The Problems with the Theory of Evolution and Related Theories of the Universe

[Invictus XII]

Consider these questions if you believe and understand the theory of evolution:

1. If the universe had a beginning in some Big Bang explosion, before which all matter in the universe had first accumulated into a concentration of gigantic proportions, why did it explode and not collapse through its immense gravity? Also, what are the forces which could make it explode if all things were created by the Big Bang?

2. From where and how did the first protein originate, to facilitate the DNA code structure in each species? Proteins depend upon DNA for their formation, and DNA cannot form with pre-excisting protein.

3. How could pure chance explain the perfect balance in nature? What random process can account for the amazing independent wonders of nature on this earth and the balance within the universe? Where each plant/species is unique, but balances out for all other plants/speices. All except humans. - I will consider this to be answered for now.

4. Why do creatures stop growing at maturity and not continue to grow indefinitely? And why does an organ pnly repair itself to the original old boundaries?

5. Where did the mind come from - self awareness of humans being seperate to the consciousness of animals? What tells a person if something is either beautiful or ugly? WHat tells the brain of relationships and harmony of colours and the conception of beauty? What about human memory, the appreciation of the arts, delightful smells and humor? All these are very unlikely to to be simple accidents.

6. Why do predatory wasps and spiders ack as if they know the anatomy of their prey? They know where to strike and where to open to eat in a particular way?

I would like believers of the evolutionary theories and atheiests to give full complete answers from a particualar question. And please keep this civilised.

MB

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I'm no biologist, and my understanding of evolution is probably not as good as it should be, so I won't be able to answer your other questions in detail, but the first question has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

[Invictus XII]

I'm no biologist, and my understanding of evolution is probably not as good as it should be, so I won't be able to answer your other questions in detail, but the first question has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Chnaged the title

[Theseus1234]

Consider these questions if you believe and understand the theory of evolution:

1. If the universe had a beginning in some Big Bang explosion, before which all matter in the universe had first accumulated into a concentration of gigantic proportions, why did it explode and not collapse through its immense gravity? Also, what are the forces which could make it explode if all things were created by the Big Bang?

This has nothing to do with evolution. First, the big bang was a singularity, meaning it had immense mass with no volume. It's impossible for it to collapse in its own gravity. Second, we cannot possibly know what started it because as far as we know, space and time started with the big bang. We cannot conclude there is a god, however, we can only conclude that we do not know.

2. From where and how did the first protein originate, to facilitate the DNA code structure in each species? Proteins depend upon DNA for their formation, and DNA cannot form with pre-excisting protein.

From the Miller experiment, amino acids were found to form naturally.

3. How could pure chance explain the perfect balance in nature? What random process can account for the amazing independent wonders of nature on this earth and the balance within the universe? Where each plant/species is unique, but balances out for all other plants/speices. All except humans.

It's not chance, it's natural selection. It's not only natural selection that determines balance, it's nature in general. If a certain species becomes too dense in a particular area, there will be less living space, too much waste, diminished food supply, increased stress, and all of these factors lead to the species dying out until it reaches normal levels.

6. Why do predatory wasps and spiders ack as if they know the anatomy of their prey? They know where to strike and where to open to eat in a particular way?

There are some things that animals know from birth. Ducks know how to swim and preen and human babies recognize what is and isn't a breast to latch on to.

Those are the ones I do know the answer to, or at least part of the answer.

[Invictus XII]

There are some things that animals know from birth. Ducks know how to swim and preen and human babies recognize what is and isn't a breast to latch on to.

You just restated that question with a different example. Why do they "just know" these things from birth?
But well done, you did manage to half answer these questions, which I found particually difficult to answer. +rep

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Saying there was a "singularity" is just an excuse of the same caliber of the "Uncreated Creator did it". They just take out the "God" part and replace it with a bundle of equations.

[Gordon Freynman]

This would probably fit better in the Athenaeum as long as there's no mention of the 'C' word, or IDiocy.

1. If the universe had a beginning in some Big Bang explosion, before which all matter in the universe had first accumulated into a concentration of gigantic proportions, why did it explode and not collapse through its immense gravity? Also, what are the forces which could make it explode if all things were created by the Big Bang?

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but it's probably worth answering anyways (and is far more interesting than all the other questions ).

