Simple Objections to Evolution

By   |  January 1, 2009

The idea of common descent and transmutation of species has existed for thousands of years. However, it was not until Charles Darwin published ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1859 during the Industrial Revolution that the theory of evolutionary biology was widely accepted. But as desperately as humans wanted to believe that they had created themselves, especially in light of their many recent technological advances, the theory of evolution failed to provide a reliable alternative to God.

Many Bible-spouting or otherwise anti-evolution fanatics like to call upon things like Noah’s flood or miracles they’ve heard about in the Himalayas to reaffirm their disbelief in a self-created universe. But on a more universal level, it would seem that proving the unique nature of mankind as a species is more than sufficient to challenge the notion of a ‘rise of complexity.’ That is, if man can be shown to have enough unique qualities that could not be the result of sequential evolution, the theory fails.

Reason: There are no ‘less-developed’ versions of human reason in other species. Whereas a vulture might instinctively circle lower in the sky in the face of an impending storm, mankind reasonably expects the same storm because the winter season is upon him. Furthermore, although the idea of natural selection is valid, Darwin himself recognized that it could not explain the vast quantities of non-sequential instincts in the animal kingdom, calling it the ‘one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory.’

Morality: Mankind has a universal sense of right and wrong, unique among the species. I’ve yet to hear of a lion kicked out of his pride for murdering an innocent gazelle, or a daffodil on trial for rape because his pollen got up into something it wasn’t supposed to.

Music and art: The drive to beautify and reflect on the elements of life is undeniably a non-sequential quality. Creative genius and aesthetic attractions cannot spontaneously emerge.

Language: Not only does mankind have a special brain capability that caters specifically to spoken language, but the human mouth, lips, tongue and larynx are perfectly suited to play along, with no sign of such harmony anywhere in sight for other species.

Females: Although debatable, humans are the only species in which the females are more physically attractive than the males – the sole exception being, perhaps, Stephen Colbert.

Domination: The natural world would exist in perfect harmony without mankind. We are the only species that regularly contributes irreversible destruction and damage to the Earth because we are the only species capable of committing evil. Our welfare is inherently dependent on dominating all other species.

Ideology: Perhaps related to our sense of morality. I’m not sure, but it seems like we are the only species that premeditatedly kills each other for next to no reason. Or perhaps it’s because of too much reason. In any case, I’m still waiting to meet a communist dolphin.

Sex: Humans are the only species that has sex in private, face to face and on a regular basis just for fun. The Postal Service addresses this in their song ‘Such Great Heights’: ‘I am thinking it’s a sign that the freckles in our eyes are mirror images, and when we kiss, they’re perfectly aligned. And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes, like puzzle pieces from the clay.’ On a side note, we are the only species that wears clothes and shoes.

A few other interesting points:

Interdependence: All species rely on each other to survive. If the Earth as we know it is the result of millions of chance circumstances, it sure turned out well.

Mutation: Only negative mutations have ever been observed in any species. Never has a physical mutation aided a species, let alone resulted in future beneficial qualities.

Time: According to the theory of evolution, it took millions of years for mankind to figure out how to cultivate, hunt, invent the wheel, etc., and yet, in the last few hundred years alone, we’ve discovered the steam engine, the car, electricity, the computer and the safety pin? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Signs of age: Evolutionists repeatedly ask why, if the Earth did not evolve, along with the life upon it, for millions of years, does it appear by measurements and patterns to be so old? The simple answer lies, perhaps, in the age-old understanding of the union of form and function. Not only is the Earth more beautiful because of its signs of age, but it is also more efficient. Indeed, without mountains and valleys and millions of species, the vast ecosystem we know to be Earth, the perfect equation for life in complete equilibrium, would be beyond impossible.

