Airtight Argument?

[Dimmesdale]

I think I might have found the Airtight Argument disproving Christianity (for those who believe in evolution).

Here it is.

We evolved from lower life forms. Hence, there was no Adam and Eve and thus no Original Sin. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Is it airtight after all? That is the question I'd like to put up for debate. To me it seems conclusive, IF one believes in evolution, which in my opinion every reasonable person should....

[1213]

Rather, if a species exists where a trait is useful, and then their environmental conditions change drastically, then future generations will, via random mutation, generate changes in their existent traits. ....

Ok, I think I know and understand that already. However, my point was, if some animal has “vestigial traits� it is not a proof for evolution, because:
a) it may just seem vestigial, because people don’t really understand its function properly.
b) Even if it is vestigial and not useful feature, it doesn’t mean that it is because of evolution. In Biblical point of view we should expect to find that animals and humans have become less than they were after creation. According to the Bible, everything was good after creation. And then later sin came and things begun to disintegrate. Vestigial traits are evidence for that, because they show that there has happened disintegration, species have lost something that they once had.

Vestigial traits don’t really prove evolution theory. On the contrary, they seem to revoke it, because they imply that there once were more complete beings that nowadays are not as good as before. There is no evidence for things getting more complete, only things that show backward progress.

I appreciate your effort, but I think you are badly wrong and without any good evidence to support the evolution theory.

[Neatras]

Vestigial traits don’t really prove evolution theory. On the contrary, they seem to revoke it, because they imply that there once were more complete beings that nowadays are not as good as before. There is no evidence for things getting more complete, only things that show backward progress.

This is patently false. There are no "complete" beings. All lineages in history demonstrate that a trait can have its functions improved, reduced, or maintained. Neofunctionalization is observed in nature and the lab. Vestigiality has been demonstrated in nature and in the lab.

"More complete" is a loaded term that cannot actually be demonstrated. It relies on a biased and wholly uneducated assumption that just looking at an organ is enough to decide if it is "complete" or not, when descendants of that organism can have wildly different organ structures and functions. I've already addressed this. A "base state" for an organ is a very dangerous way of thinking because it ignores the fact that we can observe changes in organ structure over time, in a variety of ways.

Gene duplication, deletion, and nucleotide addition, deletion, and substitution are all documented and provide the basis for alterations to the genome in nearly every imaginable way.

You are ignoring real evidence by asserting that all walks of life are "disintegrating." Vestigial organs are only one example of change over time, whereas feather evolution, appendix evolution, devolution, re-evolution, devolution, etc. are all examples of traits being modified and gaining new functions, or expanding their scope to incorporate functions previously maintained by other traits, which then become vestigial.

It is the height of arrogance to declare that all forms of life are "deteriorating" just by looking at evidence of vestigial organs and attempting to ignore all the additional evidence in order to maintain a very narrow narrative.

Just because an organ or limb becomes smaller does not mean it is deteriorating. Just because an organ or limb becomes larger does not mean it is deteriorating/improving. It merely means that mutations causing it to adjust in size are being favored by selective pressures.

You arbitrarily declaring something to be "not as good as before" has no relevance to how life functions or changes over time. You clearly have an understanding of biology that is not as informed as experts who spend their lives studying the subject. A lack of expertise will negatively impact your argument, not because of authority, but because not studying a subject impairs your ability to know what flaws in your argument you are committing.

[1213]

This is patently false. There are no "complete" beings.

I used word “complete�, because I didn’t have better. I meant with it, if animal has something that is not anymore functional, it was once more functional. The animal has lost something and losing is opposite to gaining and evolution theory claims that simple organism has evolved by gaining new attributes in long time period. And for that I think we have no real evidence, only speculation and opinions.

Neofunctionalization is observed in nature and the lab.

Do you have some reference to study that tells more about those?

[polonius]

I suggest talking to some Roman Catholics, since the RCC maintains an official policy of acceptance of evolution.

Although I haven't really conversed with Catholics about this issue, there is no real way to skirt the issue because Catholics are obliged to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. However, this is (I think) impossible in the context of evolution because there couldn't have been a bottleneck of less than 10,000 hominids.

RESPONSE: What is the basis for your claim that Catholics are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[rikuoamero]

I suggest talking to some Roman Catholics, since the RCC maintains an official policy of acceptance of evolution.

Although I haven't really conversed with Catholics about this issue, there is no real way to skirt the issue because Catholics are obliged to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. However, this is (I think) impossible in the context of evolution because there couldn't have been a bottleneck of less than 10,000 hominids.

RESPONSE: What is the basis for your claim that Catholics are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

I'd imagine it's from the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1p6.htm