|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 27-Aug-21, 21:48 |
 youtu.be As the narrator in this video says, “To accept evolution, one must first accept that the impossible happened.” Think I’ll start listing by bullet points all the problems with Darwin’s completely discredited and ridiculous theory - there’s a lot! But the volume of flaws can be overwhelming when each flaw is written about at length. It’d be good, I think, to have a list of all the flaws as bullet points. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 09:37 |
From: Me Message: Hi guys! 👋 When you’re done talking about me, check out these quotes on your religion 🦠 🐟 🦅 🦕 🦛 🐘 🦍 👨 🙄 Philosophical Basis and Faith [Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3. “As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123. “…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi. [The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii. "In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his]. “The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise 1937 edition. (President of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris.) [The Big Bang] “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle---transcending physical principles….” Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161. “We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’; it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.” Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56 (September 1986): p730. “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999), p. 253. [The Big Bang] “…is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being….” Hannes Alfvén “The Big Bang Never Happened,” Discover 9 (June 1988), p. 78. “This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339. [Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", 1988, p. 45. "Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48 "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition) "... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.) "[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150. "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102. "Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007. A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." Sir Arthur Keith. Darwinism and its Critics. (1935), p53 "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution (1960), p150. "... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980) "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p33 "The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899. "It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds." Encounter, November 1959, p48 . "Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis." Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, (1985), p18 "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95. "Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49. "Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455. "The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him." Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957). "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors." S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982). "By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985). www.nwcreation.net |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 09:57 |
But I was, at times, definitely trolling him.>> No kidding. <<When I say things to ruffle his overblown self-righteousness, it’s trolling.>> Self righteousness? Not at all. My righteousness (right standing with God) comes entirely from having accepted Jesus Christ. As Pastor Joseph Prince is fond of saying, Christians are the righteousness of God *in Christ.* <<When I specifically point out the ridiculousness of his ‘angels on the head of a pin’ dogma, it’s trolling.>> Huh? I don’t recall you saying anything that proved (or even came close to proving) what I believe is ridiculous. <<He’s the master though. Every single thread and post has a purpose related to getting a rise out of someone.>> 95% of my threads are about Jesus Christ. Why would that get a rise out of you? As for the other 5%, why would criticism of the theory of evolution get a rise out of you? If I posted criticism of the theory of relativity or law of gravitation, would that get a rise out of you? Would you react the same way as you react to criticism of the theory of evolution? I doubt it. Because the theory of evolution is your religion and you’re ideologically and emotionally invested in it being true. It’s certainly not science, at least not the way science traditionally was, and in some cases still, is practiced. <<Us, in fact. If it weren’t for you and me, his club wouldn’t even exist.>> Yes, everything revolves around you and the founder of FiAT FLUX III. How do you put on a hat with such a swelled head? <<That’s some bad azz, professional level trolling. My hat’s off to him.>> Your hat’s always off ‘cause your head’s too swollen to wear it. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 11:16 |
It’s your dishonesty in claiming it’s a credible way to explain the complexity of life, and it’s your dishonesty in claiming you only view it as a “scientific” theory and not as an essential part of your worldview and belief system, that motivates me to post criticisms about it more often than I otherwise would. The fact is, more evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for the theory of evolution. People saw the Resurrected Christ. No one has seen one species turn into another species and plenty of attempts have been made with, for example, fruit flies and bacteria, both of which have short generational spans. Hundreds of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament predicted centuries in advance Jesus Christ coming to earth, including where He would be born, His lineage, what He would do during His earthly ministry, when He would be crucified, why He would be crucified, etc., etc. I’m not aware of a single prediction about the theory of evolution coming true. Instead, we see “scientists” trying to shoe-horn existing facts and discoveries into the theory. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is falsifiable. All anyone had to do shortly after His disciples and others claimed to have seen Him alive is produce His body. But they couldn’t because His tomb was empty. Is there anything that would cause most evolutionists to say, “Wow! Darwin was wrong after all!” I don’t think so. The theory is automatically believed by evolutionists to be true and any discovery that contradicts it is viewed as something that needs to be explained away. You need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than you do to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s why Darwin’s theory is your religion and you get so angry when someone points out its flaws and why you consider the criticisms to be trolling. It’s your atheism (and I think, more accurately, your hatred of God) that causes you to believe so strongly and fanatically in the theory of evolution and to have such an emotional and passionate response to criticisms of it. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 22:35 |
FEB 27, 2020, 1:16 PM Those who believe macroevolution, which is speciation, do so with no scientific evidence to support their claims. They ridicule and demean anyone who disagrees with them and simply refer to Darwin’s Theory as a fact. Science does not allow for facts, only theories and laws. A scientific theory is based on what’s currently known and must make way for new theories as new evidence arises. Microevolution is defined as the change within a species or organism over a short period of time. Macroevolution is defined as a new species evolving from an already existing species, which would be genetically different. These are two very different things, but that doesn’t stop evolutionists from pointing to micro as evidence of macro. The existence of one does not provide evidence for the other. There is no shortage of evolutionists who point to microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. These same people never point to any actual evidence of speciation being observed by anyone. Species and organisms adapt to their environments, which has been observed, but species evolving into something genetically different has never been observed by anyone. Not only has macroevolution never been observed, it has never been replicated. When asked to cite a single source claiming otherwise, it tends to be met with the idea that I would never hold the same view for any other scientific theory. Those who make the claim have no familiarity with the Scientific Method, which lays out the steps required for a hypothesis to become a theory. There are 6 steps to the Scientific Method. It is the process used to explore observations and answer questions. Built within the process is the requirement to take new information into account and altering a given theory as needed. The first step is to make an observation about what is witnessed in its current state, not something believed to have happened at one point. Speciation has never been witnessed by anyone. Darwin looked at fossils and came up with a conclusion about something that happened without any evidence to support his claim. Fossils tell us a great deal about events that did occur, such as the Cambrian Explosion, which was a sudden arrival of life with no fossils showing anything predating the event. Darwin was already aware of the Cambrian Explosion, but believed other fossils would be found to prove his theory. No fossils have ever been found to explain how the Cambrian Explosion came into existence. The second step is to ask questions and gather information, which Darwin attempted to do, but rushed his work. Not once did he ask where the positive mutations were in nature, since he had already come up with his own conclusions. There has never been a positive mutation witnessed by anyone, which is needed for macroevolution to occur. The third step is to form a hypothesis about what has been observed and information received. Darwin made this his first step and simply ignored what should have been the first step. He believed speciation occurred before he ever set sail and was going to force the data to fit his belief. This is not the making of scientific advancement, but the act of writing science-fiction. The fourth step is to test the hypotheses and prediction in experiments that can be reproduced. No one in the scientific community has been able to reproduce speciation. Every experiment ends up with the species or organism remaining exactly what they started with on the genetic level. In 1988, Biologist Richard Lenski, started a project working with E. coli bacteria to prove macroevolution exists. Over the course of those 30 years, there were over 68,000 generations witnessed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to human beings. It is believed this is the amount of generations needed to witness speciation. The reason they had to discontinue the research was from a lack of evidence to support macroevolution. E. coli remained E. coli at the genetic level, which showed signs of microevolution only. The fifth step is to analyze the data and either accept or reject the hypothesis. Despite the constant failures to prove macroevolution exists, since it has never actually been observed and not once has anyone come close to replicating the results, there is a refusal to give up on the theory. If macroevolution were scientific, the hypothesis would have to be rejected due to a lack of evidence. The final step is to reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observation and theory. It is difficult to reproduce something that has never been witnessed in nature. If macroevolution were a valid theory, a 30 year study of E. coli would have shown something genetically different than E. coli. In order for something to be a valid scientific theory, it must be observed, and the results replicated. Without observation and replication, it is nothing more than science-fiction being sold as science fact. No matter how smart some of the evolutionists might be, they cannot show any actual evidence to support their irrational belief. Logic demands taking the evidence as it is, not as one wishes it would be. No theory can be free of criticism and remain in the realm of science. All legitimate scientific theories are based on what is known, but those who claim macroevolution to be fact do not hold to scientific objectivity.” blogs.timesofisrael.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 23:00 |
