Creation - Evolution Continuum

[(Q)]

This thread is inspired by an article in the current issue (Vol.10, No.4, 2004) of Skeptic Magazine.

Many - if not most - Americans think of the creation vs. evolution argument as a matter of choosing one of two sides of the fence. In fact, though, there are many positions one can take. Below is a brief summary adapted from the Skeptic article.

Where do you fit on the continuum?

Flat Earthers

This is the most extreme biblical literalist position. Flat Earthers believe the bible says the Earth is flat, and therefore it must be, despite all evidence to the contrary. They also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story, along with the literal truth of rest of the bible.

Geocentrists

People with this view accept that the Earth is spherical, but hold that the Earth is the centre of the universe. They reject virtually all of modern physics, chemistry and biology, and, like flat-earthers, believe in the literal truth of the bible.

Young-earth Creationists

These people generally accept a sun-centred solar system, but reject most of modern physics, chemistry, geology concerning the age of the Earth and biology. According to their view, the Earth was created by God 6000 to 10000 years ago, along with all modern lifeforms. They believe that the Noah flood story is literally true, along with the Genesis story.

Old-earth Creationists

These people accept modern geology and the conclusion that Earth is billions of years old. They believe that God was intimately involved in the creation of all life on Earth, although precisely what form that involvement took is debateable. They believe that lifeforms can change over time, but God guides changes. They generally reject the theory of descent with modification.

Day-Age Creationists

These people are old-earth creationists who believe in a mostly literal reading of the bible. However, day-age creationists say that each "day" of creation in the bible actually corresponds to a much longer period of time - perhaps millions of years. Thus, plants appeared millions of years before animals, and humans came even later.

Progressive Creationists

Progressive creationists accept scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, and much other modern science besides. However, only some parts of modern biology are accepted. PCs believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially. They do not believe that later kinds of animals are descended from earlier ones - each kind is a separate creation by God. They allow for changes to occur "within a kind", although "kind" is defined somewhat inconsistently. Thus, the created cat "kind" could have changed gradually to produce lions, tigers and house cats. Thus, PCs accept a kind of "microevolution", but draw the line at major changes.

Intelligent Design (ID) Creationists

ID Creationists hold that some biological features of plants and animals are "irreducibly complex", and so could not have evolved by means of Darwinian evolution. ID allows for some microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are sufficient in themselves to explain the evolution of one "kind" of life from another (e.g. they cannot explain the evolution of humans from apes).

Evolutionary creationists

ECs believe that God uses the process of scientific Darwinian evolution to bring about his plan. Thus, ECs accept all of modern science and can be considered "evolutionists". Their position is distinguished from theistic evolution mainly on theological grounds - it tends to be held by more conservative and evangelical Christians.

Theistic evolutionists

Again, TEs believe that God creates via the process of evolution as described by Darwin. God intervenes at critical times in the process of evolution, giving life appropriate "nudges" in the right direction. This is particular relevant in the evolution of human beings. This is the official position held by the Catholic Church, as stated explicitly by Pope John Paul II.

Neutral evolutionists

NEs hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They believe that religion and science are separate domains, and that religion and God are not required to explain the development of life on Earth; science is sufficient for a complete explanation. They do not express a view on whether God exists or guides evolution, because this is not relevant to the question at hand.

Materialistic Evolutionists

Believers in ME also hold a non-religious view of the development of life on Earth. They differ from NEs in that they propose in addition that the laws of nature are all that exists; they assert that supernatural forces such as God do not exist.

 

[Runt]

I'm somewhere between a theistic evolutionist and a neutral evolutionist. Whereas Theistic evolutionists believe God "created" these laws and uses them, and Neutral evolutionists don't have God anywhere in that picture, I think God and the natural laws are one and the same, or rather that the natural laws are PART of God.

 

[Master Vigil]

I guess being Taoist would put me between the Theistic and Neutral evolutionists. Even though the Tao is not god, it is the first cause of everything. However, I do not believe that the Tao is necessary for explaining the developing of life on earth, it is only necessary for explaining how to live in peace, balance, and simplicity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On a sidenote-- Q, I love Skeptic Magazine! I got a subscription for Christmas :lol: I read the same article, it was interesting.
Materialistic Evolutionist here.

 

[inca]

www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/11spec02.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut16.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc05.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc06.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim01.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim02.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist09.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist10.htm
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc04.htm
It's interesting to read what scientists had to say about the issue rather than readers opinions only.

 

[(Q)]

inca

Scientists agree on evolution. Evolution is a fact.

