Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Akka]

you realize we make up, like, most of the world population.

Fortunately, no, and anyway, not the part that matters, thanks (your inexistant) God.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

How did God originate?

A lot of people get around this by claiming God is eternal. No, I never really got the logic in that, either.

 

[Luckymoose]

These questions are asking things evolution doesn't cover. Notably the origin of life and how the mind words.

 

[MrCynical]

But self-replicating macro-molecules are not life, and there is no evidence they can become life. Also many multiple macro-molecules of various combinations are required for life and again there is no evidence they can combine and remain combined in forms useful to life. The creation of more diverse molecules through the addition of other ingredients is logical, but unless they can combine and remain combined in forms useful to life it is also meaningless

So what's your definition of "Life" if not self-replication? Evolution requires self-replication, and some random pemutation from generation to generation, nothing more. You can define "Life" to be more than that, but then you have to accept the evolution of life stretches back further than what you consider to be alive. We already have RNA sequences, which under the right conditions can self replicate and are hence capable of evolving. They may not be how life started, but they are a way it could have begun. Ultimately you're still looking for something far more complicated than necessary as a starting point - basically a large chunk of a modern organism's biochemistry all in one go. This isn't required for evolution to occur.

Life tends to be a vague term. There's a natural tendency to divide things into two sharp categories of living and non-living, but in practice the line's blurry wherever you draw it.

 

[Puck Nutty]

Sex exists to allow mixing of new traits from two different lines. Let's say we have two organisms of the same species which have had two different beneficial mutations. with sex, it is possible for a child organism to blend the two lines thereby benefiting from both mutations. Without sex this can't happen.

Thus it does help stay ahead of parasites and viruses but it is far more powerful than just that.

Well, humans could have evolved a system wherein females lay their eggs somewhere for the male to fertilize at his convenience. Many species of fish do this, but we don't.

I think human sex has more to do with protecting the ovum at all stages of gestation as well as creating a pleasurable activity that encourages reproduction.

I think that's what the question in the OP was driving at.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Ah, now here we have a good question. I can provide a decent idea as to why sex originated, but not why sex continues to exist. The latter is an outstanding question in biology.

There's a good explanation for why sex continues to exist: it significantly increases the genetic diversity of species and allows them to be far more resistant to stress (this is a fairly big concern to have regarding where modern agriculture is trending). Bacteria have only very limited ways of increasing genetic variation because they reproduce asexually.

And, I'm not sure if this already been mentionned, but the answer to most of the question dealing with things that have happened so early in the origins of life can never be answered with 100% certainty (barring the invention of a time machine and appropriate equipment to analyze and collect data). The best we can do is provide plausible explanations based on information that we have. If scientists were to synthetically engineer a cell, along with all its components from materials that they believe were present in a abiotic world, that does not prove that life originated in this manner. It simply shows that it could have happened like that.

 

[Leoreth]

Actually, if we ever invent a time machine a stable time loop would be the likeliest answer to the "origin" of life.

 

[Puck Nutty]

There's a good explanation for why sex continues to exist: it significantly increases the genetic diversity of species and allows them to be far more resistant to stress (this is a fairly big concern to have regarding where modern agriculture is trending). Bacteria have only very limited ways of increasing genetic variation because they reproduce asexually.

And, I'm not sure if this already been mentionned, but the answer to most of the question dealing with things that have happened so early in the origins of life can never be answered with 100% certainty (barring the invention of a time machine and appropriate equipment to analyze and collect data). The best we can do is provide plausible explanations based on information that we have. If scientists were to synthetically engineer a cell, along with all its components from materials that they believe were present in a abiotic world, that does not prove that life originated in this manner. It simply shows that it could have happened like that.

Also, asexual reproduction would require huge amounts of energy for a multi-celled organism to accomplish. Sex is more efficient.

 

[Arakhor]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution? Is it because it disagrees with Genesis and is therefore Bad and Wrong?

 

[Leoreth]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution? Is it because it disagrees with Genesis and is therefore Bad and Wrong?

I guess you know the answer.

Spoiler :

It is yes.

 

[Abegweit]

Also, asexual reproduction would require huge amounts of energy for a multi-celled organism to accomplish. Sex is more efficient.

There are plenty of examples of multi-celled organisms that reproduce asexually. They seem to find the energy. Some organisms go both ways.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Also, asexual reproduction would require huge amounts of energy for a multi-celled organism to accomplish. Sex is more efficient.

I don't really see why asexual reproduction would require eukaryotes to expend much more energy. The cost for each is 1 cell.

 

[kramerfan86]

Honestly it isnt even worth debating creationists. Usually their grasp on basic scientific principles is weak, even one flaw in science=completely false while multiple flaws in their belief can be ignored, explained by "original sin", or satan, and they try to lump every scientific theory together so that one being shaky makes them all shaky. I mean you could make gravity look like an unsure concept if you try to tie it to enough other less proven theories.

This isnt to say creationists are nonintelligent or bad people, but many times their devotion to their beliefs causes them to retreat into non-debatable circular logic.