Gravity was the primary reason for the initial rapid expansion of the universe, which seems counter intuitive because everyone knows gravity "sucks". However Einstein discovered through his theory of General Relativity that gravity can also "blow", so to speak. If you have a region of space that has an overall negative pressure, then it will exert a repulsive gravitational force which causes space to expand. When there is energy infused in space itself, then it creates negative pressure and hence repulsive gravity. This is what is believed to have happened in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. The details of how this happened get really complicated and I'm a little short on time, but if you want to learn more I strongly suggest this book:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

3. How could pure chance explain the perfect balance in nature? What random process can account for the amazing independent wonders of nature on this earth and the balance within the universe? Where each plant/species is unique, but balances out for all other plants/speices. All except humans.

No random process could account for this of course, but this is all the work of natural selection which is most certainly not a random process.

Saying there was a "singularity" is just an excuse of the same caliber of the "Uncreated Creator did it". They just take out the "God" part and replace it with a bundle of equations.

If you're seriously suggesting that equations are on the same level as "God" then I'm going to have to e-smack you.

[Invictus XII]

Those who say evolution and the Big Bang theory have NOTHING to do with each other, please think. Do you believe God created the universe and then evolution happened? No matter what, evolution and the big bang theory go hand in hand.

BTW, good answers, but people only seem to be able to solve the same questions. Try answering the other 4.

[Juvenal]

Those who say evolution and the Big Bang theory have NOTHING to do with each other, please think. Do you believe God created the universe and then evolution happened? No matter what, evolution and the big bang theory go hand in hand.

BTW, good answers, but people only seem to be able to solve the same questions. Try answering the other 4.

Although I'm not an atheist I still fail to see any connection between Big Bang theory and Evolution. Please enlighten me if you think there is some relationship other than that they are both scientific theories.

The Big Bang is arrived at by a process of backwards extrapolation from present-day observations of the Universe. We take spectra from galaxies and calculate their speed of approach or recession by observing the red-shift. We estimate their distance (I believe) by looking for particular types of supernovae or variable stars in them for which we can calculate the absolute brightness, meaning that their apparent brightness is an indicator of distance. The results of these measurements show that galaxies are receding from us in proportion to their distance. This means that in the past all these galaxies were closer to us, and that around 13.7 billion years ago everything we can now see in the universe would have been in the same place.

Assuming that the laws of physics haven't changed, we can make (backwards) predictions about what the universe would have been like in the past. As we get closer to the point where everything we can see now was in the same place, the universe becomes increasingly dense and hot until we reach a point where current physics breaks down.

Obviously physicists and cosmologists are interested in what might might have come before, hence all competing theories. Notice that at no point in all this is God either required or denied. Physics has nothing to say about God, because Physics is only concerned with what can be measured.

As for Evolution, it is a well established theory with plenty of evidence to back it up. Evolution explains both what we see in the fossil record, and the relationships between species existing today. It doesn't confirm or deny the existence of God and doesn't require faith (being evidence-based).

OK, let's attempt to tackle your points.

1. In the earliest time after the Big Bang to which we can extrapolate, there is no matter (it's too hot) only energy. As the universe expands and cools, eventually it reaches a point where matter can exist. Matter and energy are interchangeable (remember e = mc squared), so you can think of matter condensing out of energy like raindrops!

2. Proteins are made of amino acid building blocks. These can and do form spontaneously. Proteins are (I believe) created by RNA, which has formed along the DNA which acts like a template. How did this mechanism first start? Nobody knows, there is a lot of interesting speculation but nothing firm. However I presume the present-day mechanism arose from a simpler precursor mechanism, but no one knows what that might have been.

3. There is no perfect balance in nature. Things are changing all the time, go visit a natural history museum if you don't believe me (they are full of extinct animals). Whatever balance of nature exists is due to the fact that living species adapt into all of the available niches while excess life dies off through predation or starvation.

4. Some creatures never stop growing, koi carp for example, but most stop when they reach their adult form. This is an evolutionary trait. Species adapt to fit their environment, continuous growth is generally going to interfere with that and therefore will be selected against (for example a foot-long ant would die of asphyxiation, while an extra-large ferret wouldn't be able to fit down a rabbit hole). The body is constantly regulating itself, an organ that regenerates indefinitely is actually a cancer.

5. We don't know what consciousness is. What it appears to be is an emergent property of the working of the brain. It is certainly very useful since it enables us to model the world, allowing us to anticipate the future and empathise with each other to create relationships and by extension communities. It would be very interesting to know if any non-humans are conscious, but unless they tell us it is very difficult to come to any form conclusion.