Original life: For life to have arisen by chance, amino acids would have needed to first come together spontaneously into perfect chains to create proteins (the average protein being 400 amino acids long), which then would have needed to combine with DNA, etc. to create living organisms. The problem is that peptide bonds are needed for amino acids to combine. Life could not have originated in water because it breaks peptide bonds apart. Life could not have originated on land because the oxygen-rich environment breaks peptide bonds apart. But maybe billions of years ago, there was no oxygen on Earth. No oxygen means no ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks peptide bonds apart, too.

Physics: The First Law of Thermodynamics states the conservation of energy. Did this universe come from nothing? Only a supernatural creation can explain this law.

Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!

Share This Story:

Page ID #538  -  Last updated on
Tags:  

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

34 Comments on “Simple Objections to Evolution”  (RSS)

  1. Would it not stand to reason in the possibility that both a creator and evolution are true? consider that if life was just an accident it would not seem likely that it would continue to thrive. But since it did we have to consider that it also evolves. The earth is in constant change so in order for life to continue it must adapt to those changes. To think otherwise would be illogical.

    personally i believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I believe that God is the artist of the universe. Every thing around us points to creation. it also shows a world in constant change, constantly evolving to accommodate those changes.

    just my opinion.

  2. JJ wont respond to my post? at least admit when you’re wrong.

  3. Muahahaha^2 : it won’t make evoluntionary sense to say that monkeys are our ancestors. Because monkeys and human are separate species derived from a common ancestor. You don’t see semi-monkeys because monkey and human do not interpret due to evolution theory’s postulates that monkey and human are separate species and therefore cannot be interbred. Monkeys do not turn into human even in the long run, because their natural selection favoured their present modes of survival. Like dolphins are not turning into whales, because they are “happy” they way they are.

  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

    A majority of scientists over the world withholds the ideas of progressive creationism or theistic evolution and considers evolution compatible to progressive religious views.

    I think it is very interesting how the author argues that human is different from animals, while evolution theory proposes that all species are different due to natural selection. Therefore, nobody will attempt to argue that according to evolution we are no different than lion, tigers and bears.
    (oh mine!)

    Interdependence: All species rely on each other to survive. If the Earth as we know it is the result of millions of chance circumstances, it sure turned out well.—–I think you meant “random selection” or “probbability”.

    Mutation: mutation is the single most powerful driving forces of evolution. There is no positive or negative mutation. Mutation happens all the time, in human, in animals, in plants. HIV virus mutates every time it infects a new human host over a period of time, it is positive for the virus but negative for human. Human developed many resistance to virus and bacteria due to mutation. Of course viruses and bacteria are constantly mutating too. Therefore, we have the crisis of antibiotics. Mutation not flavoured by natural selection generally will not get their genetic materials passed down to offsprings, therefore will be negative.

    Overall I really appreciate the author’s efforts to present arguements from both sides.

  5. Agreed that data and theory should match, the problem I have with your writing is that it is dismissive rather than constructive.
    In regards to my comments, what exactly do you feel was emotional about them, I merely point out that your research is poor, which is presumably why you use derogation to defend your writing. I have only stated that you need to do further research and used one of your own quotes upon you, it’s interesting to note however that you felt the need to use a biblical quote as opposed to many others that would be just as ideal in context, perhaps a religious slip on your part.
    Anyway to end all this futile sparring shall we instead agree that until science, or religion come up with undeniable proof that they are right, then the truth about intelligent life will remain unknown, untill one dies anyway! =)

  6. Are you still talking, fool? lol

    Fine, then read this one instead:
    http://www.scientificmethod.com/

    If the data doesn’t fit, the theory needs adjusting. That is my only point, and the point of the scientific method. Now if only you could learn to apply the same concepts to your emotional comments…

  7. Wikipe4dia, you use wikipedia for information? Now I understand your poor research, I once tried to use wiki as a research tool only to be put off when I came across a section that described Adolf Hitler as a missunderstood leader who was falsly accused of genocide(holocaust), etc. While I agree that wiki is usefull, you have to remember that it is poorly regulated and that is why you should back up your research by rechecking against reputable organisations. In this case the information is correct, but if that is what you are trying to use against my comment then I suggest that you should use it on your “objections”, just because some of the data doesn’t fit, does not mean you can ignore it. Also science has to allow for the fact that it does not know everything, that is why they have to define concepts as theories so as to allow for new data to aid in reinterpretation of current theories.
    I will quite happily be silent, will you do some real research?

