So, looking at the list, let me try…
The Cambrian Explosion: Evolution’s best friend is time, and frankly there just wasn’t enough of it to allow for the number and complexity of the different species that appeared during the Cambrian period 500 million years ago.
Not enough time?
The low estimation about the duration of this “explosion” is 13 million years. And I found this by just googling for less than a minute.
The Evolution of Sex: I’ve tried to find a scientific explanation of how we got from a single-celled critter, to a multi-celled critter that reproduced itself, to two of these critters that had “random mutations” that led to the successful – and simultaneous – development of male and female sex organs so they could make baby critters. This is absurd, which is why evolutionists avoid this problem.
Using the Ray Comfort school of “thought” here, aren’t we? Well, I guess it can be safely assumed that you are just as resistant to understanting as your senpai here. From what I remember, sane people explained to Ray several times, that, no, sexual reproduction did NOT develop over and over for each species, instead, it evolved once in a common ancestor, which reproduced asexually before that.
The Facts about Mutations: Modern biology has shown us that genetic mutations are detrimental to the health and survivability of an organism over 90% of the time. However, for evolutionary theory to hold true, it must be shown that random mutations are not only beneficial, but are the most creative force in the universe to account for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. Not likely.
Yes, and therefore, detrimental mutations like these will lead to the organism’s death, and will not be passed on. Detrimental things are detrimental, who would have throught?!
However, the organisms who get lucky by getting a beneficial mutation, even if it’s just 10% (too high of a number, probably), will thrive, and pass it on to their offspring. Because beneficial traits are beneficial, imagine that!
And it doesn’t matter how incredulous you are about it. Reality doesn’t care about your feelings.
Speciation: This is the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. The problem – to this day, evolutionists have not been able to prove that it happened. Any evidence presented to support evolutionary theory has been within a species. There is no proven evidence available of evolutionary speciation.
Boom.
I wasn’t even aware that scientists managed to induce speciation within frut flies in a lab. Today I learned! But, I’m going to assume, the answer here would be “ThEy ArE sTiLl jUsT fLiEs!!1″…
Not even going to mention any past speciation events proven via DNA. These are fAkE nEwS to a creationist by default.
The Whale: The whale is a mammal, and according to evolutionary theory, mammals are way up the evolutionary ladder
Gotta stop you right there. There is no such thing as an “evolutionary ladder”. This is only ever used by creationists to strawman science, or by Hollywood, because they have no clue either.
from all the sea creatures. Ask an evolutionist to explain how a land animal evolved back into a sea-dwelling creature (which would require literally thousands of morphological changes) – the answers are always amusing.
Terrestial animal discovered food in a body of water/that being in water protects it in any way. It evolved into a hippo-like animal.
Hippo-like animal was faring better and better, the more time it spent in water. Individuals better suited for it had better chances to survive and reproduce. It evolved into a manatee-like animal.
Manatee-like animal had higher survival rates, the faster it could swim and the longer it could stay under water. Maybe because it started hunting fish instead of eating seaweeds, or for some other reason. Individuals with more streamlined bodies, with the nose openings being closer to the top side of the body, and those who wasted less resources to grow hind legs, had better chances, so they ended up evolving into whale- or dolphin-like creatures. Done.
Modern Biology: The advances in modern biology have presented a number of challenges for evolutionists. With the powerful microscopes we have today, we have learned just how complex a single cell is, with thousands of moving parts working in harmony to produce life. Trying to explain how evolution could have produced not just the cell, but all of its moving parts, tongue-ties the most devout evolutionist.
You wish. Nobody, except creationists, expects a full-fledged modern-day cell to appear from nothing. The early cells would have been far simpler, at the price of only being able to survive in a very specific environment. They might not even have been cells, instead, being a slurry of various chemicals, all contributing to a strand of RNA self-replicate.
Also, nice projection with the “devout” part here.
Then there is the DNA molecule. The programming inherent in a DNA molecule is as sophisticated as any computer created by man, yet we are to believe that it is a result of those random mutations. Sorry, that’s a bit of a stretch.
4 bases, arranged into codons of 3, to a total of 64 codons. Which can have the meaning “start”, “stop”, or “use this amino acid”, and there are usually several codons for each amino acid (with only 22 possibilities for humans, from what I understood). This isn’t even turing-complete.
Not a computer program. Just “combine these chemicals in this order”. Interesting that it evolved in such a way, but the only stretch here is pretending that it’s a computer.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
Yes. You are just another clueless creationist.
It seems to me that as modern science advances, the more improbable evolution becomes.
I’m not saying that the whole theory needs to be scrapped – but there are some HUGE holes in the theory that seem to be getting bigger.
It seems to me, that you work on quantum woo logic: modern science baffles you, to the point that you consider it magic. But because you don’t understand it, it seems to confirm your preexisting biases.
So why do evolutionists cling so tightly to this theory as the answer to man’s origin? The answer is simple: in their minds, the idea of a Creator is ludicrous, so evolution just has to be true. Ultimately, they believe, we will gather up enough evidence to prove their point. In the meantime, we should just accept the theory because, well – they’re the experts, right?
So why do creationist cling so tightly to the denialism of this theory? The answer is simple: in their minds, the idea of a creator is inevitable, so evolution just has to be false. Ultimately, they believe, we will cherry-pick enough “evidence” to prove our point. In the meantime, we should just have faith, because, well, our priests aren’t going to lie, right?