6. Regarding wasps and spiders, their behaviour is largely innate. The ones with unsuccessful methods of attack become extinct and the world fills up with those with better methods. Mutation ensures that there are some individuals with different behaviour in every generation, so eventually the attack behaviour will become optimised.

As for full and complete answers, well wouldn't we all like such things! Until the truth is revealed I suppose we are just going to have to keep on studying and making theories.

[The Dude]

Those who say evolution and the Big Bang theory have NOTHING to do with each other, please think. Do you believe God created the universe and then evolution happened.

If god is all powerful, then why not?

[nasher168]

Let's give it a shot. I do quite enjoy doing this sort of thing.

1. If the universe had a beginning in some Big Bang explosion, before which all matter in the universe had first accumulated into a concentration of gigantic proportions, why did it explode and not collapse through its immense gravity? Also, what are the forces which could make it explode if all things were created by the Big Bang?

The universe was not made of matter at first, but energy. Matter condensed out of energy later on in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. Thus gravity is not a problem for the initial expansion.

The Big Bang is a misnomer. It did not explode. It did not necessarily require any internal force to push it out. It was a rapid expansion of space-time and was the event that brought into being the universe as it currently exists. It is pointless trying to speculate what came before the big bang, as it was never younger than about 10^43 seconds. A smaller unit of time is meaningless. This is getting into quite complex quantum physics which I will be happy to elaborate on further upon request, but for now I shall move on.

2. From where and how did the first protein originate, to facilitate the DNA code structure in each species? Proteins depend upon DNA for their formation, and DNA cannot form with pre-excisting protein.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) can form spontaneously in conditions similar to the early Earth.
In fact, they can even be found in space. Proteins are made when amino acids form chains. The machinery that makes such chains form is indeed very complex in modern animals, but remember that this has had billions of years for evolution to select more efficient and trustworthy methods of doing it. The early "life" probably made use of far simpler mechanisms with far greater chance of error. It also probably relied on RNA rather than DNA. DNA is a more stable molecule than RNA and so would have been selected for. It is worth noting that nucleotide bases for DNA and RNA were shown to form spontaneously in the Miller-Urey experiment.

3. How could pure chance explain the perfect balance in nature? What random process can account for the amazing independent wonders of nature on this earth and the balance within the universe? Where each plant/species is unique, but balances out for all other plants/speices. All except humans. - I will consider this to be answered for now.

First off, I think "perfect balance" is a very subjective word to use. The fact that natural extinctions occur without human intervention shows categorically that nature is far from balanced. Nature is not a balance but an arms race. Each species is slowly but constantly evolving ways to better survive.
Pure chance does not explain it, of course. Such a statement implies a limited understanding of the mechanisms of evolution on your part. Natural selection is the non-chance element of evolution.
Mutations happen by accident. That is the chance aspect of evolution.
If a mutation is beneficial, the organism carrying it is more likely to breed and pass it on. This is called natural selection or sometimes survival of the fittest. That process is not chance.

4. Why do creatures stop growing at maturity and not continue to grow indefinitely? And why does an organ pnly repair itself to the original old boundaries?

Firstly, some animals do just that until they die. (Death is selected for because it allows new generations the ability to breed with less competition from older, more experienced animals.) Growing continuously places extra demands on the organism. If it carries on growing, it will need more food and oxygen and the bones (or whatever equivalent structure) will have more stresses placed on them. In short (geddit?), slowed or halted growth is selected for for various reasons.

I don't know about your second sentence though. What new boundaries would you expect them to grow to?

5. Where did the mind come from - self awareness of humans being seperate to the consciousness of animals? What tells a person if something is either beautiful or ugly? WHat tells the brain of relationships and harmony of colours and the conception of beauty? What about human memory, the appreciation of the arts, delightful smells and humor? All these are very unlikely to to be simple accidents.

Well I'm sure an animal psychologist would go berserk over that. There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that bottlenose dolphins and elephants are self aware, at any rate.
I'm going to have to pass on the rest of the question. I am not a psychologist. However, the field of evolutionary psychology is a pretty deep one, even if the majority of it goes well over my head. I would suggest researching it for yourself if it is something you're interested in.

6. Why do predatory wasps and spiders ack as if they know the anatomy of their prey? They know where to strike and where to open to eat in a particular way?

Because it is selected for. A wasp that prefers to strike the area of the spider's vital parts stands more chance of killing it and breeding than a wasp that doesn't. It's instinct, which can and is programmed for by their genetics.
Perhaps this could be related back to question 5, since much of what we perceive as beauty and goodness is instinctive. An individual content in the world it lives in is more likely to stave off depression and similar negative traits and so is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes.