Those links you provide show incredible ignorance to the subject.

 

[inca]

Q: everytime an evolutionist repeats 1000 times "it's a fact", "it's a fact", "it's a fact" is cos it's not a fact but a desperatly attempt to grab to that philosophy. In a similar theme in this forum you can see a 9 pages discussion on the subject. Please notice in that site you're saying the scientists statements are ignorant. The names of them are already mentioned as well as the references but I prefer you to read what I posted in the other similar issue....not jumping information ...but checking every single one of the items. And please, everytime you make a general statement like that of yours (typical in an evolutionist) write what is ignorance and why you think so. Because if I follow the same pattern I can say the only ignorant and narrow minded person here is an unknown amateur who can't even admit so much information doesn't have 1% of truth.

 

[inca]

Rather than deciding for the rest what is a fact or not, you can start reading from right here:
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=78&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

 

[inca]

But you know what amazes most, that this Q is someone who wrote something about the human brain and neuroscience ans still believes in evolution of the brain which is something not too many experts in specifically that field believe. Are you the one who already knows that soul is 100% immaterial and our body is 100% material in order to use that as dogma?
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=181
Well, I think we're talking with a physicist wise man here cos even the brain experts are astonishing about the information decoded by the brain and conextions more than the atoms of the universe (if we believe some scientists). Nop, no brain evolution neither language evolution nor thinking evolution either!

 

[true blood]

What kind of evolution are you talking about Q were humans once river apps?

 

[painted wolf]

I'm Theistic evolution... mostly... how much 'god' nudges things I cant say.. but I don't think its much.

true blood... The river ape theroy is intresting but I'm not sold on it... Bonobo's live in seasonally flooded forest and don't show many of the same adaptations we were supposed to have gained from it. I'm more for the savana myself..

Perhaps the most important question is what makes us Human vs. what makes our predcessors not human?

wa:-do

 

[(Q)]

And please, everytime you make a general statement like that of yours (typical in an evolutionist) write what is ignorance and why you think so.

Sorry, but if I’m not mistaken you offered no opinion yourself and instead merely posted a bunch of links – what color is that pot, mr. kettle? (typical creationist)

But lets take a quote directly from the very first link you posted:

Only God could make the species.
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

Complete ignorance, this guy has no idea what evolution is about, yet draws this conclusion based on… ?

But you know what amazes most, that this Q is someone who wrote something about the human brain and neuroscience ans still believes in evolution of the brain which is something not too many experts in specifically that field believe.

Complete hogwash! No credible scientist believes the brain didn’t evolve. Your grasping at straws.

What's a 'river apps?'

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Uh-oh. Here we go again..... :killme:

 

[painted wolf]

but mr. spinkles... we have a whole new thread to follow on this one..
:lol:
wa:-do

 

[inca]

I didn't make a comment in this part, I quoted links. If you ignore all the information is up to you. Nobody convinces anyone. It's you the one who says evolution is a fact. Since that is science and not religion, that has to be proved. Is it a fact? Millions of people in different areas believe it's not. So specify what is fact in evolution or what you disagree. If the site is wrong perhaps you would be so kind to inform us what is evolution about?
First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new. Karl Pribram, neurophysiologist from Stanford University and physicist David Bohm, expert in quantum theory and it’s said he was Einstein’s protégée , believe our memory is holographic and Michael Talbot in his “Holographic Universe” says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain and compares the way laser beam reflects in the construction of an hologram with the neural impulse propelled at the end of the neuron. We all could have –they say- the solid sensation because we’re part of the “holodeck” in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix. Cutting brain of mice it was discovered there were no areas with file memories but it was distributed trough the whole brain. The brain of epileptic people (who were aware) were electrically stimulated in temporal sides. They remembered astonishing details of their lives like complete conversation after many years, a face lost among hundreds of faces, the spider web they saw when they were kids. How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they don’t even comprehend too well. It’s like destroying a watch to see how it works and then saying it evolved from itself. In harmony with that, Poland Professor of Theoretical Physics at Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, Jacob D. Bekenstein, recipient of Rothschild Prize and John Wheeler, imagine a universe of 5 dimensions which an hologram. Imagine a 2D universe closed like a sphere. Brief burst of light issuing simultaneously & perpendicularly from all over one side, light emitted from the inner surface of a spherical shell.
In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence. Now the new generations who don’t have the historical sense of their dogma they’re accepting, ignore those times and happily say NOW, intelligence has nothing to do with size. But I do remember all those days when it was discussed the bigger size of Neanderthal skull could mean he was smarter than us and in fact there was involution or evolution in reverse. Then they had to change the strategy. Yet the differences between the brain of man and woman (homo sapiens) are still discussed now. Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.
Among more than million different animal species, it’s “us” the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe. As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: “the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldn’t be nobody to ask how is it the way it is”. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: “when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe should’ve known somehow that we were coming”. If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science. They should’ve payed attention who are the ones who know science for real, not only their Creationist enemies.
If someone wants to believe the frog transforms into a prince with the marvelous kiss of Chronus Time and Mother Evolution in this complicated universe….
It’s us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals, otherwise I would be chatting by internet with a giant imbecile turtle in Galapagos (Am I talking with one…? No, I don’t think so). Hence we are the freaks of evolution… Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?