  8. @ “searcher” …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    maybe you should stop talking so much. ;)

  9. Due to the simple fact that you cannot state catagorically that evolution has not progressed in such a way as to create intelligent(in your terms) life anywhere else in the universe, then you cannot make a presumption that evolution can be dismissed, and that is with you ignoring all the evidence on this planet alone that disproves your rather “simple objections”, perhaps some real research may help you to avoid writing such interminable drivel.
    As you yourself have quoted, A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.

    Or as I prefer, “The wise man knows to listen, while the fool only talks”

  10. 1st law of thermodynamics is empirical and it’s classical. Sure, it fits well within the Universe today, but not necessarily in a very youg Universe. You know, quantum effects, quantum-gravity and all of that.

  11. “” Mutation: Only negative mutations have ever been observed in any species. Never has a physical mutation aided a species, let alone resulted in future beneficial qualities. “”

    o rly?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

  12. Keep writing JJ, your sheer stupidity is incredibly amusing.
    Proof positive of the utter crap graduates that todays western education systems produce.

  13. Why can’t creationism be the “why” and evolution be the “how”. If I were an all knowing immortal god, I would make sure that the organisms I had created had a method to adapt to change. Otherwise they would likely die off or kill each other. And being immortal would make watching the changes more interesting than a static (more or less) system “going through the motions”.

    – Females: being more attractive, really depends on your perspective
    – Sex: Could it be possible that we view sex/nudity as immoral which would cause us to hide it/our bodies?
    Not all people share your views about sex/nudity
    – Probability: If you ever doubt the chances of earth (in its present state) one only needs to consider the law of truly large numbers. ie given an infinite amount of possibilities and time it is nearly certain that almost any event will eventually occur. (think and infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters, typing for eternity. With a limited number of symbols in an alphabet you will eventually write every book that ever is, was, or will be). For similar reasons there is likely some form of life on other planets. They may not be flaming collegetimes.com yet, but they probably will one day.
    – Reasons for Universe to exist: who knows? I don’t. That same line of reasoning could be applied to “Why does God exist?” I one thinks that God exists “just because” then it is just as likely that the universe exists for similar reasons.

    @Muahahaha^2
    I don’t understand why you dislike monkeys so much? Humans are no better/worse than any other creature.

    Long story short: I think this is a scenario where one can have their cake and eat it too (god and science does not need to be mutually exclusive)

  14. This argument has been going on for years and is getting no closer to reaching a close. It is hard and some would even impossible for either side to make a plausible argument.

    There is striking similarities between fossils and modern animals but as we know from studies of similar animals present on the earth today that these common traits do not imply any sort of genetic link. The bible is a story and nothing more, I will not even get into the wholes and downright silly things discussed in that book.

    In the end no one has an “explanation”, life will be a mystery for a long long time to come. If there is a omnipotent being out there creating things then that is a completely random scenario. I cannot say something definitive and end this argument but I will say you people should be a little more open minded.

  15. Ooops…consequence.

  16. Evolution, a concept even the one who postulated the theory didn’t have much confidence in. Examine Darwin’s own writings and you will find he was hardly fully convinced his observations were a basis for life on the planet.

    The real reason evolution is such an attractive theory is because if evolution is a fact, God ceases to exist and people can do exactly as they see fit without concequence. How convenient.

    While the Wright brother’s experiment proved a concept, their design is light years away from an F-22 Raptor that still exploits the dynamic of lift by the wing design. Incremental advance by refining engineering is a daily practice by humans, why should God be so different. If one cell can function, why wouldn’t multi-cells function better. Except for our technology, how different are we from ancient men and women? Recorded history spans approximately 7 to 8 thousand years, in that time we see nothing to support evolution, and speculation that man has evolved from some lower form has yet to be substantiated.