...Whew.
That took about 20 minutes. If you want sources for any of my information, feel I've made a factual error or just want me to elaborate any further, just give the word and I'll do my best.


Oh, and by the way:

hose who say evolution and the Big Bang theory have NOTHING to do with each other, please think. Do you believe God created the universe and then evolution happened? No matter what, evolution and the big bang theory go hand in hand.

No, but many people (the majority, in fact, in my country) do believe just that. They are known as Theistic Evolutionists.

[Squiggle]

6. Why do predatory wasps and spiders ack as if they know the anatomy of their prey? They know where to strike and where to open to eat in a particular way?

Six is largely answered by the guy who answered three. As in, the same process explains it. Spiders who happened to not hit those areas when they attacked, did not eat, and therefore did not reproduce and continue to spread their genes. Those who happened to get it right naturally did, and therefore it continued.

edit: to elaborate just a bit incase of confusion. Those who "got it right" did get it right from dumb luck, that they got it right is the reason that, eventually, the rest of the species did. Inheriting the genes, etc.

From the Miller experiment, amino acids were found to form naturally.

The miller experiment turned out to be a failure, abiogenesis has never been proven.

[justicar5]

. Inheriting the genes, etc. The miller experiment turned out to be a failure, abiogenesis has never been proven.

in what did it fail?

It showed all the necessary building blocks could form via normal chemical processes, if you mean it didn't get lucky and have the same result exactly as on the young earth (which had was magnitudes of more raw material and time) then yea, it didn't luck out, come back in a 100 million years and it might have.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Another interesting point. Amino Acids have been found on meteorites.

[Sphere]

Within that list, there are about five or six Nobel Prizes waiting to be awarded for people who discover the answers.

So you aren't going to receive any good responses here. Indeed, it is those who claim to already know how the Universe began and how life originated that need to leave the conversation first. They don't know and so shouldn't be making such claims.

[SigniferOne]

I think theists need to be careful about building their argument of God on impossibility of life coming from inanimate matter. At first the latter seems incomprehensible, yes, but anyone who's done work with simple robots instantly realizes that hey, it's actually quite possible. You can quite handily build a simple robot that moves around, accomplishes simple tasks, avoids obstacles, and then plugs itself in overnight, to recharge and restart doing the same things tomorrow.

I am not talking here of where its program came from (obviously outside of it, no argument there); I am here showing that a demonstrably inanimate clump of matter can appear alive. And if that's so, then what do mean as "alive" then? What we think of as "alive" needs to be very carefully thought about. It is not impossible that what we think of as "alive" is nothing but inanimate matter that runs around and replicates itself.

I think this gap will be eventually bridged by science. A simple cell is nothing but a biological automaton. We will probably be eventually able to create others of the like, and even now one can build a robot to do the same, there's nothing ultimately magical about it. Just temporarily, for the time being. The real unbridgeable gap, I think, is between matter and mind. Atheists who actively try to disprove religion have gone to extreme lengths to point out all the evolved and animalistic things in man, as if that display alone proves their point. But Aristotle long ago had conceeded their point, and he went even further; he argued that there was even a plant-like nature in man. This for example includes the automatic functioning of the stomach and the digestive system, which is not on the height of an animal existence, but on the level of the most primitive, automaton, plant existence. Thus he argued, man has within him, operating at the same time, the plant level, the animal level, and the human level. The primitive automaton system that all creatures have, the evolved instinct/reflex system that all animals have, and the mind and cognition that man alone of all the creatures has. What's more, this human system plays outside the bounds of all nature, it is more powerful than all animals combined, although physically man is one of the weakest animals in existence.

But this mind, which is responsible for all these things, and in which all of the 'human nature' seems to be deposited, is nowhere to be found. There is an interrelation but not a mutual exchangeability between the mind and the brain. Man alone seeks beauty and looks at the sunset. Man alone tries to develop his willpower, and has free will independent of all external stimuli. Man alone strives, hopes, values, of all creatures and entities in the universe.

The scene where King Kong sat down to look deeply at the warm rich sunset, on his mountain ledge, is exactly what opened him up and endeared to the audiences. But real apes don't do that, real apes are dumb and brute, and if they can rape the female and get themselves more little brute baby apes like themselves, that will be the height of their contentment.

