-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof Against Evolution
- Thread starter Jerrell
- Start date
universal_brother
Member
Yes you did, twice with one invalid example.
All scientists, and realists would acknowledge that all planetary bodies had a beginning.
You're denying the science!
You're confusing Geometry of the Earth's surface with the Matter it's made of.
Even if the Earth was flat, you're question would still be invalid.
You are implying by asking the question that 3D objects of any density or size, that creationists would think that it has a place of start, as in location ("where"). You can not proove to me that the Universe is Infinite in Time & Space, using such invalid analogies, or comparisons that make no comparison. Especially with no science behind it. You must indicate PROOF!
Ok. Now I know you beleive in an Infinite Universe.
Again, refer to my answer above. The beginning of the Earths surface?
You might aswell ask me where the letter 'O' start from? What an irrelevant and delusional question!
What does such illogical comparatives proove? That is not science my friend.
In relation to the finite Universe!
Sure.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/anthropic.htm
Time dilation experiments based on Einsteins Theory Relativity, now proven by SCIENCE. You're disagreeing with Science, without scientific proof.
Please Proove you viewpoint with Scientific Proof!
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2005-03/elasticity.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52713-2004Oct21.html
Sure, Scientists also acknowledge that perception ceases if your 5 senses did not exist. To comprehend something, there must be a memory of it. Without senses, you can not form memories, so there is logically nothing to perceive, therefore no perception of time either.
What is really alarming to these scientists is the fact that how we can prove if anything actually exists, or how real is real. When limited by our very own senses.
In this case everything being reduced to 'information'.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
JerryL- I think Universal Brother is talking about a TEMPORAL begining and end.
But I have to wonder what this has to do with proof against evolution.
Perhaps this is more of an argument about the Big Bang?
as for time... the breakdown of atoms happins even if we don't watch. Even comatose people (people with "no senses") age, so while they can not perseve the passage of time, time does indeed continue to move.
wa:do
But I have to wonder what this has to do with proof against evolution.
Perhaps this is more of an argument about the Big Bang?
as for time... the breakdown of atoms happins even if we don't watch. Even comatose people (people with "no senses") age, so while they can not perseve the passage of time, time does indeed continue to move.
wa:do
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Ezzedean said:
Which "missing link"?
Real Sorceror
Pirate Hunter
Between man and ape? No, we have several of those. The link is pretty firmly established.Ezzedean said:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
You continue to equvicate "beginning".
So you are saying matter-energy had a beginning? That's in direct contradiction to Thermodynamics 1. Who is denying science?
I expected only to prove what I did prove, that something can be finite and yet boundless (lacking a beginning or end). The surface of a sphere is one good example.
I don't know why you have this reoccuring appeal to authority regarding "scientists", but if you would like to know a scientist in favor of a boundless timespace, try Steven Hawkings.
Which definition of "infinite"?
OK. Where is the beginning of the letter "O".
You said everything which was finite had a beginning. Aro you claiming the letter "O" to be infinate, or can you point me at the beginning?
That is not a definition for the word "finite", which is what I've asked you for as you keep using the word in contrary ways. Please choose and maintain one definition of "finite".
So a person with no senses would be immortal as he would percieve nothing so nothing would happen to him? That's rediculious.
Further, time would not pass in a sensory deprivation tank. Only it does.
Further, time would not have passed prior to the arrival of observers, only the evidence proves it does (indeed, it would be impossible or observers to have arrived without it).
OK. There's three concrete examples that your claim is demonstrably incorrect.
His post doesn't consistantly use any definition. I've asked for one twice now and he's not given men one to work from.
logician
Well-Known Member
"the actual theory of it all is yet to be proved"
Evolution is fact, various theories that describe the mechanics of evolution may require more evidence to be considered valid - a "theory" by the way, is never proven, only disproven by counter-evidence. Theories are considered valid until some counter-evidence comes along, then the theory may be adjusted, revamped, or disgarded, depending on that evidence.
Evolution is fact, various theories that describe the mechanics of evolution may require more evidence to be considered valid - a "theory" by the way, is never proven, only disproven by counter-evidence. Theories are considered valid until some counter-evidence comes along, then the theory may be adjusted, revamped, or disgarded, depending on that evidence.
universal_brother
Member
Evolution is fact? Show me these FACTS please.wanderer085 said:
Show me any evidence please, not conjecture, or theories without real science.
universal_brother
Member
Evolution > Theory > FactsFluffy said:
Right?
1. Facts
2. Theory
3. Evolution
Theory is an explanation of facts? Ok. Show me these FACTS.
But without FACTS, you can not form a valid theory. Right?Fluffy said:
Fluffy
A fool
Certainly but without an explanation, it might not be immediatly obvious why these facts are relevant. However here are some facts:
Evidence of various mechanisms
Evidence of mutation http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html
Evidence of selection http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/9/R75
Evidence of recombination http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/172/3/1745
Evidence of gene flow http://www2.nau.edu/~bah/BIO471/Reader/Pennisi_2003.pdf
Evidence of genetic drift http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/165/4/1651
Evidence of speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Synthetic evidence
Simulated evolution http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/052103/Simulated_evolution_gets_complex_052103.html
Observed evolution http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072
Fossil Record http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
JerryL
Well-Known Member
It's not a fact. But it has been established to be true, which is what I presume he ment.
