Wondering about answers to questions on the theory of evolution?

Question

There are a few things that have stumped me when it comes to the theory of evolution. Main 2 that I have are:

1.Entropy issue. To me it seems that evolution is going the other way. ie -law says order to chaos , of which chaos cannot breed order. -or evolutionary chart seems to show that the more time that goes by the more order we have.

2.Spontaneous generation. I know that there are tons of thoughts and plausible ideas and what not, but nothing solid has been produced to show how this could have happened.

--Im not trying to argue for any side here so dont answer any of this with just a question of where's the "other sides" proof. I dont care about that and its not my reason behind my question to argue one side or the other.

-Oh one last, I ask a friend of mine who teaches here locally this. If things have evolved, why is nothing alive still like in those "in between" stages. Since we still have apes why dont we still have the all stages of man.Im being serious not trying to joke

Answer 1

Right now, today, you & I are the evolutionary transition of whatever creatures will be walking the earth 2 million years from now...

Forget about Spontaneous Generation, unless you're watching a magic act, and 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have ever lived, are now extinct...

That's entropy!

Answer 2

Logic dictates; Order always reverts to Chaos. It takes an Organizing "Power" -to create Order. Remove that Organizing "Influence"- and chaos slowly takes over... Everything "falls apart"- sooner or later...  #2; Spontaneous Generation implies that "something came from nothing..." Well, not even "Magic" can do THAT... So I can't see how THAT's possible... There CAN be Spontaneous "mutations" to things that already EXIST- those happen all the time. But as FAR AS anyone knows, NOTHING has ever stepped out of "Thin Air"- & proclaimed, "I'M Here!"  :)

Answer 3

1. Entropy: For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state.

All that it means is that it takes energy to organize molecules in a nonrandom manner.  It isn't an argument against evolution.  It is obvious that life uses energy to overcome randomness and organize itself into complex forms even if you accept non scientific explanations.

2.  "...but nothing solid has been produced to show how this could have happened...."

"Nothing solid" is just an opinion without any way to measure it.

It is pretty hard to go beyond the most primitive life alive today and figure out what evolved into it.  We have some evidence like RNA being used as enzymes that it used to be used in much the same way that proteins are used today.  Then RNA may have become the template for a more sophisticated system of amino acids used today.  

It is not a rational argument against evolution to say we don't know the earlier systems that evolved into the most primitive life today which appeared very early after a massive asteroid bombardment about 4 billion years ago.  We don't have rock older than that but we have rather advanced microbes alive 3.7 billion years ago that were already using photosyntheses.    Nobody that understands the subject will suggest the spontaneous generation of such advanced lifeforms.  Even without the exact mechanism that led to life, certain processes are nobrainers.  One of them is that if you get self-replicating chemical systems, the most efficient will increase in concentration and thus you have the first example of survival of the fittest in a purely mathematical form.  It almost certainly took million of years if not hundreds of of millions of years to get to relatively complex life equivalent to the most primitive today.  

What is the creation argument that might fit the data that we know about?  Are any of them suggesting that God created the primitive bacteria 3.7 billion years ago which is what we see in the fossil record.  That would at least agree with the evidence we have but it is a rather silly argument and not really necessary given the current understanding of organic chemistry.

3. "Oh one last, I ask a friend of mine who teaches here locally this. If things have evolved, why is nothing alive still like in those "in between" stages. Since we still have apes why dont we still have the all stages of man.Im being serious not trying to joke"

The question of intermediates is also meaningless.  It is like asking what is the transition between a boy and a man.  It is an arbitrary distinction.

Answer 4

Regarding entropy, remember that the entropy will only rise in a closed system.  As long as the sun keeps powering life on the planet, the entropy count needn't rise.

Answer 5

Please study evolution, questions like this are so easy to answer.  You don't understand it, you haven't studied it.  PLEASE for your own sake do a proper study of evolution, it's not hard.  Pick up 'What Evolution Is' by Ernst Mayr and/or 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.

1.  Evolution is not going the other way.  You are using chaos and order so inappropriately - it's very wrong of you to suggest this which shows you haven't studied evolution.

2.  Spontaneous generation of biological life is not 'something from nothing' as others have suggested.  There are many theories on this I suggest you look them up which are actively and thoroughly being investigated.  We can already generate the building blocks of life and I am positive we will create life at some stage.  Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with Darwinian Evolution, they are separate.  That is why Darwin's book is called 'The Origin of Species' - not 'The Origin of Life'.  When the origin of life is solved, then you can apply evolution.

Why do you say we came from apes or that they have anything to do with the evolution of humans on our branch?  Evolution doesn't teach this.  Please read one of the books I've suggested.  We didn't evolve from apes, apes are not on our branch, we evolved from a common ancestor and this has been proven as fact.  We can see 'exactly' where we branched off by comparing our genomes.  I'm not sure what this teacher friend believes but it seems to have either a religious bias or just simply due to lack of understanding of 1) evolution, 2) that our relation to apes is not a mystery any more it has been solved and verified as fact.

Why are our ancestors not alive?  Please study evolution properly, the answer is there.  It's not a hard answer to grasp either.  You do not understand the processes involved in natural selection and what the consequences of natural selection can mean for a species to overcome obstacles.

Answer 6

How about the platypus?  Is that "in between" enough for you?

Answer 7

"It is pretty hard to go beyond the most primitive life alive today and figure out what evolved into it. We have some evidence like rna being used as enzymes that it used to be used in much the same way that proteins are used today. Then rna MAY have become the template for a more sophisticated system of amino acids used today."

forget evolutionism, it is a mere belief of what MAY have been.