 

[inca]

Darwin might never have written Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) had it not been for the arrival of a paper that shook him to the core - a paper from Alfred Russel Wallace, wherein was set out, in essentials, the very theory of evolution which Darwin had already devised, but had not taken the time to refine and publish. In a flash, Darwin took pen in hand, and hammered out the immortal book that would supersede Wallace's work. All of this, of course, is but a tiny chapter in the history of science - with which many readers are doubtless familiar. Why mention it here? Well, Eccles calls himself a Darwinian, but actually he's a Wallacean - and there's a difference, a big difference between the two views. As Eccles explains, "Wallace felt that human intelligence could only be explained by the direct intervention of Cosmic intelligence" (Eccles, 1989, p. 235). This was a notion Darwin couldn't stomach. Wallace outraged Darwin by publishing a paper on primitive people (with whom he lived most of his life) in which he declared:

Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but a little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies (Eccles, 1989, p. 235).
The notion that the powers possessed by homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) were created not by mindless processes, but by the Almighty, is one Eccles is quite at home with. Indeed, this book, despite it's empirical-sounding title, is in many ways a prolegomenon to Christian eschatology.

A casual reading may leave readers with the impression that Eccles is a Darwinian; a careful reading discloses the affinity to Wallace. We don't have the space here to retell the story even synoptically, but we can convey its gist.

Eccles' starts spinning his narrative in the preface, where he informs us that he has "been able to unfold the fascinating story of hominid evolution of the human brain" (Eccles, 1989, xi). But we soon see that there are two separate stories. The first spans the evolution of the mammalian brain from the primates to the emergence of homo sapiens (HS). The second story starts after the first ends, that is, after the brain of HS had arrived; it's the story of how we became - to use Eccles' phrase - human persons: incorporeal creatures able to control, and have experience through, human bodies.

The first story is in many ways told from the point of view of a detective recounting a solved case. Understanding the brain is made possible by inference from clues - such as changes in posture and locomotion. For example, Eccles infers from the famous footprints found at the Laetoli beds in Northern Tanzania that Australopithecus (A) was erect and bipedal. He also goes on to speak of human-like relationships among A; this Eccles infers from hand-holding, which is in turn inferred from the fact that the footprints in question are side-by-side. That some of the footprints are superimposed one upon another implies, by Eccles' lights, that A was capable of both a fairly high level of concentration and fine motor control. Eccles makes similar types of inferences from such evidence throughout the book.

Eccles' evolutionary story includes his discussion of the development of fine motor control from early primates to HS in connection with expansion of motor cortical representation for the thumb and fingers. He tells us that it wasn't until these features of the brain evolved that tool-making could occur. The idea is that the raw physical ability was present, but there was inadequate brain power.

This raises the obvious question: Why did these features of the brain evolve? In seeking an answer to this question one grasps the gist of Eccles' narrative, and one begins to see that Eccles and Darwin are worlds apart.

Eccles' answer to the question is that periods of stasis are punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change (speciation events), but with saltations and the creation of "hopeful monsters."
In a sense, the new function arises by serendipity, but Eccles seems to hold that there is indeed a reason for these changes, at least when it comes to the brain. So first we have bodies able to walk erect in bipedal fashion, and then comes the neural machinery able to control such bodies.
AS I SAID BEFORE -n similar theme in this forum- THIS IS NOT THE CASE, GENETICS HAVE PROVED THERE'S ALREADY THE MODEL OF AN ORGAN INSERTED EVEN IN THE MOST "PRIMITIVE" CREATURES WHO DIDN'T HAVE NOT EVEN THE ORGANS. So the argument "And first we have a hand physically able to build tools, and then comes the neural machinery enabling the use of such a hand. And first we have mechanisms allowing for the production of an array of sounds, and then comes the neural stuff that can put these mechanisms to work in communicating" has been demonstrated to be a mistake. In all these cases, the prior mechanism comes in order to get ready for the subsequent neurological advance. The ultimate trick of this type is the core of Eccles' second story: the advent of dualist interactionism: the arrival of certain neural machinery in primates makes it possible, many years later, for persons, existing in the non-physical world of the mental, to interact with and control bodies. Such an exotic and teleological scheme certainly is Wallace's (Clements, 1983). As Eccles proudly confesses:

I believe that biological evolution is not simply chance and necessity. That could never have produced us with our values. I can sense with [Sherrington] that evolution may be the instrument of a Purpose, lifting it beyond chance and necessity at least in the transcendence that brought forth human creatures gifted with self-consciousness (Eccles, 1989, p. 116).



3. Dualist Interactionism

What is dualist interactionism (DI)? : there are minds, incorporeal entities, and they interact somehow with physical brains.
The materialist critics argue that insuperable difficulties are encountered by the hypothesis that immaterial mental events such as thinking can act in any way on material structures such a neurons of the cerebral cortex... Such a presumed action is alleged to be incompatible with the conservation laws of physics, in particular of the first law of thermodynamics (Eccles, 1989, p. 187).
How does Eccles address this problem? By turning to quantum physics, specifically to the work of Margenau (1984):

Following Margenau, the hypothesis is that mind-brain interaction is analogous to a probability field of quantum mechanics, which has neither mass nor energy yet can cause effective action at microsites. More specifically it is proposed that the mental concentration involved in intentions or planned thinking can cause neural events by a process analogous to the probability fields of quantum mechanics (Eccles, 1989, p. 189).
Such a scheme isn't likely to make any philosophical headway, for the simple reason that that to which Eccles appeals here (as physicists and philosophers of science can confirm) is as controversial as interactionism itself.




Arguments for Dualist Interactionism?

Eccles' book is shockingly short on argumentation; we imagine that Eccles himself would confess that argumentation (at least of the rigorous variety) isn't intended to be the book's strong suit. However, a charitable reading (an extremely charitable reading) yields three arguments that can be reconstructed from the text. They are:

"The Brain Replacement Argument." The basic idea here is that most of your body is inessential. That is, we can cut off your foot, and replace it with a prosthesis, or even just leave you without it (if we take care of the bleeding). We can do this for your nose, your eyeballs, your hair... in fact, we can clearly do it for everything beneath your chin. And we don't even need to stop when we reach your brain. As Eccles points out (Eccles, 1989, p. 219), removal of the cerebellum gravely incapacitates movement, but the person is not otherwise affected. So we can keep going at least until we get to parts of your neo-cortex. Once at this point, we note that the physical stuff in question can be replaced with other physical stuff as long as the new stuff operates similarly - so how can a mind, a person, as a genuine thing that persists through time (an ens per se, to use the Latin), be a particular physical thing (an ens successivum)?
YET IF THERE'S NO PURPOSE, THE EXISTENCE ALLOW US TO ENJOY HAVING CLOR VISION, TONGUE TO TASTE THOUSANDS OF FLAVORS, EARS TO LISTEN IN STEREOPHONIC SOUND. Everything could well be done by evolution in a dull gray way, only feeding with something valuable but with bitter taste of a cactus.
"The Argument from the Failure of Evolution to Explain X." The argument here flows from a disjunction to the effect that every X is either explained in natural terms by evolution, or in terms that invoke a realm beyond the physical. Eccles intends that X be instantiated to phenomenal consciousness and he maintains that such consciousness cannot be explained in exclusively natural termsIf we have P-consciousness (as it certainly seems we do), and evolution can't explain it, then we seem to be sliding toward Wallace rather than Darwin: we seem to be sliding toward an explanation that goes beyond nature toward theism. That means believing in God's own system.

Daraio finds some arguments weak, because he is inclined to believe that there are naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for personhood and consciousness, though he certainly concedes that no such explanations are in hand.

Einstein, as much as anyone, employed this type of thinking; as is well-known, he sought to "become," for example, objects travelling at great speed (Einstein, 1952).