All modern life is related. Which fact would you like?
You cannot form any theory at all without fact. Since theories are proven hypothesis, and a hypothesis attempts to explain observed facts.
Frubals for that.
universal_brother
Member
This is survival of the fittest, natural selection.Fluffy said:
What you should be proving is natural randomness, not natural selection.
One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule. It has had a powerful effect on biological research. It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists. If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, it would also bring total destruction to their theory.
This chapter goes hand in hand with the previous one. In the chapter on Primitive Environment, we learned that earthly surroundingsnow or earliercould never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, the components of protein and will show that each are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events.
Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution.
The significance of all this is immense. Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident, it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and differentbut highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species.
DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIESThe battle over evolutionary theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin attempted to fight it, but without success. Even though he called his first book by that name, he never did try to figure out the origin of the species.
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of the Species."*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, (1985), p. 33.
*Darwin could not figure out why species even existed. If his theory was correct, there would be no distinct species, only confused creatures everywhere and no two alike.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?"H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
To make the situation worse, *Darwin did not know of one instance in which a species changed into another.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN(*#1/27 Origin of the Species Unknown / #2/13 The Experts are Puzzled*) The problem of species has become a major unsolved problem of the evolutionists, because they cannot figure out where they came from.
"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology. "*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.
"In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious. Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution.
A simulation will only tell you you what in reality you tell it.
These are inaccurate and biased simulations, not approved by creationists & evolutionists alike. A flawed design will always give a flawed outcome.
If the parameters input, and program code can be accepted & verified by evolutionist & creationists, and then agree to accept whatever the outcome. This would be better and unbiased simulaton. But I doubt very much that will ever happen, due to the fact that the model (code & data) will always conflict.
EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTIONIf evolution was a fact, we should find in present events and past records abundant evidence of one species changing into another species. But, throughout all past history and in present observations, no one has ever seen this happen. Prior to written history, we only have fossil evidence. Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for over a hundred years. Literally millions have been collected!
JerryL
Well-Known Member
There's no such thing as randomness. Why would I want to prove there was?
Agreed, it let us prove evolution all over again. Here was this nice little molecule that could not only determine if there were real relationships between what had assumed ot have been related species, but thanks to Midoondrial DNA it could tell us exactly how far back they split.
Evolution had been well established before DNA came along, but the DNA support was beyond overwhelming.
Hrm. I suspect you are quoting from something. Your post would carry far more weight if they were your own words.
Since the creation of first life is not part of evolution, please show me how this is relevent to the topic. Let's assume that Invisible pink unicorns made te first life: How does this effect evoltution?
Then Darwin was an idiot, though I suspect it's more likely that your statement here is simply a lie.
Also a pretty disprovable lie:
Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
This is, simply put, a lie. Not only has it been directly observed, not only is it establised by the fossil record, not only is it established by the mitocondrial DNA, but I've put explicit references to direct observation of this happening in human history on this forum.
Why are you persisting in propigating this lie when it's so clearly disproven?
universal_brother
Member
Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.6
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."7
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".8 This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.6
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."7
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".8 This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
universal_brother
Member
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.9
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?10
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.11
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.12
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Left : A normal fruit fly (drosophila). Right : A fruit fly with its legs jutting drom its head ; a mutation induced by radiation.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.9
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?10
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.11
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.12
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.
universal_brother
Member
.....Harold F. Blum, a famous evolutionist scientist states that "the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."
.....
When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying: A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.
The number 41000 is equivalent to 10600. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.
Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.
In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.
.................
Sorry I should have coloured all copy & paste material.
There seems to be a wealth of scientific findings from creationists & even evolutionists themsleves, against evolution!
.....
When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying: A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.
The number 41000 is equivalent to 10600. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.
Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.
In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.
.................
Sorry I should have coloured all copy & paste material.
There seems to be a wealth of scientific findings from creationists & even evolutionists themsleves, against evolution!
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Mutation is merely a change, it doesn't go out of it's way to design something that is more fit to survive...if that is the case, then it's a fortunate accident. Don't invest a random and senseless process of glitches with intelligence.universal_brother said:
Look at Manx's and Scottish Fold's. Both have mutations, which under normal circumstances would do bugger all in terms of increasing the chances of survival, and in actual fact in a worst case scenario can result in serious health problems for both breeds (my first manx had to be euthenased because of spinal problems)including spinal cord damage in the former and bone fusion in the latter. Obviously this can leave these animals either disable or sick (or dead).
But they're different and eye catching, and people want to own a cat with no tail and long hind legs (and an attitude problem) or folded ears, so apparently something as simple as being pleasing to the human eye is what makes these animals a 'better form, more fit to survive'.
Certainly people go out of their way to breed them and perpetuate the genetics.