[The Dude]

I think theists need to be careful about building their argument of God on impossibility of life coming from inanimate matter. At first the latter seems incomprehensible, yes, but anyone who's done work with simple robots instantly realizes that hey, it's actually quite possible. You can quite handily build a simple robot that moves around, accomplishes simple tasks, avoids obstacles, and then plugs itself in overnight, to recharge and restart doing the same things tomorrow.

I am not talking here of where its program came from (obviously outside of it, no argument there); I am here showing that a demonstrably inanimate clump of matter can appear alive. And if that's so, then what do mean as "alive" then? What we think of as "alive" needs to be very carefully thought about. It is not impossible that what we think of as "alive" is nothing but inanimate matter that runs around and replicates itself.

Absolutely agree. Gee, Sig, what's happening? How can a theist and an atheist share the exact same vision on this? Because in a way you're demonstrating that god is not the only force that can make something appear "alive", humans are just as capable at it.

Atheists who actively try to disprove religion have gone to extreme lengths to point out all the evolved and animalistic things in man, as if that display alone proves their point.

Doesn't at all, I agree.

But Aristotle long ago had conceeded their point, and he went even further; he argued that there was even a plant-like nature in man. This for example includes the automatic functioning of the stomach and the digestive system, which is not on the height of an animal existence, but on the level of the most primitive, automaton, plant existence. Thus he argued, man has within him, operating at the same time, the plant level, the animal level, and the human level. The primitive automaton system that all creatures have, the evolved instinct/reflex system that all animals have, and the mind and cognition that man alone of all the creatures has. What's more, this human system plays outside the bounds of all nature, it is more powerful than all animals combined, although physically man is one of the weakest animals in existence.

And so he concludes that reason is what sets man apart from the rest of the world. Very true, and insightful aswell because we've covered this during college but the professors have so far failed to elaborate on the exact details of how he came to that conclusion. Thanks, didn't know about the way in which he attributed elements of each of these levels of being to us yet (I only know that he did).

But this mind, which is responsible for all these things, and in which all of the 'human nature' seems to be deposited, is nowhere to be found. There is an interrelation but not a mutual exchangeability between the mind and the brain. Man alone seeks beauty and looks at the sunset. Man alone tries to develop his willpower, and has free will independent of all external stimuli. Man alone strives, hopes, values, of all creatures and entities in the universe.

True, but that's not the final conclusion to be drawn I think. Because as neurology advances we are discovering that the way we feel and think about things is manipulated directly by the chemical composition of our brain. Of course there is a discrepancy between how science describes our brains to work and how we experience ourselves, this I'll admit to, but our self-experience needn't be rational per se.

I'm trying to figure out how you're linking this to what being alive means though? Do you conclude that the defining factor in living is that undefinable element of self-consciousness and reason?

[Dr. Oza]

i cud try explaining what i know of this.. since we have discussed this many times in my upper level biology class but this serves:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ife-begin.html

[handsome pete]

@ comrade wiggum; is that the same thing (negative pressure --> gravity blowing) as zero point energy?

with respect to three, actually on the level of physics almost all scientists seem to agree that there are certain physical constants that were they ever so slightly different would not allow life to occur. The often used example is water's strange property of shrinking between 0-4 as it heats rather than expanding, it is the only simple molecule in the universe that does this and if it did not, bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up making it very difficult for water based life to get going.

But there is a very simple explanation to this (thanx, but I'll pass on the Nobel prize Sphere) stop assuming that there is only one universe.

If there are many or infinite universes the question "Why do I live in a universe that has the unlikely property of allowing life to exist?" becomes pretty self explanatory.

[handsome pete]

4. Why do creatures stop growing at maturity and not continue to grow indefinitely?

Surface area to volume ratios is the main reason.

And why does an organ pnly repair itself to the original old boundaries?

Gerontologists (people who study ageing) seem to be agreed that ageing is not necessary. The reason we die, the reason new combinations of genes are created at the expense of having to have the worse combinations than their predecessors weeded out (suicide, self esteem, survival of the fittest, attraction) is because the beauty of a species genetics which allows it to survive in so many different environments is it's ability to recombine in ways that work well in environments and combinations that don't exist in the present generation. Look at animal breeding. Wild dogs look very similar, and yet a huge number of incredibly different breeds have been breed by human beings using a system of selection. If they did not die, many of the individuals still about and breeding would be passing on out of date gene combinations. And if they were about but did not breed, the individuals who were doing the breeding would not only be doing a disproportional amount of work, they would be birthing the next generation from a smaller gene pool.