    The fossil record provides evidence of earlier life, not evidence that those creatures spontaneously grew arms or eyes. In fact the opposite is supported by fossils, that fully developed creatures appeared suddenly.

    And yes, I have examined the scientific explanations. Science is the discovery of what is and how things work, and the more we uncover about the world (and universe) around us, the more that information points to intelligence and thoughtful design.

    “God sends no one to hell, everyone who goes there chooses to do so.” iThOUghT

  17. ….and I know evolution takes time, but why don’t we see monkey’s or whatever precursor form you want changing into humans now? If you state that humans are “evolving” why can’t those monkey’s do the same? I understand evolution takes a long time, but wouldn’t it be logical to see some finished forms at this point in time that started evolving from way back in time (like a semi-human)?

    ……lastly, if you really want to think that your great, great, great, ……, great ancestors were monkeys, be my guest, LOL.

  18. Are you sure that’s not just called natural selection?

    Since you say that humans are evolving, does that mean that there are different human species? Please get your terms right. Natural selection does not equal evolution.

  19. dolphins have sex for fun even if everything you say is true it still does not not prove the existance of god or any other god we have simply the time to evolve and its not over yet joe bless you

  20. @Hahaha
    As if it your comment was worth responding to, monkeys just did not turn into humans. It was a slow and painstaking process called evolution. Open a book and research before you show your ignorance to the world. Every creature on the planet is constantly evolving with each previous generation learning and acting different the following generation is changing. Even now humans are changing and evolving………..

  21. Why aren’t monkeys turning into humans anymore?

  22. This is so wrong in so many ways. Even his reply, post #9 is wrong as it is an argument from incredulity (It is so incredible to believe, it must be wrong.)

    “There are no ‘less-developed’ versions of human reason in other species.”
    Animals do have a less developed sense of reason. For example, if the birds fly away from the river, animals that are prey tend to leave knowing that a larger, possibly dangerous creature may be coming. That’s reasoning at its most basic.

    “Mankind has a universal sense of right and wrong, unique among the species.”.
    If a chimp is in a cage and is taught that pulling a lever provides food, the Chimp A will pull the lever. Then a cage is placed next to the chimp containing Chimp B. When Chimp A pulls the lever again, Chimp B receives a shock and displays obvious pain and discomfort. After it happens a second time, Chimp A will never pull the lever. Even if Chimp A is starving, Chimp A never pulls the lever.

    “Language: Not only does mankind have a special brain capability that caters specifically to spoken language, but the human mouth, lips, tongue and larynx are perfectly suited to play along, with no sign of such harmony anywhere in sight for other species.”
    Whales and dolphins use spoken communication. So many people know this–were you asleep in biology class? Even dogs bark to warn, bees dance to communicate time, distance and amount of pollen–is this not enough for you? It has to be a language like a human spoken language? So people who sign are less developed because they don’t speak?

    “The natural world would exist in perfect harmony without mankind.”
    This is only because there is something that kills any creature that would upset the balance–except humans. We attempt to master what kills us and it has nothing to do with “evil”. Do you feel that advancing medicine to kill dangerous diseases is evil? Do you feel that advancing medicine upsets the harmony of the world? The black plague culled a few million people–is this the sort of harmony that you advocate?

    “Ideology: Perhaps related to our sense of morality. I’m not sure, but it seems like we are the only species that premeditatedly kills each other for next to no reason.”
    Many animals kill each other for small reasons and humans generally kill each other for a particular reason. rarely does a creature kill for no reason. I’m not sure where you even got this idea.

    “Sex: Humans are the only species that has sex in private, face to face and on a regular basis just for fun.”
    You can have sex face-to-face?

