I don’t think Evolution answers as many questions as people believe it does. I am more inclined to think it creates more questions that it ends up answering. In no way do I profess any expertise in the subject, but I’ve read a few books both for and against as well as the courses I took while in school, and I’m still not sold. So here is something I thought of earlier this week: How do animals know what kind of animal they are? It sounds like a simple silly question but let me flesh it out a bit.
In order to perpetuate its own species, an animal must know what kind of animal it is, it must seek out the opposite sex of the same thing. So how would, say a red-tail hawk know to look for another red-tail hawk, and not some other very similar looking hawk, or even falcon, or even any other bird at all? It’s not as though the red-tail hawk knows what it looks like to look for the same thing when it’s time to mate.
I suppose it might be answered by referring to its beginnings in life when it was still being raised by a parent, it could see the kind of thing its mother and siblings are. But not every animal has this experience. Insects, reptiles, and fish for example, are birthed as independent organisms — once they are hatched they are on their own.
Could we say instinct is responsible? I’m not convinced Evolution can satisfy this explanation either as I wrote previously.
Instinct amounts to pre-programmed information — instructions, so to speak. Instinct tells the organism the where, when, what materials to look for how to use them, and how to do certain things. Instinct amounts informational content, it’s more than trial and error, more than figuring it out. Instinct already supplies the correct answers and applications.
For example, a spider doesn’t discover it can produce silk whenever it chooses to then try and form it into a web, it knows it can and just does it. It knows how to build a web; it knows where to build it; it knows why to build it; and it knows what to do when it’s built. The same is true in the butterfly example in the blog post, caterpillars know how, when, and where to build cocoons.
Information is goal oriented and is meant to be communicated and understood with a purpose in view. So how does a random process with no goal in mind produce real complex information to be understood and applied already pre-installed?
Sifting Reality 
Evolution first has to make a male and female at the same time in order to propagate the species. And I don’t want to hear the tired canard about asexual creatures – demonstrate to me how a human male and female can simultaneously develop.
How did evolution come up with morals, love, hate, imagination, emotions in general, – or anything intangible about the human mind – and the mind itself!
The best answer I’ve heard on male/female evolution is that there are microorganisms that swap genetic material when they touch. So, a long time ago, that type of gene swap could have developed into a type of organism that swapped or gave peices of genes to another that happened to be able to receive them and use them to add to genetic material it had and make a new one.
After that happened, all other male/female organisms evolved from there.
Not saying I buy it. Just that it’s the best answer I’ve heard. Still, that assumes that the information evolved in the first place.
If that is their best answer, it proves nothing but they need more faith to believe in evolution than I need to believe in God.
Agreed.
The problem with discussing evolution is that there is really 3 definitions of it.
1) gradual change over time: this is something humans have observed and taken advantage of for thousands of years from the beginnings of argriculture and the domestication of animals.
2) common ancestry within related species: again, not much issue here and something we’ve taken advantage of and can trace (e.g. domestic dogs, wild dogs, wolves, etc. all being part of the canine family likely have a common ancestor).
3) natural selection and random mutation as the mechanism for the creation of life from single cells to all life that currently exists, slowly over of billions of years. aka Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, naturalism and gradualism. There is no actual evidence for this definition, and plenty of evidence against it, yet it is the basis for Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories and what people are taught evolution is. There *are* other theories out there, but virtually no one has heard of them, and alternative theories usually get sucked under the umbrella of Darwin, anyhow. Like mutationism, which was originally put forward as an alternative evolutionary theory from Darwinian theory, since gradualism was so obviously wrong, but ended up being merged into Darwinian theory instead.
The convenient thing about these different definitions is that, when an evolutionist asks if someone “believes in” evolution, most people think they’re asking about definition 3, and that’s the one that is questionable. If you give anything other than a positive response, however, the evolutionist can then attack you for not believing in definitions 1 and 2 because to them, all three definitions are treated as one and the same. Of course, once someone questions the almighty wisdom of Darwin (who didn’t come up with evolutionary theory to begin with, but who cares, right?), they are immediately derided as “creationists”, anti-science, religious fanatics, ignorant, etc.
Of course, there are several definitions of “creationist”, too, but to the evolutionists, there’s only one, which is young earth creationist, with the assumption of extreme religiosity.
So when someone starts talking about evolution, my first question for them is “define evolution.” Just so we can be talking about the same thing.
Pheromones.