 

[inca]

As I said first they say the size of the bigger skull doesn't mean the Neanderthal was more intelligent than us, now they go back to square one using the same old leftover argument, that we owe superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles and the growing of human brain:
www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-9.html
Something about the mind in the past, a mental leap earlier than they thought:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3310233.stm
www.nature.com/nsu/020729/020729-2.html
Getting back to the past:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html
Yet, the studies of Rebecca Cann can even diminush the Eve history to 20.000 years old if she had just a single "Adam" partner.
It's interesting that the Bible suggests (as I have explained also quoting from Jewsih myths) there was a sexual intercourse between Samael -Satan and Eve and there was an opening of the "eye" (melatonine linked to longevity) which helps us to understand the secret of eternal life present in the worms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3209515.stm
Notice that in mammals to inhibite insuline it's necessary the removal of REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. Hence human beings became intelligent but lost longevity gradually and perhaps we have to send our archeologists and historians and biologists or paleonthologist to the Iran or Irak zone of the Biblical Eden (though I have my doubts 99% of the people may accept of Eden in Mesopotamia cos I believe it deserves a better explantion and searching in the Amazon jungle for reasons I don't care to explain right here).
More news about the gene Tre2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2772241.stm

 

[(Q)]

I didn't make a comment in this part, I quoted links. If you ignore all the information is up to you.

Yes you didn’t make a comment yet were perfectly willing to berate me for not commenting, mr. kettle.

I couldn’t ignore it because I was laughing so hard. Btw - thanks for the comedy.

It's you the one who says evolution is a fact. Since that is science and not religion, that has to be proved.

So, the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution and the mountains of evidence pouring in every day in favor of evolution are not proof?

Is it a fact? Millions of people in different areas believe it's not.

Who are those millions of people in different areas? Would they happen to be bible-thumping creationists by any chance or are they simply ignorant to the facts?

If the site is wrong perhaps you would be so kind to inform us what is evolution about?

Don’t you know? You seem to be providing plenty of nonsensical debate in opposition to evolution. I would have expected you to do your homework before tackling the subject. However, I’m not surprised you don’t know anything about evolution, especially if all you read are those crank sites.

First of all, Mr. Q, respect our QI and every time you dare to write something about the brain -as you did in this forum- you shall kneel in awe admiration as neurospecialists do all time they discover something new.

Respect is earned. Why do they kneel? It must be hard on the knees.

Michael Talbot in his “Holographic Universe” says the whole existence is a hologram built by the brain

So what? This has nothing to do with evolution.

We all could have –they say- the solid sensation because we’re part of the “holodeck” in the very sense like the flm The 13th Floor and Matrix.

Hollywood movies and reality are two different things, try and make the distinction if you can.

How can people believe in the evolution of an organ (or body or universe) they don’t even comprehend too well.

They, like you, need to take the time to comprehend evolution before accepting their beliefs.

In other times, evolutionists thought the size of the skull or brain would indicate more or less intelligence

What other times? What evolutionists? Please cite your references.

Then they had to change the strategy.

Sorry, I don’t recall and change in strategies. Please cite your sources. NO crank sites please.

Now, they are saying redhead Scottish descent from Neanderthal because a specific gene.

Is that supposed to explain why Scots are so cheap? Cite sources please.

Among more than million different animal species

Actually, its closer to ten million and thought to be closer to twenty million. New species are discovered all the time.

it’s “us” the ones who have consciousness of life & death and universal law. That allow many scientists to believe in the anthropic principle of the universe.

Scientists don’t believe in the anthropic principle, that’s pure nonsense. Kooks and cranks might believe in it.

As Nobel Prize physicist, Steven Weinberg put it: “the world is the way it is because in part, in other way there wouldn’t be nobody to ask how is it the way it is”. Or physicist Freeman Dyson when he wrote: “when we consider the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that work together in our benefit, we have almost the impression that the universe should’ve known somehow that we were coming”.

Anecdotes are not evidence of anything; they are merely anecdotes and mean nothing when it comes to arguing your position.

If a stupid evolutionist believes evolutionist is the mother deaf-dumb-blind and without purpose of the universe and brain is because he is uninformed about real science.

Why makes you think there is a purpose? What do you consider “real science?”

It’s us the ones who have consciousness among all plants and animals

So, does that mean animals are unconscious?

You’re argument is typical and seriously flawed because you can’t fathom the concept that intelligence evolved in humans. Intelligence is not the outcome of evolution; it is only one particular branch of evolution and may or may not happen again.

Hence we are the freaks of evolution…

In a way, yes.

Perhaps Mr. Q wants to disagree in personal letter with those physicist including Nobel Prize winner. Would you Mr wise guy?

Argument from authority is a fallacy and does not hold up in debate.

And besides, am I supposed to respond to anecdotes? Give me a break.

Your arguments are incredibly weak and void of content. I don't think you understand evolution at all.

 

[(Q)]

now they go back to square one using the same old leftover argument, that we owe superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles and the growing of human brain

So, can you refute the evidence or are you just going to make silly remarks?