    “Mutation: Only negative mutations have ever been observed in any species. Never has a physical mutation aided a species, let alone resulted in future beneficial qualities.”
    Coloration is a beneficial mutation. Just one of many millions of beneficial mutations you wish to ignore.

    “Time: According to the theory of evolution, it took millions of years for mankind to figure out how to cultivate, hunt, invent the wheel, etc., and yet, in the last few hundred years alone, we’ve discovered the steam engine, the car, electricity, the computer and the safety pin? You’ve got to be kidding me.”
    Modern man has been around for about 200,000 years so i don’t know what you are talking about when you say “millions of years”. Humans invented the steam engine, the car, the wheel, and the other things you’ve mentioned. Takes a long time for a species to understand cultivation when you are running around, gathering food and keeping away from large predators. And once again you are making an argument from incredulity.

    The signs of age statement is circular.

    Finally, for me, the Theory of Evolution explains the creation of the world as God has put it in place. If there was a God, this would be the most efficient way to organize life in a universe–self-developing and self-organizing. Evolution is God’s way. God created ex nihilo and this is the system God implemented.

    If there is a “Holy Spirit” that breathed life into the universe, that spirit would be evolution.

  23. @ Julius Marx, thanks for challenging some points.

    I realize there are a few exceptions to my claims. But I base my arguments on what is true 99% of the time. Yes, its claimed that dolphins and bonobo chimps have sex for pleasure, or at least because of a different instinct than reproduction. But I don’t think this throws the human sex drive out the window. If “sex for pleasure” is based on animals’ mental developement, than pigs and dogs and elephants should also be in the running for having sex for pleasure, and they don’t. Therefore I reject the claim that sex for pleasure is an evolutionary developement as we see no clear upcoming pattern of such in sub-human species. Evolutionary theories are mostly based on “exceptions to the rule” which I consider to be crap science. (The same goes for the hilarious global warming scare…).

    Regarding amino acids, there are all kinds of claims about how they first bonded. The point is that none of them actually pan out, since they are all impossible. Oxygen or no oxygen – both environments on this earth would have prevented amino acids from bonding.

    Regarding artistic drive and creative genius: I’m arguing that a sequential evolution of species could not have spotaneously pumped out artistic expression and satisfaction in the human species one day (it would have to be spontaneous since we don’t see these qualities in sub-human species at all). Let’s take apes for example: they are next in line behind human developement, and they show no signs of appreciating artistic qualities in the world. (And please don’t point to a gorilla who learned how to finger paint.) The reason that humans have a sense of beauty and creative genius (making jewelry, for example) is that we have an undeniable difference in the way we interpret/appreciate/understand things, which is also tied to our emotions. If you give a dog a necklace, he might be happy, but not because the necklace is beautiful – probably just because he wants something to chew on.

    So my statement is that creative genius is not a sequential quality (it could not have evolved, and obviously didn’t in any species besides humans), and it also could not have spontaneously emerged (appeared without a source). None of the above are possible. Something else would have to explain these qualities of the human species – something like a supernatural creation, which would perfectly explain why humans have unique (“spontaneous”?), non-sequential, qualities.

  24. A creationist force of energy is vaugely feasible to me, but the very idea of a sentient “god” complete with ego/id i find insulting. I also find it overly insulting that someone would try to impress that upon me before i am old enough to form complete sentances. Also, dolphins and bonobo chimips (especially bonobo chimps) fornicate for pleasure/recreation as well. So that point is invalid.

    Furthermore, the combining of amino acids and peptide bonds was never said to have taken place in water, i suggest you google the term primordial ooze (i haven’t, try soup if ooze doesn’t work). The real question there is how the peptide nucleic acids formed with the oxygen rich atmosphere, the more feasible theory is that the huge bombardment the earth took from asteroids all but vaporized the oceans and it took a while for the atmosphere to return to the way it was. During this time it is feasible that “spontaneous creation” could have occurred. I am not saying i subscribe to that theory, but that seems to be what’s on the big table of science.

