Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute

[vickers_m]

Hey, I was wondering if anyone here who is a creationist (young earth, old earth, ID supporter or anyone who doubts macro/darwinian evolution) could help me respond to or debunk some of these various evidences for evolution. I've searched a lot of creation websites and I haven't found anything that responds specifically to these evidences. I need help terribly! I"m losing my faith! I want there to be a God and I don't like the idea of no afterlife! Please help! Here are the things I need help responding to.




The fact that humans have one fewer chromosome than apes

The fact that a population of domestic sheep can no longer breed with their ancestors

fossils of dinosaurs with feathers

Consistency of phylogenetic and morphological trees

Observable evolution of HIV

Ring species

Metamorphosed axolotls

Observation of speciation

Distribution of animals on continents and islands

Self-replicating polymers

Tail genes (switched off by mutation) identical to chimpanzees

Broken vitamin C genes identical to chimpanzees

ERVs identical in form and place to chimpanzees

Chromosome 2 identical to fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes

mudskippers


Any help with these will be much welcomed. Be blessed.

[Canuckster1127]

Have you examined the main board and articles there that examine any of those issues? It's rather unrealistic to throw up this many issues (which you don't elaborate upon) and expect people to figure out specifically what you take issue with.

[vickers_m]

Pseudogenes and Archaeoptryx I have found a few things. The rest I havent yet.

[August]

What specifically are the issues with those?

[Gman]

I need help terribly! I"m losing my faith!

Which faith? It's all faith based..

[Silvertusk]

Hi.

Well Archaeoptryx was a fake anyway. Lee Strobel mentions it in his book Case for Creator.

A couple of things about evolution anyway. I used to fear it, but now I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that it might have happened that way. But it certainly was not random. I truely believe that if evolution is true and you wound the clock back and repeated it all again you would get exactly the same thing anyway.

In Genesis it reads

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 1:11

Notice that this could imply that God is letting the land itself develop - by itself.

then it goes on...

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 1:20

So this might also imply that the animals do the same - according to their kind.

So I believe that God sets up the laws of nature, sustains his creation - but also allows nature to run, otherwise why set up all the laws in the first place. When he breaks his own laws of nature - these are your miracles.

Why does he do this - why can't he just create without the whole evolution process. I am certain he could - but C.S. Lewis covers this quite nicely in his book Problem of Pain when he talks about freewill.

“We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by his creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay if the principal were carried out to its logical conclusion , evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them. All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of the Christian faith; but the very concept of a common and therefore stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare.”

The last sentence nails this home - miracles are rare by definition and we need a stable world with its natural laws to allow us perfect freewill so as to have that perfect relationship with God. So evolution may well be a byproduct of this, even though God knew the out come of it.

My second point on this is that again if evolution is true then you would still need the incredible fine tuning of the initial stages of the universe and the incredible fine tuning of the earth in order for evolution to even happen in the first place, so if it is true it is very likely that the earth is the only place it has ever happened - at least to the level we see around us up to the development of intelligent life.

Basically what I am saying if it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the way it happen, then it would not effect my faith at all - because of these factors. So either way I am very happy and still love my God.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

[vickers_m]

What specifically are the issues with those?

I haven't found anything on this site or other creationist sites that even addresses most of these things, let alone refute them.

[Telstra Robs]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... nebad.html

This one answers the issues regarding the panda thumbs and the blind spots.

I think August was asking you to elaborate on those issues. Instead of just saying they are issues, elaborate on why they are issues.

EDIT: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html

I think this one should cover psuedogenes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And is the observable mutation of HIV referring to natural selection (micro-evolution) where it is still the same species but with mutations (much in the way natural selection allowed humans to adapt to varieties of climates), which is observable, or is it macro-evolution which suggests that a number of mutations can lead to a new species?

[neo-x]

Evolution is not a problem with all Christianity, I believe in evolution with some miraculous touches. And by the way you really wanna put your faith on the block because you think evolution defies God, that is pretty pre-assumed, don't you think.

You are looking for God in the wrong perspective, I use to say 'it is like trying to find Alexander the great in your mommy's cook book.'

Let us say we give you or someone gives you all these answers. would that make your faith in God stronger, No, it will just confirm that there are a lot of things unexplained by Bible. And tomorrow some new theory will pose more questions. My point, you will keep searching for answers all your life. If you are looking for God, try some faith.