44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults January 8, 2014 by Michael Snyder The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how ‘most scientists believe it’ and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (‘the scientists’). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as ‘truth’ about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been ‘proven’ and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the ‘truth’ about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be ‘stupid’ to everyone else. In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults… #1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero. #2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered… ‘Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?’ #3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of ‘Evolution’ once wrote the following… ‘I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’ #4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms… ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ #5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record… ‘In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.’ #6 If ‘evolution’ was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none. #7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find. #8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record… ‘A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.’ #9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it… ‘It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.’ #10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith. #11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that ‘the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.’ thetruthwins.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 23:28 |
“#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College… ‘Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.’ #13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has ‘scientific origins’ is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years. #14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the ‘millions of years’ theory is simply a bunch of nonsense… It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem. In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years. #15 The odds of even a single cell ‘assembling itself’ by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. #16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for. #17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this ‘living fossil’ had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years. #18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame? #19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: ‘It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.’ #20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity… ‘Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.’ #21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, ‘Piltdown Man’, turned out to be a giant hoax. #22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?” thetruthwins.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 31-Aug-21, 23:49 |
“#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this? #24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?… ‘The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!’ #25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, ‘the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.’ #26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way… ‘The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).’ #27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all… The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (‘younger’ and ‘older’ layers found in repeating sequences). ‘Out of place’ fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record. #28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous. #29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries… For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex. #30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through? #31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop? #32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen? #33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones? thetruthwins.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Sep-21, 00:07 |
“#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve? #35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have ‘evolved’ all by itself by accident… When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times. Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied. #36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?… 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one. #37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life. #38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old. #39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten… Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found. #40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the ‘illusion of design’, but that is kind of like saying that it is an ‘illusion’ that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone. #41 If you want to be part of the ‘scientific community’ today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality… We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. #42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution… ‘Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.’ #43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution… ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’ #44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith? thetruthwins.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Sep-21, 00:28 |
“Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes Kirk Durston July 16, 2015, 12:30 PM I often observe that in discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as ‘changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.’ An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution. Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galápagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation. The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is to the effect that ‘evolution’ is all rubbish, bunk, and false. They are often astonished to learn that variation (which they completely agree with) is defined as ‘evolution.’ The solution is for evolution skeptics to be more precise on exactly what they have problems with. They can endorse microevolution (variation) but point out that a) it is misleading to call variation ‘evolution’ and, b) their problems are with macroevolution. The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a ‘grand scale,’ or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well. Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. The reason that macroevolution has never been observed is that it requires statistically significant levels of novel genetic information. It is extremely difficult to achieve, but Darwinian theory predicts that genetic information can significantly increase over time. Falsifiable predictions can be made and these are worth examining. So in order to clearly distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution in a rigorous scientific way, let me propose the following definitions: Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information. Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information. Both “statistical significance” and “functional information” are defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above. evolutionnews.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Sep-21, 14:39 |
From ucg.org “DNA The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution Posted on May 21, 2005 by Mario Seiglie As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution? Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago. The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it. Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune. It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid. The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood. What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection. Amazing revelations about DNA As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. ‘One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century,’ says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., ‘was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code’ (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224). It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and ‘there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written’ (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334). Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this? DNA contains a genetic language Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose. Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. ‘The coding regions of DNA,’ explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, ‘have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language’ (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original). The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species’ communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals. The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that ‘DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised.’ Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account? DNA language not the same as DNA molecule Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it. If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. ‘In fact the content of the message,’ says professor Phillip Johnson, ‘is independent of the physical makeup of the medium’ (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71). The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it. As George Williams puts it: ‘The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message’ (quoted by Johnson, p. 70). Information from an intelligent source In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source. As Lee Strobel explains: ‘The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities’ (p. 244). For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it. So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program. Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples. He writes: ‘Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, ‘Take a 1/4-inch nut,’ a mutation might say, ‘Take a 3/8-inch nut.’ Or instead of ‘Place the round peg in the round hole,’ we might get ‘Place the round peg in the square hole’ . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio’ (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41). We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings. Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that ‘an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going’ (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added). Evolution fails to provide answers It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells! Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code. Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. ‘As recently as twenty-five years ago,’ says former atheist Patrick Glynn, ‘a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case.’ He adds: ‘Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . .’ (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53). Quality of genetic information the same Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information. So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man. Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of ‘artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours’ (Denton, p. 329). So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it? Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: ‘The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means’ (Strobel, p. 282). Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: ‘The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]’ (Gitt, p. 124). The clincher Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation. Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters. This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: ‘The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance’ (Gitt, p. 95). More witnesses Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell. ‘It was once expected,’ writes Professor Behe, ‘that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins’ (Behe, p. x). Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: ‘Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories’ (quoted by Strobel, p. 243). Dr. Meyer's conclusion? ‘I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction’ (ibid., p. 77). Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: ‘This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth’ (ibid., p. 221). Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code. ‘What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together,’ he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, ‘Leading Atheist Now Believes in God,’ Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004). ‘Fearfully and wonderfully made’ Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: ‘For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . .’ (Psalms 139:13-15, emphasis added). Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: ‘Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century’ (Denton, p. 358). All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: ‘Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday. ‘Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three’ (Johnson, p. 113). Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN” |
||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 09:27 |