    And wtf does this mean “The drive to beautify and reflect on the elements of life is undeniably a non-sequential quality. Creative genius and aesthetic attractions cannot spontaneously emerge.”

    That statement is a complete contradiction and i demand you explain it further. You’re saying that creative genius and aesthetic attractions are non-sequential, meaning they do not follow a certain order in some way or are not created through a linear process. And you’re also saying that there’s no way they could spontaneously emerge, last time i checked anything spontaneous and sequencial are not two similar terms, they are in fact complete polar opposites, so wtf are you driving at? Because this guy is BAFFLED.

    That is all.

  25. Thanks for the reply JJ, hopefully I can clarify my views,
    I have no formal education so explaining myself is a little tricky, what I am trying to get at, with “space” being infinite I would assume that we would almost have to exist. I agree the morality standpoint is another ball game and falls back from the point of the article.What I am trying to say is that it is an inevitability for things like earth to occur, there is a never ending spectrum of possibilities that could and do play out all the time.

    All in all the article is very well written and I can more than understand your viewpoint but I myself could never come to believe in a conscious creation. If you have more work published or available somewhere I would be interested in reading it!

  26. @an51r, thanks for sharing. Try to take on the points in the article if possible instead of falling back to morality arguments etc which might be a trickier route to go down.

    The one thing you mentioned in relation to the article is that the earth system fits together like “legos”… isn’t it then LESS believable that the world evolved into these perfect “lego” creations by millions and millions of chance circumstances coming together? The chance of coincidence in that type of theory is staggering. Regardless of other dynamics like morality, etc, I think the perfect interaction of the earth system would speak more to the work of design… than chance.

  27. With infinite time and space come infinite possibilities, creation is impossible for me to swallow. If there were a moral and just god why create man, in my opinion it is ignorant to believe that there is some kind of god out there. As stated that is my opinion and only my opinion, I am not looking for a fight but its just not even fathomable that there is some all mighty creator out there when from a scientific stand point the intricacies of the world fit together like legos and the bible has more holes in it than a colander.

    Like I said that is an opinion based on what I see in my day to day life.

  28. This is a very interesting article. I myself am no Scientific Major, or evolutionist, or bible fanatic, i believe that there is a creator, but dont believe it was all done in 7 days in our time. I believe there is something more than we understand, but to understand all these things would take us more years to comprehend than the “supposed” length of the earth.

  29. I think it is safe to assume that no side will ever prove the other wrong (at least for quite a while).

    Just pick which side you like and believe in it, whether it be science/logic or religion. No need to say the other side is wrong.

  30. @Unclejeffie…

    You seem to think highly of your own scientific knowledge, yet you don’t provide any arguments to debate my points. Stop writing poetic banter and quotations and get to your “scientific” point, if you have one.

    Here’s a quote for YOU:

    “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.” Proverbs 18:2

    =)

  31. I like it.

  32. “Simple Objections to Evolution” is “simple” indeed. It may seem logical superficially but it certainly reflects a lack of understanding of basic concepts in physics, biology and chemistry. If you are a college student with a science major you certainly have a lot to learn (unless perhaps you attend a university such as Liberty University, etc.) – then you would be brillant. Remember “Education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it”. And, to responder #2 (bible thumper), the Bronze Age ended over 2000 years ago. Besides there is more beauty, mystery, awe and wonder in one Hubble photograph than in the entire bible. Take care guys.

  33. praise the lord

  34. In a nut shell some one wanted there 15 minute fame but they got more. (bunch of nonsense)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.*



You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*

Howdy! I'm Jesse, the editor here at CollegeTimes. I hope you find our articles useful, interesting, and inspiring as you make life decisions. Feel free to follow me on Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn, or get in touch anytime. If you have a unique story tip or article idea for CollegeTimes please email us now at info@collegetimes.tv. You may remain anonymous and/or off the record. Cheers!