 

[inca]

IN THE BIBLE it is written that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that He made plants and animals "after their kind," and finally created man and "breathed into him the breath of life."
This does not conflict with the discoveries of modern science.
The theory of evolution postulates that all living things came into existence by chance, that living organisms like the amoeba and the jellyfish evolved into fish, and fish in turn evolved into animals such as the crocodile and the dinosaur and, further, that monkey-like creatures evolved into man.
Did your life come about in this way?
Are you the offspring of animals?
This is the most important issue in your life, so let's consider it in the light of true science.



1. How about the Giraffe's Neck?



The Lamarckian theory states that "the giraffe's neck became longer as it tried to reach for the leaves on tall trees," and Darwinism claims that "over the generations the giraffes that could reach for leaves in tall trees managed to survive."
But if the extension of the neck is requisite to the survival of the fittest in the evolutionary sense, then the baby giraffe and any other leaf-eating animals with short necks could not survive.



Also, it is said that "...the longer the neck the sooner the discovery of, and the better the chance for escape from enemies."
But on the other hand, long necks surely make them more conspicuous and readily visible to their enemies.
So it is obvious that the giraffe's neck is not long as the result of evolutionary change, nor because it is most needful for survival.
The sheep which cannot reach for tree leaves eats grass.
Neither can the sheep become a giraffe through the process of natural selection.
Now the Bible (God's Word) states that the original species of both plants and animals were made by God "according to its kind."
This must be true.
God made the giraffe a giraffe and the sheep a sheep from the beginning.


2. Mutation Does not Produce Good Species.

It is known that mutations occur at the rate of once or twice in one hundred thousand chances, and that in most cases they cause functional disability, demonstrating that repeated mutations result in retrogression and not in progression.
Mutations can be produced by treating the genes with chemicals, drugs, or radioactivity.
The nuclear radiation generated by the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the appearance of various abnormalities, physical impairment and still births.
Also drugs like thalidomide have had ill effects on the fetus causing the birth of freakish babies with poor hearing and short arms.
The results of many mutation experiments have shown that there is not a single case of a new species arising from mutation but only variants within the same species.
The same can be said for mutations arising from accidents of nature.


3. Total Absence of the "Missing Link" (Transition Stage) among Living Organisms.



Evolutionists arrange their fossils in order and claim: "Both plants and animals gradually evolved from the simple to the complex."
In other words, they contend that things evolved in the order A-B-C.
If that were true, in the process of evolution there should be a medium stage between A and B, and between B and C, the "missing links" species AB and BC.
But meticulous examination of the fossils has produced no discovery of any specimen in the transition stage.
Moreover, such medial links are not found anywhere among present-day plants and animals.
This also seems to validate the following words from the Bible: "The omniscient and almighty God created everything according to its kind."
If evolution is true, there should exist creatures whose hands, feet, and eyes are in the process of development.
But nowhere in the past or present are such organisms to be found.
All living things seem to be complete and self-sufficient.


4. Change of Species Impossible.

Appearance of variations within the same species (A1 or A2) or (B1 or B2) is not evolutionary change, but it is absolutely impossible for species A to become species B.
It is obvious from Mendel's Law of Heredity that there can be different varieties of dogs but a dog can never produce a cat.



It seems that the theory of evolution has confused evolution and variation, or that it errs in believing that during the process of the development of varieties there might be deviation into a new species.
Is not this a figment of imagination, rather than a scientific fact?
A true scientist is a man with an attitude that humbly acknowledges the facts.
Within the same species, there is a limit to the procreation of variations.
For example, breeding a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but mules are sterile and between themselves they cannot bear offspring.
Also a lion and a leopard can reproduce a leopon but it also remains sterile.
This demonstrates the limitation of procreativity to the same species.



In biological experiments, attempts have been made to unite an ovum of species A with a sperm of the closest resembling species B.
It was found that it is impossible for the sperm to penetrate into the ovum, if the partners involved are of two different species.
And the sperm dies even though it is implanted into the ovum after artificially removing its outer membrane.
Even if a dog and a cat, or a cow and a horse are crossbred, there is no offspring.
In this respect, the same is true in regards to man with a chimpanzee or a monkey.
This is because the blood and the chromosomes are not the same.
If there was a missing link it was not because of natural selection or adaptation by genetic engineering.