It really is amazing to me that people actually believe the theory of evolution. But I think most people who believe it do so on the basis of scientists who lose all sense of skepticism, curiosity and intellectual rigor when it comes to the theory, and they do that because the theory is their religion. Of course, they’ll never admit that, but you can tell it’s their religion and an indispensable part of their worldview by how they react when it’s criticized or questioned. These scientists (and they really aren’t scientists when it comes to the theory of evolution) know that the only alternative to the theory of evolution is God, and they can’t and won’t accept that God exists. So they cling to Darwin’s theory as a justification for their atheism and they’ll keep clinging to it no matter what. I have no problem with people who believe the theory of evolution. I do have a problem with people trying to pass it off as science. “What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? Casey Luskin July 12, 2012, 12:01 PM Editor’s note: For Casey Luskin’s chapter in More than Myth on the top ten problems with evolution, click here. A few months back I gave my top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution: • Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: ‘The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,’ ‘Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,’ ‘Opening Darwin’s Black Box,’ or ‘Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins’); • The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see ‘Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record’ or ‘Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology’); • The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand ‘tree of life.’ (For details, see: ‘A Primer on the Tree of Life’); • Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient; • The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see ‘Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design’ and ‘Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem’); • The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see ‘The origin of life remains a mystery’ or ‘Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’); • The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: ‘Evolving views of embryology,’ ‘A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,’ ‘Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution’); • The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see ‘Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution’ or ‘Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism’); • A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called ‘junk’ DNA. (For details, ] see: ‘Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,’’The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,’ or ‘Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?); • Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe). Of course, even these ‘top ten’ still just scratch the surface. What would you add? evolutionnews.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 23:25 |
From christianevidence.net: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called science." (1 Timothy 6:20) The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 would likely be refering to evolution. "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of... the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Pet. 3:3-6) To be "willingly ignorant" implies that a concept is known but that it is rejected and ignored without serious consideration. They know of the biblical flood, but they refuse to open-mindedly investigate the evidence for it. 10 Scientific Facts disproving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution 1. The human body systems prove evolution wrong. There are 10 interdependent systems that exist. All of which cannot work unless the other 9 are already functioning. So which ones evolved first and why and in what order? And how would any of them function or even exist until the others evolved? 2. No one has ever observed evolution, there are no transitional fossils at all, see my article on the missing transitional fossils here. Evolution either has to be drawn, illustrated, or animated, which means evolution is only true in a virtual world, or someone's imagination. 3. In a global flood, the majority of aquatic life would not have to reach the surface of the water to get air. They would be expected to get buried in the same order level in the water in which they lived - which is exactly what we observe. It's funny how evolution supposedly evolved aquatic life in the exact same order the flood would have buried it... 4. Why do evolutionists have a population problem? Well, let us start in the beginning with one male and one female, and assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so. After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people! This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years. Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000. They refuse to even discuss this subject. But the evidence is there and it raises many questions evolutionists do not want to address. All because this evidence destroys their worldview. 5. The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman’s net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionists claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn’t have a leg to stand on. 6. The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos. The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong. 7. The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people should discover that plants grow from seeds. 8. According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? 9. Evolutionists say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, when the world population was roughly between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found... 10. Earth Age Inconsistency: Back in 1770 they taught the earth was 70,000 years old. In 1905 they said it's 2 billion years old. By 1969, they went to the moon, they brought back moon rocks and said: “Oh, they're 3.5 billion years old.” That was the official age; 3.5 billion. Today they say it's 4.6 billion years old. The reason evolutionists cannot accept the truth, despite the obvious lack of evidence for evolution, can be explained by a famous quote from zoologist and evolutionist, D.M.S Watson: Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. - D.M.S Watson This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer. www.christianevidence.net |
||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 23:43 |
Since the fossil record is really the only way evolutionists can provide evidence that macroevolution took place, don’t you think they’d at least know the number of transitional fossils that exist? Darwin thought the number of transitional fossils (what he termed “intermediate varieties”) would have to be “truly enormous” for his theory to be correct. Well guess what. Not only is the number of transitional fossils not “truly enormous,” it’s practically non-existent (if not fully non-existent.) From christianevidence.net Where are the transitional fossils for evolution? Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. If one basic type of animal evolved into another basic type, it must have passed through "in between" stages, or transitional forms. Whether or not these transitions were ever preserved as fossils, they must have existed. In fact, they must have existed by the trillions. Consider an evolutionary favorite—the evolution of a four-legged land animal (variously described as cow-like or wolf-like), into a whale. Surely this incredible transition couldn't take place in just a few steps—legs into flippers, fur into oily skin, etc. Where are the transitional forms? Evolutionists sometimes brag that they have abundant evidence of transitions, but when pressed, the examples are almost always minor variations within a category, as expected within creation thinking, and thus certainly not proof of evolution. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. In other words: Evolution—a theory of change without any evidence of change. Do you have that much blind faith? How is evolution not considered a religion? The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it? www.christianevidence.net |
||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Sep-21, 18:12 |
It covers many (not all) of the scientific objections to the theory of evolution and includes a partial list of scientists who chose to risk their professional reputations and livelihoods in the interest of science by saying they are skeptical of the theory of evolution’s ability to account for the complexity of life and that the theory should be scrutinized. Can you imagine any other theory where scientists have to form an organization saying the theory should be scrutinized? Far too many scientists are highly defensive and protective of the theory of evolution because it’s an indispensable part of their worldview and their religion. Anyone who questions or criticizes it is met with irrational hostility. Just go through the threads in FiAT FLUX III entitled “We love the Holy Bible,” “Evolution theory” and “We love the Holy Bible II” to see how many times I’ve been insulted, harassed, called names, lied about, etc. - all in an attempt to shut me up. Now imagine you’re a scientist subjected to this kind of intimidation and harassment from your peers, which damages your reputation and likely will damage your career as well. Who would risk it? Who would put up with it? Well it turns out many brave scientists do. Nearly 1,000 have signed a statement saying they are skeptical of the theory of evolution and that it needs to be scrutinized. I’ve posted comments in either this thread or the “Responses to Advocates of Darwin’s Garbage Theory” thread (can’t remember which) about the blowback scientists receive for simply questioning the theory. Can you imagine that happening with any other theory? The theory of evolution is a religion - not a scientific theory. Let me repeat that: The theory of evolution is a religion - not a scientific theory. The earth is their god, Charles Darwin is their lord and savior and “On the Origin of Species” is their Bible. And I’m not exaggerating or trolling. That’s the truth. There is very little - if any - evidence to support macroevolution and a mountain of evidence against it, as this excellent article demonstrates: “Debunking Evolution - main points from www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html John Michael Fischer, 2013 This list is a summary. More information is on the webpage. A. Evolutionists usually talk about small differences in creatures, but the claim of evolution theory is enormous – the invention of every form of life that exists or ever existed on Earth without using any intelligent guidance. The small differences are called “micro-evolution” but that is not evolution; it is variation. Every creature has limits to how much it can change or adapt - limits to its variation. Disease bacteria have mutations constantly and become resistant to drugs, but they always remain bacteria. “Macro-evolution”, big change, is what the theory of evolution is about. B. To get past the limits of variation, mutations are supposed to provide information to build new organs. But all known mutations result in the loss of information. There are cases where such loss has a selective advantage in certain situations, and disadvantages in other situations. Certainly, no new structure is invented. A short- circuit in a computer is like a mutation in DNA, and no-one would expect to upgrade their computer that way. C. Every structure and function in a creature takes much more than one change to "invent". It must be in the body-plan of the developing embryo, must differentiate stem cells into the proper type, must be able to receive nutrients, do waste removal and repair, must have nerves and muscles or other devices linked to a control center, and must integrate with the other elements of the biological system. If all these changes in the DNA do not happen randomly at the same time, it is impossible for a new, working organ to be made. D. There should be many more transitional creatures in the fossil record than distinct species, many times more. But there are none - not even Archaeopteryx. E. If life did not begin by chemicals coming together, there could be no evolution. Specialists have been working for 60 years on how this might have happened, and all they can produce "naturally" (without laboratory equipment and techniques to isolate and concentrate chemicals) are some of the many nucleotides and amino acids. They cannot make cell walls, RNA, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, cytoplasm, or cilia of even a cell or bacterium in a natural environment. After 60 years they have nothing to show but speculation and eternal hope. It is hard to prove a negative, but these origin-of-life specialists have come close. What we learn from their work is that life cannot arise on its own from chemicals, and thus there could never be evolution. F. Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes. G. Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse. H. In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are so- called “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous. I. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires all natural processes to become more disordered over time. It prevents the invention of new organs by mutations, because without a construction system already in place, things naturally fall apart – they don’t get more complex. J. The Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) has never been seen to have been violated. But evolutionists believe it must have happened, and maybe more than once! K. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of chirality for evolution theory. L. The minimum number of genes needed for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. And there are at least 17 basic things necessary for a cell to function, which must be working or it cannot live. This is the minimum level of complexity that must be met for a cell to exist: Replication, recombination, and repair Transcription Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis Defense mechanisms Cell wall/membrane biogenesis Signal transduction mechanisms Intracellular trafficking and secretion Translation Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones Energy production and conversion Carbohydrate transport and metabolism Amino acid transport and metabolism Nucleotide transport and metabolism Coenzyme transport and metabolism Lipid transport and metabolism Inorganic ion transport and metabolism Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism M. Evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time, sporadically, over many years. N. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) build and operate all living things. There are gene regulatory networks for everything that happens, and some networks control other networks in a chain of command. The interactions within these networks are so complex that attempts at mapping them quickly degenerate into mazes of interactions. Random mutations cannot produce any complexity, and this super-extreme complexity is in every living thing. Bottom line: Macro-evolution is physically impossible. It cannot happen; it has never happened. It is up to evolutionists, the ones making the claim, to prove otherwise. Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory." He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts." He wrote: "These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism. www.newgeology.us <<List of scientists who are publicly skeptical of Darwin’s theory - and who therefore are making themselves targets of scientists who abandon science when it come to the theory of evolution because they hate God and need a religion without God - will follow in the next post.>> |
||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Sep-21, 18:28 |
(One can only imagine what many would say if they didn’t feel the need to be diplomatic. See the end of the article immediately above this post for the undiplomatic view of Darwin’s ridiculous nonsense.) These scientists stand as living refutations of the evolutionists “big lie” that only “fundamentalist Christians” think Darwin’s theory of evolution is not credible. It’s not credible because it’s not science and there’s very little, if any, evidence for macroevolution. Religion has nothing to do with opposition to it. From www.newgeology.us Many courageous scientists have signed their names to the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” They do this knowing that they can be damaged professionally by reprisals from leading evolutionists. Some of those who signed are listed below. link: www.discovery.org Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University Joseph Atkinson, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ben J. Stuart, Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University Dennis Dean Rathman, Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory Thomas M. Stackhouse, Ph.D. Biochemistry University of California, Davis John B. Cannon, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Princeton University William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University Mark Fuller, Ph.D. Microbiology University of California, Davis John W. Balliet, Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania, Post- doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School Richard Gunasekera, Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University Marko Horb, Ph.D. Cell & Developmental Biology State University of New York Malcolm W. MacArthur, Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK) Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of California, Berkeley Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics Purdue University Harry Lubansky, Ph.D. Biological Chemistry University of Illinois, Chicago Daniel L. Moran, Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology Ohio University John Omdahl, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico Tony Mega, Ph.D. Biochemistry Purdue University Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. Molecular Genetics Ohio State University Fred Van Dyke, Professor of Biology and Chair of the Biology Department Wheaton College (Illinois) Jason David Ward, Ph.D. Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Glasgow University (UK) Weimin Gao, Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory Charles Detwiler, Ph.D. Genetics Cornell University Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley David Zartman, Ph.D. Genetics & Animal Breeding Ohio State University Mark Toleman, Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University (UK) Joseph Lary, Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow, Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry Rutgers University Luke Randall, Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK) Christian M. Loch, Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia Hannes Fischer, Ph.D. in Molcular Biology University of Pennsylvania Peter Silley, Ph.D. Microbial Biochemistry University of Newcastle upon Tyne Marco Fasoli, Ph.D. in Biochemistry University of Cambridge (UK) Chrystal L. Ho Pao, Assistant Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Molecular Genetics, Harvard U.) Trinity International University Emilio Cervantes, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology University of Salamanca, Spain Donald F. Smee, Research Professor (Microbiology) Utah State University Colin R. Reeves, Professor of Operational Research (Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms) Coventry University (UK) Eugene K. Balon, University Professor Emeritus, Department of Integrative Biology University of Guelph (Canada) William F. Smith, Ph.D. in Molecular & Cellular Biology McGill University William A. Eckert III, Ph.D. in Cell & Molecular Physiology University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Dennis M. Sullivan, Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University Olivia Torres, Professor-Researcher (Human Genetics) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Donald A. Kangas, Professor of Biology Truman State University John S. Roden, Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University Wayne Linn, Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University Luman R. Wing, Associate Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics (Ph.D. Biology) Complutense University (Spain) E. Norbert Smith, Ph.D. Zoology Texas Tech University Peter C. Iwen, Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center Daniel Howell, Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech Charles A. Signorino, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania Jan Frederic Dudt, Associate Professor of Biology Grove City College John G. Hoey, Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School Theodore J. Siek, Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University Ivan M. Lang, Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University Joel Brind, Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia) Glen Needham, Associate Professor of Entomology Ohio State University Rod Rogers, Ph.D. Agronomy/Plant Breeding Iowa State University L. Kirt Martin, Professor of Biology Lubbock Christian University Paul S. Darby, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Georgia James A. Huggins, Chair, Dept. of Biology & Dir., Hammons Center for Scientific Studies Union University Scott S. Kinnes, Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University Bruce Simat, Associate Professor of Biology Northwestern College Jarrod W. Carter, Ph.D. Bioengineering University of Washington William McVaugh, Associate Professor of Biology Department of Natural Sciences, Malone College Jeffrey E. Lander, Ph.D. Biomechanics University of Oregon James G. Tarrant, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin Lennart Saari, Adjunct Professor, Wildlife Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami Gary Maki, Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho C. Steven Murphree, Professor of Biology Belmont University Charles G. Sanny, Prof. of Biochemistry Oklahoma State University Ctr. for Health Sciences Wusi Maki, Research Asst. Professor, Dept. of Microbiology, Mol. Biology, & Biochem. University of Idaho Yvonne Boldt, Ph. D. Microbiology University of Minnesota David William Jensen, Professor of Biology Tomball College Øyvind A. Voie, Ph.D. Biology University of Oslo (Norway) David K. Shortess, Professor of Biology (Retired) New Mexico Tech A.D. Harrison, Emeritus Professor of Biology University of Waterloo Richard S. Beale, Jr., Ph.D. Entomology University of California, Berkeley Roger Lien, Ph.D. Physiology North Carolina State University Gregory J. Brewer, Prof. of Neurology, Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Biology Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Marc C. Daniels, Associate Professor of Biology William Carey University Ke-Wei Zhao, Ph.D. Neuroscience University of California, San Diego Henry Zuill, Emeritus Professor of Biology Union College Begona M. Bradham, Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of South Carolina Ernest L. Brannon, Professor Emeritus, Distinguished Research Professor (Ph.D. Fisheries) University of Idaho Miroslav Hill, Former Director of Research Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France) Christopher Williams, Ph.D. Biochemistry Ohio State University Georg A. Speck, Ph.D. Biology, Molecular Pharmacology University of Heidelberg (Germany) Noel Funderburk, Ph.D. Microbiology University of North Texas Gerald Wegner, Ph.D. Entomology Loyola University Robert Waltzer, Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College James R. Brawer, Professor of Anatomy & Cell Biology (Ph.D., Harvard) McGill University (Canada) Linda Walkup, Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School Nigel E. Robinson, Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Nottingham (UK) Vincente Villa, Emeritus Professor of Biology Southwestern University Royal Truman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Michigan State University Denis M. Boyle, Ph.D. Medical Biochemistry University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University Leonard Loose, Ph.D. Botany University of Leeds (UK) Derek Linkens, Senior Research Fellow and Emeritus Professor (Biomedical Eng.) University of Sheffield (UK) James Swanson, Professor of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University Wade Warren, C.J. Cavanaugh Chair in Biology Louisiana College Justin Holl, Ph.D. Animal Science University of Nebraska, Lincoln Mark Swanson, Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois Ricardo Bravo Méndez, Professor of Zoology and Ichthyology Universidad de Valparaíso (Chile) Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University Timothy Standish, Ph.D. Environmental Biology George Mason University Audris Zidermanis, Ph.D. Nutrition & Molecular Biology Texas Woman’s University Jacquelyn W. McClelland, Professor (Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry) North Carolina State University, NCCE John Silvius, Ph.D. Plant Physiology West Virginia University Edson R. Rocha, Research Assistant Professor, Microbiology, East Carolina University Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus of Physiology California State University, Long Beach Gregory Shearer, Ph.D. Physiology University of California, Davis Marshall Adams, Ph.D. Marine Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Leslie J. Wiemerslage, Emeritus Professor (Ph.D. Cell Biology, Univ. of Pennsylvania) Southwestern Illinois College Steve Maxwell, Associate Professor of Molecular and Cellular Medicine Texas A&M University, H.S.C. Charles W. Bell, Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences San Jose State University Seyyed Imran Husnain, Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK) Gayle Livingston Birchfield, Ph.D. Biology University of Missouri, Columbia Thomas Saleska, Professor of Biology Concordia University Jussi Meriluoto, Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Pharmacy Abo Akademi University (Finland) Mubashir Hanif, Ph.D. Plant Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Dan Reynolds, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin Oleh Havrysh, Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry & Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Mark Shlapobersky, Ph.D. Virology Bar-Ilan University (Israel) Arthur John Jones, Ph.D. Zoology & Comparative Physiology Birmingham University (UK) David Reed, Ph.D Entomology University of California, Riverside Bruce Holman, III, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Northwestern University Gordon Mills, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry University of Texas, Medical Branch Rebecca Orr, Ph.D. Cell Biology University of Texas, Southwestern Khawar Sohail Siddiqui, Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia) Steve D. Figard, Ph.D. Biochemistry Florida State University Art Nitz, Ph.D. Anatomy & Neurobiology University of Kentucky Thomas Milner, Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Martin