 

[emzie]

There's a good explanation for why sex continues to exist: it significantly increases the genetic diversity of species and allows them to be far more resistant to stress (this is a fairly big concern to have regarding where modern agriculture is trending). Bacteria have only very limited ways of increasing genetic variation because they reproduce asexually.

And yet bacteria are undisputed masters of this planet. Speaking of that, I'm kind of surprised that the OP's list lacked the origin of the eukaryotoic cell (perhaps more improbable than life itself?). And it's not as if sexual reproduction is the only way more-complex life could work -- bdelloid rotifers demonstrate that.

There's no doubt a major benefit to sexual reproduction when faced with multiple stressers at once. A subset of that, Red Queen is also well supported. I remain skeptical that this truly outweighs only contributing half yourself to offspring. To me, halving yourself only makes sense with long-term foresight. Else, you're not going to benefit from the potential of running into multiple stressors in the present where you're under limited stress.

I don't really see why asexual reproduction would require eukaryotes to expend much more energy. The cost for each is 1 cell.

At the outset, it doesn't require any more energy than a female making an egg. It may require more energy after offspring are born, since only one parent is there to feed / defend them.

 

[timtofly]

I think that people tend to forget that the right to preach evolution was won in a courtroom. My question is why are "men" afraid to teach both side by side? Why has it gotten to the point that one is ridiculed and has to "fight" back. Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

Neither side has all the facts. One side has a book. The other side has predictive guesses that sometimes seem logical and sometimes are swept under the rug. Neither side was there when things were happening, to record and "scientifically" address the situation. So it seems to me that both sides have to have "faith" in the unkown.

 

[Takhisis]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution? Is it because it disagrees with Genesis and is therefore Bad and Wrong?

Yes! Except that if we take the book of Genesis literally enough then there's a lot of water on top of us and the Sun is a lamp.

That's why faith without reason is just mindless fanatism.

 

[bathsheba666]

I think that people tend to forget that the right to preach evolution was won in a courtroom.

Yes. We should not take enlightenment for granted, and should resist being dragged back into the dark ages where superstition holds sway.

My question is why are "men" afraid to teach both side by side?

Probably because there are not many lessons where science and religion both belong.
Creationism is not scientific, so teach it somewhere else, and do not presume to contaminate science by comparing the two.

Why has it gotten to the point that one is ridiculed and has to "fight" back. Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

Creationism is ridiculed because it is ridiculous. And the attempts to besmirch science by false comparision take its proponents beyond mere ridiculousness towards dishonesty.

Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

As with so many quotes from creationists - words like 'logic' suddenly seem vested with a whole new meaning. This should not happen outside the pages of Lewis Carroll.

Neither side has all the facts. One side has a book.

Your book is a poor substitute for facts.

The other side has predictive guesses that sometimes seem logical and sometimes are swept under the rug. Neither side was there when things were happening, to record and "scientifically" address the situation. So it seems to me that both sides have to have "faith" in the unkown.

Occasionally in the early morning I can pick up an american channel where preachers, - in the middle of many individuals throwing their hands up in the air - run a lot of words together in a narrative thread that makes little sense, but always seems to end up with a suggestion that anyone at home credulous enough is free to send in lots of money.

Find someone suggestible, then fleece them.
This has always been the way of religion. There have always been a supply of the credulous, and the future offers little respite from this.

I am not suggesting every religious person is credulous, of course - someone has to count the collections and mount the marketing campaigns.

So it remains important to hold fast against the false preachers.

It seems to me, that Creation.com seems, to you, to be worthy of reading.
Why ? this seems to me to be an unknown.

Have faith in it? - I don't see the reason in this.
And give me reason over faith any day.

How dare you presume to compare these two things ?

 

[emzie]

I think that people tend to forget that the right to preach evolution was won in a courtroom. My question is why are "men" afraid to teach both side by side? Why has it gotten to the point that one is ridiculed and has to "fight" back. Logically it is the survival of the fittest, but it is easier to believe what one "thinks" he sees, than to have faith in what one cannot see?

Neither side has all the facts. One side has a book. The other side has predictive guesses that sometimes seem logical and sometimes are swept under the rug. Neither side was there when things were happening, to record and "scientifically" address the situation. So it seems to me that both sides have to have "faith" in the unkown.

You bring me evidence of creationism, or intelligent design, and I'm willing to listen to you. It would be the single greatest scientific discovery in history.

Of course even if you did have this, we still wouldn't be teaching biblical creationism in a class room -- no reason to give the bible's account special treatment over any other groups.

 

[bhsup]

Ahh cool, I love these threads that are just intended to be pile-up attacks on Christians. w00t. GO ATHEISM GO!

Original post followed by 6 pages of circle-jerking. Impressive!

 

[emzie]

Ahh cool, I love these threads that are just intended to be pile-up attacks on Christians. w00t. GO ATHEISM GO!

Original post followed by 6 pages of circle-jerking. Impressive!

Rebuking creationism isn't an attack on Christianity.