5. Why the Similarities in Structure and Growth?

Is not the reason for similarities in both plants and animals, that is, in their corresponding structures, physical organs and growth processes, due to the fact that they all have a common source?
Similarity is no proof for evolution. By no natural change can a dog house transform into a one-story wooden house, then into a steel-frame structure and then finally into a ferro-concrete building.Furthermore, a one-story wooden house cannot be made from a dog house.
Each one is made according to its respective kind and use.

By modern science, we can definitely confirm the fact that the man's sperm and the woman's ovum are "unique to mankind."
The human embryo can be identified as human embryo.
At no stage of growth in man is there a respiratory apparatus like the gill of a fish.
The piece of flesh in the embryo which resembles a gill develops into the auditory canal, the ear drum, the inner ear and ossicles. If you check the transformation you'll expect a spine to eliminate excrement if we were to believe evolutionists. That philogenesis to onthogenesis argument is absurd. We could well be more linked to pigs and chickens or rabbits than chimps!


All the one hundred eighty so-called vestigial organs in the human body which the early evolutionists claimed to have found, have been identified as vital and necessary hormone glands of the body by modern science.
These are evident facts derived from studies in the fields of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology and eugenics.


6. Absence of Evolutionary Progress.

According to the theory of evolution, man evolved through the following chain of stages over a long stretch of time: unicellular organisms (amoeba, etc)- invertebrates (jellyfish, sea anemone, etc)- amphibians - reptiles - mammals- man.
But if such is the case, then how can we explain the existence today of amoeba, jellyfish and fish which are not going through evolutionary development?
Recently, a fish fossil, supposedly fifteen million years old, was found in Yamagata Prefecture (Japan), and when it was compared to a living specimen of the same variety, hardly any change was found.
This is proof that there is no "evolutionary process" even after "fifteen million years".
The long-fin lungfish Coelacanth, renowned as a fossilized animal, was said by evolutionists to have become extinct some ninety million years ago at the time when fish were evolving into land animals.

But recently quite a few of this variety of fish were caught off the coast of Madagascar.
This again confirms the fact that the lungfish has always been a lungfish and that it was created "after its kind."
Even in the realm of plants, why is it that there is no alteration in the leaves of the existing maiden-hair tree, or of grapes when compared to leaf-fossils of these plants which are claimed to be several hundred million years old?


7. Noah's Flood.

In the Jurassic Period, the global climate was mild and there are evidences that there was lush tropical vegetation even at the south pole.
However, the earth's temperature dropped suddenly, making it unbearable for the dinosaurs, which then died abruptly because of the cold and thus became extinct.
The evolutionists do not know the cause of this phenomenon.
Not only the Bible gives an explanation of this catastrophe. The legends of Dilmun also explain about this, etc.


The book of Genesis gives the account of the world-wide "great flood."
The earth's surface up until that time was relatively even; the atmosphere was probably overlaid with a thick layer of moisture ("the waters above the firmament").
So the climate of the whole earth, as in a greenhouse, was mild throughout the year.
There are no annual rings in Paleozoic era trees because of the absence of temperature changes, demonstrating the prevalence of a mild climate throughout the year.
Also, the thick layer of moisture which covered the atmosphere served as a filter, absorbing and deflecting harmful cosmic rays which bombard the earth from outer space.
This may be an explanation for the long lifespan of the men in the Bible who lived before the flood.
It takes about five thousand seven hundred and thirty years for radioactive isotope Carbon-14, used in dating objects, to lose half of its radiation.
Before Noah's flood, the amount of isotope Carbon 14 was small because it was absorbed and deflected by the waters above the firmament.
Thus, if the atmospheric condition before Noah's flood is overlooked, there will be an outlandish error in the results of chronological measurement using this method.
The reason is obvious: the presence of isotope Carbon 14 was low from the beginning of time.
For this reason, we find the evolutionist's dating as against the Bible chronology to be extremely prolonged, and this, of course, is an erroneous calculation.
The supposition that with the stupendous lapse of time there might occur evolutionary progress is likewise false.
With the sudden collapse of the tremendous amount of "waters" that shrouded the earth's atmosphere together with the eruption of the subterranean waters, the greenhouse effect in the earth's climate was eliminated, and extreme cold set in at the north and south poles where the benefit of the sun was reduced by the slanting and weakness of the sun's rays.
This resulted in the sudden freezing of many plants and animals in these areas.
Besides this, much of the giant tropical flora and fauna of the earth was buried beneath the sediment of the flood.
These became lignite, coal and petroleum, transformed by the action of geothermal heat, and they are now being exploited by men.
It is difficult to explain these phenomena if we disregard the catastrophe of the great flood.
As we know, dead animals and plants left alone and exposed to the elements disintegrate and turn into dust.
At the time of the flood, the earth's temperature fell abruptly and the crust of the earth shrank and became distorted.
Rugged terrain resulted.
High mountains and deep seas appeared as the waters receded (see the Bible - Psalm 104:8).
Today, fossils of sea shells can be found on high mountains. And the Grand Canyon and other numerous rock formations throughout the world give many indications of the occurrence of the flood.


