Questions for evolutionists

While I am trying to get more Christian friends to help answer all your questions (some valid), here is something for you - short answers/questions welcome :slight_smile:

  1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

  2. Where did matter come from?

  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

  9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

  10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

  11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

  12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

  13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

  14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

  15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Allow me to respond with just a single question:

[ol]- Even if we had not a single answer to any of these 15 questions, or a clue about how to find their answers (and for several of them we do, which a genuine effort to find out will reveal), how does that in any way warrant a belief in a god?[/ol]


Will try and squeeze in as much as I can during tea time … I’m no expert so please correct me if I’m mistaken:

  1. Several things came out of the big bang. Space was one of them. Space expanded at speeds greater than that of light from a single point.

  2. A large amount of energy is equivalent to a small amount of matter. Its just different currencies of the same thing.

  3. Those are all inherent properties of energy and matter.

  4. Matter is organised by the weak (gravity) and strong (nuclear) forces.

  5. If you mean organised as in clumping together, as in stellar formation, we can again thank gravity. Gravitational attraction, as far as I know, requires no energy.

  6. We think it all started in the primordial soup, when replicators (large molecules) spontaneously assembled and started to reproduce themselves. Some atoms like carbon can link up with itself to form very long and complicated chains reminiscent of biomolecules.

  7. Molecules that were able to reproduce probably preceded life as we know it today.

  8. No idea.

  9. Basically it boils down to the survival of the animal or plant’s genetic code, not the individual. What is important at the end of the day is for the genes to survive, not the individual. Evolution has therefore set organisms up to procreate, even though there is little in it for the parents.

  10. Most mutations are not advantageous at all. In fact they can be very harmful. It is only once in a blue moon that a random mutation will cause an individual to have a slight advantage over the unmutated individuals. The environment will then naturally select for the advantageous mutation.

  11. Are you referring to things like the DNA similarities between mice and men? Suppose anything is possible. Thats why we have to weigh up the evidence.

  12. Incorrect. Natural selection will tend to diversify species.

13.a) If lots of unicellular plant clump together, and evolve an interdependency, I would call that a multicellular organism, wouldn’t you?

Beware of the Straw Man…

Nice work, Mintaka.
Related to Q8… could the first cells have reproduced asexually via Mitosis and Cytokinesis?

OHA, your post is definitely a Straw Man, but we are looking forward to your answers, as promised.

Most of your questions are based on theories, which in turn are supported by facts. Remember that we use the word “theory” in the scientific sense of the word. Since you have set the trend for the kind of evidence you may require, we have to insist on the same when answering your questions.

Kind regards,


Nice work, Mintaka. Related to Q8... could the first cells have reproduced asexually via Mitosis and Cytokinesis?
Thanks Sentinel. Sexual reproduction would require some sort of meiotic division so you'll end up with haploid gametes. Not sure how that first came about ???.


I’m not completely familiar with biology or evolution on this level, but I do know that the first forms of life did not have bones or hard exoskeletons, which are generally preserved in the form of fossils.

We may never know what the first genitals looked like. Who brought up this subject anyway?

There are ladies on this forum! :slight_smile:

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Well i know it is a tough question but here is the answer:

when? a long time ago…much longer than your claim of 6000 years for the age of the earth.

where: 23 degrees south 27.5 degrees east

why: well here was life crawling along in the mud of non existence amongst all the dead matter looking for a nice blond to mate with…and Life came up empty…so (contrary to what cavemen and women believe) Life decided to go for dead matter and whalla! Dead matter became alive (so to speak) but only after life invaded it of course…and ever since then there was life (in dead matter). I know it seems far fetched but for someone who is desperate to believe in almost any old story im sure it will suffice - As you most probably know: it is easier to believe BS than to expend the energy to acquire a basic understanding of the human process of knowing and answering difficult questions…aka science.

But the point is: as Luthon64 asked - even if all of your questions could be answered and most if not all of them can, how will that support your belief in a spook or three? ::slight_smile:

I’m confused - Why do you go to a Christian website and read an article with the title “Evolution Science Fiction” to get information about evolution? Do you really think Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are authorities on the subject?

Ray asks several individuals, "Do you believe man evolved from apes?"
Whenever someone says something like this, he knows [b]nothing[/b] about evolution. Trust me.

If you are really serious about the subject, please do yourself a favour and start by reading the following book: Saving Darwin - How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.

