison to a lobster is indeed less complex. By no means am I saying a starfish is a simple animal; it's just a relative comparison. And it's because of the symmetry and (relative) simplicity of the starfish's vital systems that allow it to regenerate. A lobster is not able to do this because a breaking apart of its vitals will result in death as they're too complex to survive alone.

starfish and other echinoderms are actually more related to us proper vertebrates than crustaceans are. food for thought.

Was that addressing my argument or was it just a somewhat related sidenote?

it was sort of a sidenote, because with all that talk of lobsters and starfish and their relative complexity i felt i had to interject

Quote from InsertNameHere

what the hell, atheists have morals. I should know i'm an atheist myself. Sure I think science makes more sense then religon and that something should happen for a reason not "because god said so damnit go to bed Tommy >=l"

anyway, I think the evolution thereoy is correct if anything. but of course some has to come and throw in some stupid comment saying "were's the proof, or I don't care what you say god s the reason for everything".

as an Atheist, i'm not saying god isn't real it's just that really what the chance of haveing this big entity/man/god up in "heaven" makeing EVERYTHING happen?

Erm... I don't hink you understand what the word "Atheist" means. It's someone who doesn't belive in any god's existance. Nothing more, nothing less. If you aren't sure which you belive, you're agnostic (This is a simplified version of being Agnostic, but one gets the general idea from it)

Lastly if you do believe in god to an extreme point. what created god? and why should god be since the begining of time... and really is there a beginning of time?... sorry of topic...

These are terrible arguments that we've used for ages and have gotten past. If you wanna debate about god's existance, do it in another thread. This thread is about science, not religion.