[vickers_m]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... nebad.html

This one answers the issues regarding the panda thumbs and the blind spots.

I think August was asking you to elaborate on those issues. Instead of just saying they are issues, elaborate on why they are issues.

EDIT: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html

I think this one should cover psuedogenes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And is the observable mutation of HIV referring to natural selection (micro-evolution) where it is still the same species but with mutations (much in the way natural selection allowed humans to adapt to varieties of climates), which is observable, or is it macro-evolution which suggests that a number of mutations can lead to a new species?

Thank U I'm looking this over, but I'm still worried about the other things on the list.

[vickers_m]

Ok, I think those responses were good, so to simplify things I I revised the list and took a few things off.

[DRDS]

I think the tail "structures" were proven to not be actual tails but some kind of mutational structure with no bone. I might be wrong, but I think that's what I read somewhere.

[Telstra Robs]

Once again some elaboration on these points would be greatly helpful.

Looking at the list...

The fact that humans have one fewer chromosome than apes
How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

Observable evolution of HIV
But is it a new species? If it's just mutations to improve the viability of an existing species, well, that's observed in all organisms as far as I know and doesn't illustrate how evolution causes new species to arise
Ring species

Metamorphosed axolotls
From what I know of metamorphosed axolotls, aren't they just using existing DNA to continue to grow, shutting off a hormone to prevent metamorphosis (which can be added artificially in order to induce metamorphosis) so they can live a fully aquatic life when terrestrial living is impossible? It isn't the creation of a new species, merely an existing species with a tiny change, causing it.... not to grow up?

Observation of speciation
What type of speciation? Is it completely new species that have evolved from previous ones, or just mutation to help an existing species continue to survive, while staying as the same species?

Distribution of animals on continents and islands
I don't know how this proves evolution? Are you suggesting that without evolution, animal life would be restricted to one area?


I'll have to look into some of the others, but a lot of the things you provide are merely examples of natural selection, which is not mutually exclusive to evolution. A number of ancient Greek philosophers such as Lucretius proposed similar ideas to "survival of the fittest" while Al Jahiz (born 776 AD) proposed something very similar to natural selection.

The following article should explain the differences between natural selection (microevolution) and macroevolution.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

[vickers_m]

The fact that humans have one fewer chromosome than apes
How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

I dunno It looks as though we came from them, if it wasn't so would there be even MORE differences?

But is it a new species? If it's just mutations to improve the viability of an existing species, well, that's observed in all organisms as far as I know and doesn't illustrate how evolution causes new species to arise

It may or may not be. Upon closer investigation it could fit ok in either worldview theistic or naturalistic.

From what I know of metamorphosed axolotls, aren't they just using existing DNA to continue to grow, shutting off a hormone to prevent metamorphosis (which can be added artificially in order to induce metamorphosis) so they can live a fully aquatic life when terrestrial living is impossible? It isn't the creation of a new species, merely an existing species with a tiny change, causing it.... not to grow up?

Well the creationist in me thinks this could be another example of a creative "mosaic" while the evil evolutionist in me thinks this is direct evidence for a water bounded species trying to evolve into a land dweller. It's difficult to say.

What type of speciation? Is it completely new species that have evolved from previous ones, or just mutation to help an existing species continue to survive, while staying as the same species?

Well I can't give you specific examples yet since I"m still studying this, but I assume committed atheists certainly have them. They may have a whole library full of examples.

I don't know how this proves evolution? Are you suggesting that without evolution, animal life would be restricted to one area?

I know evolutionists love to use this but as far as whether or not it fits creation or evolution is hard to tell.


TK U.

[jlay]

Well I can't give you specific examples yet since I"m still studying this, but I assume committed atheists certainly have them. They may have a whole library full of examples.

1st. No one has yet to arrive at a consistent agreed upon definition of speciation. Other than that it is change within the very bottom of the classification chart. There is no example of 'speciation' that results in a genetically distinct creature beyond this phase. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. If one species can't or actually won't interbreed, it doesn't prove particles to people evolution. It proves that there is some mechanism programmed into the gentetic code that results in this effect. A fact that is demonstrated through test and observation.
The claims of speciation being 'proof' of Darwinian evolution is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. It doesn't matter how many examples of this we have.