Darwin, a Christian, faced the same theological crisis we do: How can an all powerful and omniscient God allow such cruelties in nature? He studied the ichneumon wasp that lays eggs inside a caterpillar, feeding on its insides whilst keeping it alive until they themselves are ready to pupate. He could not believe that God would allow this.

This inspired him and later lead to his theory of evolution, through which he could blame natural selection for the cruelty found in nature, and not his benevolent God.

This you would find out, if you are truly serious in your search.

Quote from: Mintaka on February 23, 2009, 18:15:11 PM Thanks Sentinel. Sexual reproduction would require some sort of meiotic division so you'll end up with haploid gametes. Not sure how that first came about.

I’m not completely familiar with biology or evolution on this level, but I do know that the first forms of life did not have bones or hard exoskeletons, which are generally preserved in the form of fossils.

We may never know what the first genitals looked like. Who brought up this subject anyway?

Quote from: OHA on February 23, 2009, 13:31:16 PM
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

There are ladies on this forum!

Get the question right:
Cells do not reproduce sexually, organisms may or may not. I am still not sure I understand the “with what” portion of this question.
The best I can answer on this would be their chromosomes since, in essence, sexual reproduction is a recombination of genetic material from different individuals.
This is an oversimplified definition, but the question itself is vague and does not make sense as stated.

OK, I have re-read your question, and perhaps I understand what you are trying to insinuate:

That if everything was reproducing asexually, then suddenly an organism came about that reproduces sexually, then that one single individual would have nothing to reproduce with.

This is a bit more difficult to clearly answer because the question assumes a phenomenon that is impossible and is not implied by evolutionary theory (in fact, the opposite is true). That is that some new feature (sexual reproduction in this case) springs forth clearly, completely, and suddenly.

The origins of sexual reproduction are explored by CDK007 on YouTube. I watched this some time ago so I’ll have to go back to the video for the details but I seem to recall that even if it arose by chance (which we know isn’t what abiogenesis it about - it is about the known laws of chemistry, not pot luck), even if sexual reproduction rose in that way, the entity which possessed such a trait would have a huge selective advantage in that the mutation rate would sky-rocket compared to asexual reproduction, meaning that it would soon be the norm rather than the exception.

CDK007’s origins series is absolutely first class, starting from abiogenesis and moving through the origin of the genetic code to natural selection and evolution. Check out some of his other videos here.

I’m also eager for answers. So far in all of the discussions, none have been forthcoming. We have all made time to answer OHA’s questions so where is the honest attempt to reciprocate?


I think the point of question No. 8 in OHA’s opening post , as pointed out by the erstwhile scienceteacherinexile (now “scienceteacherbackathome,” one suspects… ;D ), is to illustrate the apparent absurdity of a single sexually reproducing organism springing spontaneously into existence one day and having no partner to reproduce with. Of course, the question is the usual creationist/ID straw man because it is basically no different to the expectation that a reptile should sprout avian appendages and turn into a bird before one’s eyes. The earliest forms of sexual reproduction may have arisen from symbiotic arrangements that had progressed to the point where the symbiotes could no longer survive independently of each other (I have not yet watched James’s video link). The bottom line is that we don’t rightly know exactly how things got started. However, we do know that an omnipotent creator-god is hardly a satisfactory scientific answer because maybe, as the story goes, s/he made the world as a joke last Wednesday at teatime with a complete history and appropriate sets of memories for everyone. Obviously, the latter hypothesis is scientifically meritless for being unfalsifiable. Nor does it tell us anything useful about the world.

In a deeper sense, that question No. 8 is indicative of the way that religious people often think in dichotomous, polar, either/or, black/white ways without seeing the bigger picture which usually is considerably more complicated and colourful. The question is a thinly disguised version of the which-came-first,-chicken-or-egg poser, and there are many variants that all implicitly assume that the two things being contrasted have always obtained in their fully formed state. In other words, our (current) inability to provide an answer to the question does not actually establish what many religious people think it establishes because the implied premises from which the question is asked are fraudulent, namely that if we can’t explain it then it had to be god’s doing. A consistent approach coupled with a rigorous appraisal in the same vein should prompt one earnestly to examine the question as to whether a god or sapient man came first. It is the answer to that one, as conditioned by the respective premises, which distinguishes the religious from the irreligious.