First off, this post isn't an attack on the Theory of Evolution. I'm not a biologist, or any kind of Scientist, but I'm very interested in living things and I want to understand as much about them as possible. My issues with the Theory of Evolution could be due to my own ignorance, which is why I posted this thread to see if anyone could shed some light on it.
Anyway, notice I said "Theory of Evolution," and not just evolution. For me, there is a big difference between the two, although admittedly, it's probably just semantics.
The Theory of Evolution encompasses more than the relatively straight forward assertion that living things evolve and adapt to environmental changes and pressure over time.
Evolution, as in adaptation, is also an undeniable fact. It's been witnessed countless of times in nature, and in laboratories. Adaptation seems to be an inherent quality in all life forms, and no one in their right mind would dispute this.
The Theory of Evolution though, isn't a fact, but a theory as it's title states. However, it's still putatively regarded as factual by many; even in Scientific circles.
Now lets look at the most controversial aspects of Theory of Evolution and what they suppose:
1) That all Life on Earth has a common ancestor
2) That Life on Earth arose from inorganic matter via natural processes (abiogenesis).
3) That the incredible diversity of Life now present on Earth came about due to random mutations occurring over billions of years in tandem with natural selection, which preserves beneficial mutations, thus increasing an organisms' chances of survival and propagation.
As far as I'm aware (and I may be wrong), there is good evidence supporting the first assertion (that life on Earth has a common ancestor), but evidence supporting the second and third assertions is severely lacking.
I'm sure most people on this forum have heard of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey and their experiments to attempt to show how abiogenesis is possible, and their subsequent failure in that regard. Creating amino acids is apparently easy, but life is so much more than that; as modern researchers are now beginning to understand with the discovery of the mind boggling complexity and vast amounts of information present in life forms.
And now, mutation. This to me is almost as retarded as abiogenesis I have to say...
Yes, mutations do occur fairly often, but they are mostly neutral, harmful or even fatal, and are typically repaired by the cell. But even if all mutations were benefical, could they truly explain the rich bio diversity that is now present on Earth?
No, I don't think so....at least not if you consider the fact that they are stochastic, unintelligent and occur gradually over very long periods of time. Being stochastic, unintelligent and gradual, I just don't see how mutations by themselves could explain the incredible bio diversity that exists on Earth.
As molecular biology is now discovering, life forms are unbelievably complicated. There are many intricate and seemingly independent parts, which must operate in a harmonious fashion with other intricate and seemingly independent parts to support the life form itself and particular functions.
I've read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and in it, he uses the bacterial flagellum as an example of something he calls an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is a system "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
Bacterial flagellum is apparently so exquisitely composed and complex, that it in many ways completely surpasses the most complex machines built by the hand of man.. And it's all the more amazing because it's on the nano scale.
Here's a great video on how amazing bacterial flagellum are in addition to the link I posted above.
And yet, Darwinists expect people to believe a random, and unintelligent process could have created something like this, in addition to hundreds of millions of life forms that have existed throughout Time on Earth? :\
But even more damning than the unbelievable complexity of bacterial flagellum, is the fact that the genes (up to 50 of them) required for their functioning are as Behe stated, irreducibly complex. In other words, removing or tampering with any of the genes that control the production and or function of these proteins, results in a complete and utter loss of mobility.
Another video on bacterial flagellum. To see how they are irreducibly complex, fast forward to 1:48.
Now with how Darwinian evolutionists present mutation as being random and consisting of many gradual changes over extended periods of time, could mutation in tandem with natural selection (and be aware that Natural selection by definition would not select traits or attributes that were not completely functional) produce such intricate and interdependent parts as flagella?
Thats one hell of a leap of faith I must say.. Unless mutations across large sections of the genome occurred at the same time, which seems impossible given the contraints of the stochastic nature of mutations.
Also, have evolutionary scientists ever demonstrated hard evidence of how mutation can cause macroevolution; that is when new species evolve from old ones?
From what I understand, Scientists have performed countless tests in laboratories on creatures that have short life spans and extremely fast proliferation rates, for example bacteria and fruit flies. They subject these creatures to environmental stress, and play havoc with their genomes, all in an effort to induce mutation.
And of course, mutations occur very rapidly in these simple creatures.......yet to my knowledge, no Scientist has ever succeeded in changing a particular species of fruit fly or bacteria into something other than what it had already been.
There are plenty of other valid criticisms of the theory of evolution, such as the fossil record and not to mention, the presence of vast quantities of information in living creatures.. Evolutionary biologists have no reasonable explanation for the latter in particular.
How did information get coded into DNA? Can random mutations actually create new information? Given the nature of information, I cannot even conceive of any natural, unintelligent process being responsible for such a thing, yet evolutionary biologists expect people to blindly believe that such a thing is possible?
Anyway, these are just my thoughts, on a very complicated issue. I don't know everything, but I'm not an idiot. The more I read about molecular biology and intelligent design, the more my stomach turns at the willful delusion and lack of scientific principles which evolutionary biologists have demonstrated with trying to keep evolution as NATURAL as possible; even when the evidence favoring natural explanations are nonsensical, verging on the point of ridiculousness..
I'm sure this post will garner a strong reaction by many people.. Just remember to keep it as civil as possible. Remember, nobody knows everything :biggrin:
Facebook
Twitter