8. Earth Strata and Fossils

According to the theory of evolution, the older the stratum, the more simple the forms of the organisms discovered in it, and the more recent the strata, the more complex the organisms discovered in them.
However, it can also be claimed that most of the fossils and the various strata were formed of buried creatures and sediment that settled during and after the Great Flood (of Noah's time) that covered the whole earth.
The many layers of the belt-like strata give evident proof of this.



In the lowest stratum we find many fossils of plants and animals normally living on the ocean bed, and as we advance to upper strata we find first fish, then amphibians, and then land mammals.
No doubt humans and animals with higher intelligence fled to higher elevations as the flood waters advanced, and it was from there that they were swept away by the swelling waves and currents, and thus buried in the relatively upper strata where we now find them.
Thus, the strata do not necessarily reveal the progress of evolution.
We must also keep in mind that the fossils of living things will not be formed unless those organisms are buried alive, or at least shortly after death.
If dead organisms remain in water or exposed to air, they will soon disintegrate and decay.
The traditions of the Great Flood have been found in the cultures of many widely separated races and languages.


9. Regarding Primitive Man.

The so-called "primitive man," such as the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon man, has a larger skull capacity than modern man. He stands erect and is not in any way inferior to man of today.
Even among contemporary men people of varying skeletal shapes can be found. Perhaps they were the ones who were taken from the gods to be genetically "formed" as the Bible says in Hebrew. Because it doesn't say "create" (barah). This is also explaiend in detail in Sumerian account as I said before.
Progress in civilization and culture will be readily acknowledged, but it is also noteworthy that there are building skills found in primitive civilizations which are superior to those employed today.
Recently it was discovered that the fragments of fossils of the Java man, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus are skeletal remains of large monkeys.


10. Life from Lifeless Matter?



In recent years, with the great progress in molecular biology research, it has become clear that life cannot be generated from a lifeless substance even with the passage of hundreds of millions of years.
This fact is obvious even from Pasteur's experiments.


11. From the Laws of Science.

Supposing man made a cell, if it is left alone, with the passing of time, it will disintegrate and return to its original component elements.
This happens in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy), which states that, "Bodies of complex structure gradually deteriorate into simpler forms."
Thus, even the laws of science do not validate the evolutionary progress of matter but its regression.




12. Sexless Forms to Sexual Forms - Why?

Why do cells, through the process of simple cell division, increase by two's four's, and eight's etc.?
Also, how does sexless reproduction change into sexual reproduction?
In order to effect production of offspring by union of a male and female, it is necessary for the male and female reproductive organs to evolve fully into child-bearing capability, simultaneously and close to each other.
If such a transformation were possible for both sexes at the same time, then evolution is nothing short of a miracle.


13. The Intricate and Exquisite Cell.



When a cell is viewed through an electron microscope, it is astounding to see that the structure of the cell is as complex and exquisite as a lively metropolis.
In the core are the DNA (nucleic acid) chains, and for man, this is 1.5 meters long.
The chains twist in a spiral, and are parallel; they are constructed in ladder-like steps, and over 5,000,000,000 varied genetic codes are contained in the steps.
5,000,000,000 is equivalent to the number of letters contained in a thousand complete sets of encyclopedias.
It is more than the world's population. Imagine it!
All this is found in the nucleus of the cell which can be barely seen through a microscope.
It is clear from this that it is impossible for even a cell to have evolved or come about by mere chance.
In your brain there are 100,000,000,000 nerve cells and even one of these is more complex and more exquisitely made than an electronic computer.
Furthermore, they all work in coordination and in mutual relationship to each other.
Indeed, your brain is a wonderful organ.


14. Renewal of 1,200,000,000,000 cells in the Human Body.

Your body is made of a vast multitude of cells - approximately 60,000,000,000,000 - of varied characteristics.
Of these, 2%, or about 1,200,000,000,000 cells, are freshly produced, the old ones being destroyed and discharged from the body, daily.
No scientist can make even one single cell.
Who produces the new 1,200,000,000,000 cells every day and causes you to live?
It is none other than the almighty and omniscient God, the same who gives the Laws making the physicist to believe in at least the weak anthropic principle.