Poenie, Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Texas, Austin Andy McIntosh, Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory University of Leeds (UK) Shane A. Kasten, Post-Doctoral Fellow (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Kansas State University) Virginia Commonwealth University Garrick Little, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Texas A & M University Peter Line, Ph.D. Neuroscience Swinburne University of Technology (Australia) Paul Whitehead, Ph.D. Chemical Thermodynamics University of Natal (South Africa) Matti Leisola, Professor, Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez, Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Kurt J. Henle, Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Teresa Larranaga, Ph.D. Pharmacology University of New Mexico Yuri Zharikov, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow (Ph.D. Zoology) Simon Fraser University (Canada) Martin LaBar, Ph. D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison Heather Kuruvilla, Ph.D. Biological Sciences State University of New York, Buffalo Paul Kuld, Associate Professor of Biological Science Biola University Charles Koons, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Minnesota Miguel A. Rodriguez, Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada) Carl Koval, Full Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry University of Colorado, Boulder Magda Narciso Leite, Professor, College of Pharmacy & Biochemistry Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (Brazil) Hiroshi Ishii, M.D., Ph.D. Behavioral Neurology Tohoku University (Japan) Michael Kinnaird, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Lasse Uotila, M.D., Ph.D. Medicinal Biochemistry University of Helsinki (Finland) Irfan Yilmaz, Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Systematic Zoology) Dokuz Eylul University (Turkey) Micheal Kelleher, Ph.D. Biophysical Chemistry University of Ibadan (Nigeria) David Jones, Professor of Biochemistry & Chair of Chemistry Grove City College Yongsoon Park, Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Washington State University Tony Jelsma, Ph.D. Biochemistry McMaster University (Canada) David Ives, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Ohio State University Amiel G. Jarstfer, Professor & Chair, Department of Biology LeTourneau University Mark P. Bowman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University Rafe Payne, Ph.D. Biology University of Nebraska Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D. Biophysics University of Illinois Joseph Francis, Associate Professor of Biology Cedarville University Roland Hirsch, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Michigan Todd Peterson, Ph.D. Plant Physiology University of Rhode Island Walter Hearn, Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois Janice Arion, Ph.D. Animal Science Cornell University William Harris, Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry University of Minnesota James Harman, Associate Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry Texas Tech University Dan Hale, Professor of Animal Science Texas A&M University Sun Uk Kim, Ph.D. Biochemical Engineering University of Delaware Mark Geil, Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University Ibrahim Barsoum, Ph.D. Microbiology George Washington University Jim Gibson, Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University William Gilbert, Emeritus Professor of Biology Simpson College Pamela Faith Fahey, Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Illinois Ann Gauger, Ph.D. Zoology University of Washington John K. G. Kramer, Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Human Biology & Nutrition Sciences University of Guelph (Canada) Daniel Galassini, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University Stephen C. Knowles, Ph.D. Marine Science University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Marvin Fritzler, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Calgary Medical School (Canada) Suzanne Sawyer Vincent, Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Washington Clarence Fouche, Professor of Biology Virginia Intermont College Margaret Flowers, Professor of Biology Wells College William Everson, Ph.D. Human Physiology Penn State College of Medicine Bruce Evans, Ph.D. Neurobiology Emory University Daniel Ely, Professor, Biology University of Akron Robert Eckel, Professor of Medicine, Physiology & Biophysics University of Colorado Health Sciences Center David Prentice, Professor, Department of Life Sciences Indiana State University Kenneth Dormer, Ph.D. Biology & Physiology University of California, Los Angeles Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D. Biochemistry Texas A & M University David DeWitt, Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry Liberty University Michael Delp, Professor of Physiology Texas A&M University Robert DeHaan, Ph.D. Human Development University of Chicago Gage Blackstone, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University Thomas Deahl, Ph.D. Radiation Biology The University of Iowa Leon Combs, Professor & Chair, Chemistry & Biochemistry Kennesaw State University Jan Chatham, Ph.D. Neurophysiology University of North Texas Shing-Yan Chiu, Professor of Physiology University of Wisconsin, Madison Donald Clark, Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry Louisiana State University John Brumbaugh, Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences University of Nebraska, Lincoln Gary Kastello, Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee Karen Rispin, Assistant Professor of Biology LeTourneau University Robert W. Kelley, Ph.D. Entomology Clemson University David Richard Carta, Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego Lydia G. Thebeau, Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University Raymond Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas Donald R. Mull, Ph.D. Physiology University of Pittsburgh Richard Austin, Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences Piedmont College Olen R. Brown, Emeritus professor of Molecular Microbiology & Immunology University of Missouri, Columbia D.R. Eiras-Stofella, Director, Electron Microscopy Center (Ph.D. Molecular Biology) Parana Federal University (Brazil) Neal Adrian, Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma Abraham S. Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University Michael Behe, Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School Thomas G. Guilliams, Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin David Bolender, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin John A. Davison, Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont Ralph Seelke, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior Annika Parantainen, Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland) Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong Donald Ewert, Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Scott Minnich, Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho Bernard d'Abrera, Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History) Denis Fesenko, Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko, Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) J. Benjamin Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Notre Dame Israel Hanukoglu, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Giuseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy) Stanley Salthe, Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Philip Skell, Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Lev Beloussov, Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff, Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek, Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic www.newgeology.us |
||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 14:48 |
The pagan religion of evolution, in which the earth is god, Charles Darwin is a prophet and On the Origin of Species is a bible, is as old as the real Holy Bible itself. Check out these verses written by the apostle Paul 2,000 years ago: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” (1 Timothy 6:20) Note that Paul doesn’t say to avoid science but “science falsely so called.” That’s the theory of evolution, my friends! There’s more evidence - much more evidence - for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for macroevolution. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:20-25) The final verse in the above passage is translated in the New International Version as: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” (Romans 1:25) Again, that speaks of evolutionists. Your pagan religion is as old as the Holy Bible! And you guys think you’re learned, modern thinkers - it’s hilarious! |
||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Sep-21, 10:36 |
Nobel-Winning DNA Research Challenges Evolutionary Theory Add to this how rare mutations are - and how rarer still beneficial mutations are - and you begin to see why the theory of evolution is not credible. (And this is just one example!) I’ve long believed science - real science - ultimately would disprove the theory of evolution. And that already would have happened in the minds of most scientists and the general public if evolution had not become a religion for so many atheists in science. From reasons.org: Nobel-Winning DNA Research Challenges Evolutionary Theory In 2015, three scientists won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for decades of research into DNA—research that reinforces the idea that evolution is mythology and makes the modern evolutionary theory of abiogenesis seem more and more indefensible. It turns out that DNA is inherently unstable, and the preservation of genetic information requires a complex symbiotic relationship between the cell and DNA that is so interdependent that neither could have arisen independently of the other. New Insight into DNA and the Cell DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the giant organic molecule which carries and preserves an organism’s genetic information. DNA is essential to the growth and reproduction of life-forms because precise copying and self-replication of DNA is a critical part of the process of cell division. Tomas Lindahl, the first Nobel laureate, has demonstrated that the rate at which DNA decays should have made the development of life on Earth impossible. The Nobel Committee expresses this on a personal level: “you ought to have been a chemical chaos long before you even developed into a foetus.” So why doesn’t our genetic material disintegrate into complete chemical chaos? It is because of molecular repair mechanisms within the cell. The three Nobel laureates “mapped, at a molecular level, how cells repair damaged DNA and safeguard the genetic information.” They found that a multitude of molecular systems constantly monitor the genome and repair any damage. One such mechanism discovered by Lindahl is base excision repair, which explains why our DNA doesn’t collapse. A base of a nucleotide often loses an amino group and becomes unable to form a base pair, thus breaking the DNA chain. But an enzyme detects the error, and other enzymes repair it so that the DNA can replicate properly. Paul Modrich, the second laureate, discovered another molecular mechanism called mismatch repair. Replication errors often occur as the DNA is copied, but Modrich found that enzymes continually detect most of these errors, and other enzymes repair them. The Nobel Committee says this “reduces the error frequency during DNA replication by about a thousandfold.” One further issue that DNA must contend with is mutations caused by DNA damage due to radiation and a variety of mutagenic substances. For example, radiation might make two base pairs bind to one another incorrectly. But the third laureate, Aziz Sancar, discovered that through a mechanism called nucleotide excision repair, enzymes will cut out, remove, and replace a damaged DNA strand. We have long known that the cell could not reproduce without DNA, but we now know that DNA would self-destruct without the cell. It is this complex symbiotic relationship between a cell and its DNA that makes the modern evolutionary theory more difficult to defend. Climbing Mount Impossible The theory of chemical evolution or abiogenesis suggests that life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter. Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and life emerged about 1 billion years after Earth’s formation. Our earlier article on abiogenesis discussed calculations by several scientists who have shown that the probability that the chemistry necessary for life self-assembled in only 1 billion years by undirected, random processes is so infinitesimally small as to be essentially impossible. And those calculations don’t even take into consideration the four-letter molecular language (genetic code) with 20 “words” (each representing an amino acid) through which DNA carries the organism’s genetic information. Even simple languages are usually associated with an intelligent agency—not undirected, random action—as is illustrated by the SETI program’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Furthermore, life is more complex than mere chemistry. The life-forms in our world are self-sustaining and self-replicating, and unless these features were in place when the chemistry of life assembled, any life which appeared could neither grow nor reproduce. Self-preservation instincts go beyond the competence of mathematical probability calculations. It seems a miracle would be necessary for all this to come together by undirected, random processes over a time span of only 1 billion years! Yet the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry now raises the bar even higher. This research shows that for abiogenesis to occur, undirected, random processes must have anticipated the inherent instability of DNA and assembled the cell with the variety of enzymes necessary to prevent the self-destruction of DNA. Additionally, the cell’s chemistry, the self-preservation instinct, and anticipatory DNA repair mechanisms must have all come together at the same instant in time within only 1 billion years; otherwise, any nascent life could not have survived. If the probability barrier to evolution seemed like climbing Mount Improbable before, it has now become climbing Mount Impossible. Could simple single-celled life-forms emerge and evolve into more complex life? Single-celled life-forms are not so simple. For example, the genome of an aerobic hyper-thermophilic crenarchaeon (a thermophilic archaea, a type of bacteria) consists of 1.7 billion base pairs, which is almost 60 percent of the 2.9 billion base pairs in the human genome. How does this impact the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution? According to the Nobel Committee, “if genetic information were too unstable no multi-cellular organisms would exist” because evolution requires mutations. Yet the DNA repair mechanisms limit the number of mutations. Although the mutation frequency varies between species and site, it is uniformly quite small. As an illustration, the average mutation rate in humans has been estimated to be only ~2.5 x 10-8 mutations per nucleotide. Most mutations have no effect, and approximately 3 percent are harmful. A study of mutation fitness found that advantageous mutations are rare. An earlier article estimated that less than 50 new mutations per generation occur in the genes governing human intellectual ability. Of these 50 mutations, one to two are deleterious, and a vanishingly small fraction increase fitness. In other words, the number of favorable mutations—upon which natural selection can operate—is extremely small, and this Nobel-winning research seems to provide an explanation for this. The discoveries made by the 2015 Nobel laureates serve as another example of how modern science is bringing more and more questions into the theory of naturalistic evolution, adding support to the idea that everything on Earth was created by a higher intelligence. reasons.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Sep-21, 17:54 |
Because evolutionists are so quick to attack authors and sources of information they dislike, I’ll first list this author’s biography, followed by his article on the fraudulent research that led to such a high similarity between DNA from humans and DNA from chimpanzees. Here is the author’s professional biography: “Jeffrey Tomkins has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University, an M.S. in Plant Science from the University of Idaho, and a B.S. in Agriculture Ed. from Washington State University. He was on the Faculty in the Dept of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson University for a decade, where he published 57 secular research papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and seven chapters in scientific books in the areas of genetics, genomics, and proteomics. For the past six years, Dr Tomkins has been a Research Scientist at ICR specializing in genomics and bioinformatics research where he has published 24 peer-reviewed creation science journal papers, two books, and a wide variety of semi-technical articles in the ICR magazine Acts & Facts.” creation.com And here is the article: DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2017 The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man. The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact. After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution. The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa. But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever. The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear. The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped” to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples. Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was. These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish. As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated. Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth. However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align. Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper! Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched” together with powerful computers. In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together. Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework. This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome. Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA. A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others. These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication. The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be. So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human. What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean? So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses. So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design. The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses. In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape. www.icr.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Sep-21, 14:21 |
I’ve believed for some time that science - real science - would disprove evolution. But some “scientists” will continue to believe it because it’s their pagan religion. youtu.be This video is 8:37 long. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Sep-21, 10:57 |
What I do have a problem with is people trying to pass off the theory of evolution as science, when it so clearly isn’t. As this article demonstrates, even leading evolutionists admit the theory is not science but is actually a religion. And as a religion, the theory of evolution - unlike the Resurrection of Jesus Christ - totally lacks evidence, which is why evolutionists always try to change the subject to creationism whenever flaws with evolution are brought up (and there are a ton of them!) From icr.org: Evolution Is Religion, Not Science Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed. For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation,"with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". G.H. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". Sir Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process" and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality." A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin. The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.’ The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.” The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist." although himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us". Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". In another address he called evolution "story-telling". All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they use in describing evolution: • Evolutionary dogma • A scientific religion • A satisfactory faith • The myth of evolution • Man's world view • Anti-knowledge • All-pervading process • Revealed truth • The whole of reality • An illuminating light • Metaphysical belief • Story-telling Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life". Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith", nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as "dogma". Evolution is, indeed, a grand world view, but it is not science. Its very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it". RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies. The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things. In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution. All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of evolutionary "science". In the modern school of course, this teaching mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents claim to be a "nontheistic religion". It should also be recalled that such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based on what they regarded as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded from the schools because it is compatible with Christian "fundamentalism", should not evolution also be banned since it is the basis of communism and nazism? THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity, gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking evolution was tantamount to attacking science! The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.H. Harper comments on this subject as follows: It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is centeral to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but, no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of Science News. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal was cormmemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty years. Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to evolutionist thought. These six were as follows: (1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in fruit flies. (2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic information. (3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology. (4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA. (5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code. (6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules. Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic physical laws. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools. www.icr.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Sep-21, 16:15 |
Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken From cnsnews.com Darwinian theory is broken and may not be fixable. That was the takeaway from a meeting last month organized by the world's most distinguished and historic scientific organization, which went mostly unreported by the media. The three-day conference at the Royal Society in London was remarkable in confirming something that advocates of intelligent design (ID), a controversial scientific alternative to evolution, have said for years. ID proponents point to a chasm that divides how evolution and its evidence are presented to the public, and how scientists themselves discuss it behind closed doors and in technical publications. This chasm has been well hidden from laypeople, yet it was clear to anyone who attended the Royal Society conference, as did a number of ID-friendly scientists. Maybe that secrecy helps explain why the meeting was so muffled in mainstream coverage. Oh, there were a few reports. In the Huffington Post, science journalist Suzan Mazur complained of a lack of momentousness: "[J]ust what was the point of attracting a distinguished international gathering if the speakers had little new science to present? Why waste everyone's time and money?" On the other hand, a write-up in The Atlantic by Carl Zimmer acknowledged a sense of strain between rival cliques of evolutionists: "Both sides offered their arguments and critiques in a civil way, but sometimes you could sense the tension in the room – the punctuations of tsk-tsks, eye-rolling, and partisan bursts of applause." Mild drama notwithstanding, why should anyone care? For one thing, the Royal Society, dating back to 1660, is a legend in the science world. Its founders included the great chemist Robert Boyle, and it was later headed for 24 years (1703-1727) by Isaac Newton – a fact that is hard to forget with Newton's death mask on prominent display in a glass case. Portraits of Boyle and Newton look down from the walls above. So the historical connections lend a certain weight by themselves. What's really notable, however, is that such a thoroughly mainstream body should so openly acknowledge problems with orthodox neo-Darwinian theory. Indeed, though presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked the theory of intelligent design, the proceedings perfectly illustrated a point made by our colleague Stephen Meyer, author of the New York Times bestseller “Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.” Dr. Meyer, a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, writes provocatively in the book's Prologue: “The technical literature in biology is now replete with world-class biologists routinely expressing doubts about various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory, and especially about its central tenet, namely the alleged creative power of the natural selection and mutation mechanism. “Nevertheless, popular defenses of the theory continue apace, rarely if ever acknowledging the growing body of critical scientific opinion about the standing of the theory. Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature.” The opening presentation at the Royal Society by one of those world-class biologists, Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller, underscored exactly Meyer’s contention. Dr. Müller opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental "explanatory deficits" of “the modern synthesis,” that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. According to Müller, the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining: • Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures); • Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally • Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types. As Müller has explained in a 2003 work (“On the Origin of Organismal Form,” with Stuart Newman), although “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose – reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived and actual status of the theory that Meyer described in “Darwin’s Doubt.” Yet, the most important lesson of the Royal Society conference lies not in its vindication of claims that our scientists have made, gratifying as that might be to us, but rather in defining the current problems and state of research in the field. The conference did an excellent job of defining the problems that evolutionary theory has failed to solve, but it offered little, if anything, by way of new solutions to those longstanding fundamental problems. Much of the conference after Müller’s talk did discuss various other proposed evolutionary mechanisms. Indeed, the prime movers in the Royal Society event, Müller, James Shapiro, Denis Noble, and Eva Jablonka – known to evolutionary biologists as the "Third Way of Evolution" crowd, neither ID theorists nor orthodox Darwinists – have proposed repairing the explanatory deficits of the modern synthesis by highlighting evolutionary mechanisms other than random mutation and natural selection. Much debate at the conference centered around the question of whether these new mechanisms could be incorporated into the basic population genetics framework of neo-Darwinism, thus making possible a new “extended” evolutionary synthesis, or whether the emphasis on new mechanisms of evolutionary change represented a radical, and theoretically incommensurable, break with established theory. This largely semantic, or classificatory, issue obscured a deeper question that few, if any, of the presentations confronted head on: the issue of the origin of genuine phenotypic novelty – the problem that Müller described in his opening talk. Indeed, by the end of Day 3 of the meeting, it seemed clear to many of our scientists, and others in attendance with whom they talked, that the puzzle of life's novelties remained unsolved – if, indeed, it had been addressed at all. As a prominent German paleontologist in the crowd concluded, “All elements of the Extended Synthesis [as discussed at the conference] fail to offer adequate explanations for the crucial explanatory deficits of the Modern Synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism) that were explicitly highlighted in the first talk of the meeting by Gerd Müller.” In “Darwin’s Doubt,” for example, Meyer emphasized the obvious importance of genetic and other (i.e., epigenetic) types of information to building novel phenotypic traits and forms of life. The new mechanisms offered by the critics of neo-Darwinism at the conference – whether treated as part of an extended neo-Darwinian synthesis or as the basis of a fundamentally new theory of evolution – did not attempt to explain how the information necessary to generating genuine novelty might have arisen. Instead, the mechanisms that were discussed produce at best minor microevolutionary changes, such as changes in wing coloration of butterflies or the celebrated polymorphisms of stickleback fish. Moreover, the mechanisms that were discussed – niche construction, phenotypic plasticity, natural genetic engineering, and so on – either presupposed the prior existence of the biological information necessary to generate novelty, or they did not address the mystery of the origin of that information (and morphological novelty) at all. (Not all the mechanisms addressed were necessarily new, by the way. Niche construction and phenotypic plasticity have been around for a long time.) Complex behaviors such as nest-building by birds or dam construction by beavers represent examples of niche construction, in which some organisms themselves demonstrate the capacity to alter their environment in ways that may affect the adaptation of subsequent generations to that environment. Yet no advocate of niche construction at the meeting explained how the capacity for such complex behaviors arose de novo in ancestral populations, as they must have done if the naturalistic evolutionary story is true. Rather, these complex behaviors were taken as givens, leaving the critical question of their origins more or less untouched. While there is abundant evidence that animals can learn and transmit new behaviors to their offspring – crows in Japan, for instance, have learned how to use automobile traffic to crack open nuts – all such evidence presupposes the prior existence of specific functional capacities enabling observation, learning, and the like. The evolutionary accounts of niche construction theory therefore collide repeatedly with a brick wall marked "ORIGINAL COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY REQUIRED HERE" – without, or beyond which, there would simply be nothing interesting to observe. James Shapiro’s talk, clearly one of the most interesting of the conference, highlighted this difficulty in its most fundamental form. Shapiro presented fascinating evidence showing, contra neo-Darwinism, the non-random nature of many mutational processes – processes that allow organisms to respond to various environmental challenges or stresses. The evidence he presented suggests that many organisms possess a kind of pre-programmed adaptive capacity – a capacity that Shapiro has elsewhere described as operating under “algorithmic control.” Yet, neither Shapiro, nor anyone else at the conference, attempted to explain how the information inherent in such algorithmic control or pre-programmed capacity might have originated. This same “explanatory deficiency” was evident in the discussions of the other mechanisms, though we won’t attempt to demonstrate that exhaustively here. We would direct readers, however, to Chapters 15 and 16 of “Darwin’s Doubt,” where Meyer highlighted the way in which, not just neo-Darwinism, but also newer evolutionary mechanisms (including many discussed at the conference) fail to solve the question of the origin of information necessary to generate novelty. In those chapters, Meyer reviewed a range of proposed fixes to the Modern Synthesis. He acknowledged and described the various advantages that many of these proposals have over neo-Darwinism, but also carefully explained why each of these mechanisms falls short as an explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to build novel structures and forms of animal life. He quoted paleontologist Graham Budd who has observed: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings … . But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.” Many fascinating talks at the Royal Society conference described a number of evolutionary mechanisms that have been given short shrift by the neo-Darwinian establishment. Unfortunately, however, the conference will be remembered, as Suzan Mazur intimated in her coverage, for its failure to offer anything new. In particular, it failed to offer anything new that could help remedy the main “explanatory deficit” of the neo-Darwinian synthesis – its inability to account for the origin of phenotypic novelty and especially, the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to produce it. These are still problems that evolutionary theory tells us little about – constituting, in our judgment, an invitation to scientists to consider the alternative of intelligent design. www.cnsnews.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Oct-21, 22:45 |
From gotquestions.org: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled. There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way. Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons. First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution. Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time. While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead. Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate. The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another. Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God. Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically. www.gotquestions.org |
||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Oct-21, 11:48 |
The theory fails to follow the Scientific Method (see here: m.gameknot.com) and its central hypothesis - that one species turns into another species through variation and natural selection - was neither observed nor demonstrated by an experiment at the time Darwin proposed his theory. And that remains true today - 160 years later. An evolutionist and scientist on here stated unequivocally that a proposal that lacks observation or experimentation was “scientifically useless,” and I agree wholeheartedly with him! After many months of disagreement with this scientist, he and I agree. I think this is a profoundly true paragraph about the evolutionist’s mindset from the most recent article I posted, which presents an overview of the problems that the fossil record presents to the theory of evolution: “…to the evolutionary biologist or paleontologist, species’ emergence is assumed facts. The evidence must support the assumption, or the evidence must be faulty. Reasoning never considers that the evidence perhaps indicates other possibilities. The Theory is non-negotiable regardless of what the evidence might or might not indicate.” The theory of evolution is not science, folks. It’s a pagan religion as old as the Holy Bible or, perhaps, more accurately, the theory is simply pantheism. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Oct-21, 13:22 |
I’ve requested numerous times on here for evolutionists to state the exact number of transitional fossils that exist, where and when they were found, and what characteristics of the alleged transitional fossils give them that status. They consistently refuse to do it. Why? Because their “hybrids” aren’t based on fossils - they’re based on conjecture, wishful thinking and a generous sprinkling of fairy dust. Well, science requires hard evidence - not conjecture and wild speculation. If evolutionists can’t identify “hybrids” by actual fossils, the hybrids don’t exist. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Oct-21, 14:14 |
What I do have a problem with, however, is people tarnishing and disrespecting science by falsely claiming the theory of evolution is based on science or is a “scientific” theory. It’s nothing of the sort. If the theory of evolution didn’t provide a way for people to not believe in God, it would have been discarded as the rubbish it is long ago. You want to believe the theory of evolution as an expression of your pantheism? That’s totally Ok in my book. Just don’t insult science by saying it has anything to do with science. |
||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 09:39 |
From genesisapologetics.com: Overview The idea that human and chimp DNA overlap by 98 to 99 percent has been widely used to promote the idea that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. But have you considered how they came up with this estimate? For starters, let’s look at the size of each genome. While estimates of the exact size of our genome has varied over the years, the last count has it at 3.097 billion base pairs. But the chimp genome is larger, at 3.231 billion. This means that chimps have at least 134 million more base pairs than we have. That makes their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible that our DNA is 98% similar to theirs, when the chimp genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Right out of the gate you can see there’s something wrong with the sweeping 98% estimate that’s frequently used. They came up with this figure by cherry picking only the sections of our DNA that overlapped with theirs. Let’s see how MinuteEarth, a secular training site that holds to an evolutionary perspective, describes it: When researchers sat down to compare the chimp and human genomes, those single-letter differences were easy to tally. But the big mismatched sections weren’t. For example, if a genetic paragraph—thousands of letters long—appears twice in a human scroll, but only once in its chimp counterpart, should the second copy count as thousands of changes, or just one? And what about identical paragraphs that appear in both genomes, but in different places, or in reverse order, or broken up into pieces? Rather than monkey around with these difficult questions, the researchers simply excluded all the large mismatched sections–a whopping 1.3 billion letters of DNA—and performed a letter-by-letter comparison on the remaining 2.4 billion, which turned out to be 98.77% identical. So, yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps—if we ignore 18 percent of their genome and 25 percent of ours. Wow—ignoring 18% of the chimp genome and 25% of the human genome—that’s a lot to ignore! In fact, this represents hundreds of millions of DNA letters in each side of the comparison! Could the sections they left out be responsible for coding most of the obvious differences we see between humans and chimps? They continue: And there’s another problem: just as a small tweak to a sentence can alter its meaning entirely or not at all, a few mutations in DNA sometimes produce big changes in a creature’s looks or behavior, whereas other times lots of mutations make very little difference. So just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are. It certainly makes sense that “just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are.” Indeed, human DNA and gene-level comparisons are frequently made to other mammals, such as mice, cows, and even dogs with high levels of overlap, and we are obviously quite different from these animals. The high degree of similarity is because the human body has many molecular similarities to other living things. After all, they all use the same basic molecules. They share the same water, oxygen, and food sources. Their metabolism and therefore their genetic makeup resemble one another to occupy the same world. However, these similarities do not mean they evolved from a common ancestor any more than all buildings constructed using brick, iron, cement, glass, etc. means that they share origins. DNA contains much of the information necessary for an organism to develop. If two organisms look similar, we would expect DNA similarity between them. The DNA of a cow and a whale should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. Likewise, humans and apes have many body similarities like bones, hair, and the ability to produce milk, so we would expect DNA sequences to match that. Of all known animals, the great apes are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. This is not always the case, though. Some comparisons between human genes and that of other animals in the literature are very interesting. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans, dogs 82%, cows 80%, chimpanzees 79%, rats 69%, and mice 67%. Other comparisons include both fruit fly (Drosophila) and chickens with about 60% of genes corresponding to a similar human gene. These estimates suffer from the same problems that human-chimp comparisons do, but they illustrate the patterns of similarity that one would expect from a single divine designer. Based on new data in 2018, researchers have now shown that the maximum human and chimp DNA similarity is actually only 84%, but this figure didn’t include the areas of human and chimp DNA that could not be matched up because they were so different, so the actual estimate is much lower. This brings us from 98% to 84% maximum similarity between the comparable regions. Using the corrected 84% figure, plus the fact that their genome is over 4% larger than ours, shows there are far too many genetic changes to go from chimp to human in the last six million years at the rate their theory proposes. This is really the crux of the matter. Let’s even assume for a minute that the DNA gap between chimps and humans is in fact only 1%. This would still represent over 30 million DNA letter differences between chimps and humans. Can random DNA mutations really produce 30 million meaningful changes to go from chimps to humans within the supposed 6 million-year timeframe? Secular scientists have closed the door on this possibility, even with conclusions drawn from evolution-based publications. For example, population geneticist, Michael Lynch stated in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution: “A central problem in the evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms by which adaptations requiring multiple mutations emerge in natural populations.” Lynch calculated that it would take over 200 million years for just two specific mutations to become established in a pre-human population. That’s over 33 times longer than the supposed 6 million years to develop just two mutations! So, under the evolutionary model, if it takes 200 million years to produce just two mutations, how long would it take to produce 30 million (based on the 1% difference)? Or how about 300 to 400 million (based on the 16% difference figure)? Do you see how absurd this is? Even though genetic researchers estimate there are about 100 new mutations per person, per generation most mutations have a near-neutral effect, and are furthermore slightly deleterious. Deleterious mutations randomly occur anywhere in the genome, so creating damage is easy. However, genetic changes that produce improvements are analogous to inserting just the right computer code into just the right place in a computer program for a specific benefit to emerge. It’s next to impossible. Not only does a specific letter need to mutate, it needs to fall into the genetic ladder at a specific location to actually result in some type of benefit. When it comes to how frequently these types of mutations occur compared to the evolutionary timescales, there’s just not enough time for it to happen. If it takes 200 million years for just two to emerge, and at least 300 to 400 million are needed to move from ape-like-creatures to human, one quickly understand that evolution from apes to humans is utterly impossible. Evolutionary geneticists from Cornell University have confirmed the scientific impossibility of this ape-to-human idea in a study published in the Annals of Applied Probability which revealed the average waiting time to form a slightly longer DNA sequence of only eight specific mutations is about 650 million years. This estimate gets 100 times longer after accounting for genetic drift, increasing the time to about 65 billion years, which is four times longer than the supposed 13.7 billion years ago that evolutionists believe the universe began. Now it’s impossible again. There is simply no way to go from ape-like-ancestors to humans. The fact is, the human and chimp genomes code for two completely different creatures. While both are mammals based on scientific criteria, God made man in His image and gave him a soul that is eternal. Human and chimp genomes code for two completely different things: Chimps, which are soul-less tree-dwelling animals; and humans, which are eternal souls wrapped in bodies that have vastly different capabilities than all animals because we were created in God’s image and charged to be caretakers over Creation—including chimps! Being made in the image of God and charged with taking care over God’s Creation would mean that humans would have several distinctions from chimps. Let’s take a look at just some of them. First, humans are the only living thing on the planet that has a conscience and a sense of morality. Our conscience lets us know when we’ve failed or when we might fail to abide by either governmental laws or God’s laws. Primates know nothing of laws. They live only by instincts and very limited group “norms.” Next, humans can speak. For example, the English language contains over 1 million words, and we can speak all of them, plus we can even learn or invent totally different languages. Apes cannot speak any of them. They do not even have a speech “program” installed in their brains. The parts of the human brain responsible for handling speech, called the Brodmann areas 44 and 45, are over six times larger in humans compared to chimps. Speaking of brains, ours are 400% larger than chimps. We’re also much smarter—having an average IQ of 100, when chimps can’t even take the test. Our brain cells’ DNA carries very unique methylation patterns that enable us to think the way we do. DNA methylation is a biochemical process that helps determine which genes will be more or less active. It occurs during development from an embryo through adulthood. As Institute for Creation Research Science Writer Brian Thomas points out, “If humans and chimps are close relatives, then they should have similar DNA methylation patterns in the areas of chromosomes that they have in common such as similar gene sequences. However, research teams have identified major differences.” The human neocortex is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the brain, with a 60-to-1 ratio of gray matter to the size of the medulla in our brainstems compared to just 30-to-1 in chimps. Overall, humans have almost twice as many spindle cells than chimps, enabling us to pull out memories from past experiences and use them to plot our next actions. These functions activate when moral dilemmas present decisions we need to make that will directly affect other lives. The insula part of our brains has 46 times the number of spindle cells compared to chimps—about 83 thousand for humans compared to only about 18 hundred for chimps. This makes sense because this part of our brains takes information from our skin, internal organs, and cardio system and converts it into subjective feelings such as empathy toward others who show signs of anguish or pain. We are expressive, sensitive, empathetic, and intuitive beings—but not animals. Our DNA differences direct the construction of uniquely human physical attributes. For example, humans have opposable thumbs that give our hands a nearly infinite variety of motions. We are typically 38% taller than chimps, 80% heavier, and live twice as long. Humans have white sclera that surrounds the colored iris of the eyes for rich and nuanced non-verbal communication, which the vast majority of apes do not have (some apes have a small amount, but none are equal to humans). We walk upright, while chimps—with their curved fingers, long arms, and unique locking wrist systems—are designed for living in trees and walking on all fours. Their knees also point outward for climbing in trees, whereas our knees point forward so we can walk or run all day if needed. Humans cannot interbreed with chimps. We can’t even swap any of our internal organs with chimps. Humans build space shuttles, write songs, worship, pray, and sing. Chimps don’t do any of these things. God specially designed us, formed the first of us from dust into the image of God, and gave each of us an everlasting soul. We were charged to be caretakers over the entire animal kingdom; that’s why we put chimps in the zoo, and not the other way around. Yes, we share vast DNA sequences with chimps, but we would expect this on the basis of Creation. We also share plenty of DNA with mammals other than chimps. After all, God made other mammals and man to metabolize the same food sources, grow the same basic materials like bones, teeth, muscles, skin and hair, and produce placentas and milk for the next generation. The fact that we have sections of DNA that are similar to these creatures’ only shows that our designer used similar DNA instructions for making similar features and functions. It does not mean that one creature led to the other, or that they are related by common ancestors. Who in their right mind would say that one software program, car, or airplane led to another all by itself? Bible-believing geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins said, “The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead, he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity.” We see the same pattern of both similarity and differences in organisms’ genomes. Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it is not due to evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s Creation? Consider a 3-D printer, capable of creating objects of any shape based on the programming code input by the designer. Making even minor changes to the code results in an object that looks very different. It’s the same with the DNA programming our creator used for building humans and chimps. Sections of our DNA building instructions are similar, but this is because the same designer used similar coding for building the physical bodies of humans and chimps that have many similarities, but also many distinctions. Clearly, overhyped stories of chimp-human similarities overlook some basic observations. They ignore huge sections of DNA. They exclude the possibility of intentional programming to explain similar DNA sequences, and they overlook unbridgeable physical, mental, and moral differences that all fit the Bible’s account of divine Creation. Confronting Human-Chimp Propaganda To close this section, let’s discuss a hypothetical exchange. How can you use the information in this section in conversation? First, the person makes the claim that “human and chimp DNA are genetically 98–99% identical or similar.” You can ask, “Do you know roughly how many bases are in the human and chimp genomes?” If they do, great. If not, then offer the fact that the human count is about 3.097 billion base pairs and the chimp count is 3.231 billion. This equates to about 134 million more base pairs than we have, making their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible to say their genome is 98–99% the same as ours, when their total genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Next, you might want to point out that they excluded 25% of the human genetic material and 18% of the chimps when they came up with the 98% similarity figure. If chimps and humans are significantly more than 1–2% different, as the data show they are, then there is not enough time in the supposed evolutionary timeline for that many changes to occur. It’s a gap evolution can’t bridge. genesisapologetics.com |
||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 07:51 |
youtu.be This video is 7:37 long. I can understand some evolutionists’ anger towards me. If I, like them, had spent my life believing a lie and if I had devoted my career to a lie, I’d be pretty angry too at the person who pointed that out. |
||||||
| |||||||
