Posted on 10/06/2014 3:58:38 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Pithy conclusions are excerpted below from the following article in ICR's Acts & Facts" September 2014 mail-out volume:
**********excerpts*******
"Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry" (click here)
(1) . . . genetic hierarchies do not provide valid scientific evidence for evolution. Bona fide evidence for evolution must support Darwinism to the clear exclusion of design
(2) . . . the evolutionary hypothesis dramatically overestimates the actual genetic diversity within these species. Together, these results reveal that genetic differences are no friends of Darwinism; the Darwinists aren’t even getting the basic predicted counts right.
(3) . . . evolutionists predict that the human genome should be filled with junk DNA. The ENCODE project, a massive undertaking funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute, corralled a large amount of preliminary data that effectively refuted this hypothesis.
(4) Evolutionists have again assumed that pseudogenes are non-functional without doing any laboratory experiments. These tests have now begun to be performed, and recent results revealed that pseudogenes are quite likely functional.
Summary
Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine” of evolutionary change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?
********end of selected excerpts**********
(underlining above is mine to answer your hypothesis that evolutionists have done any experimentation that proves their as-yet unproven theory)
You do have a problem. You make the Supremely Intelligent and Wise God a liar, and a slow one at that.
Elegantly stated.
Evolution violates the 2nd Law?
As if running a western would have any bearing on the logic or argument.
You make some good points, but still go overboard.
Statistically, yes. Make sure you are not talking about adaptation within a species, including doubling of the same DNA in the same species as for grasses and hermaphrodites. Damage to genetic material produces non-replicating genes, IIRC.
The God of the Bible, of Abraham and Isaac, did not use the death of his creatures to create new ones. Death came into the world by sin.
...
What’s your scientific evidence for that?
You do have a problem. You make the Supremely Intelligent and Wise God a liar, and a slow one at that.
...
What’s your scientific evidence for that?
A neighbor of ours had talked about working on the new seats at a stadium and the difference in allocated space now vs. 50 years ago.
Elegantly stated. (JimRed)
As is every deceptive hypothesis. Adapt, yes. Evolve -- no. Evolution ex nihilo, especially no.
Is it that the bacteria became resistant or there was bacteria that was already resistant and is now more prevalent? Just like humans and certain diseases.
You speak of God then require scientific evidence. My evidence is in the book of Genesis. If you'd like to reject that you're certainly free to do so, but that makes liars of certain shall we say key figures in Christianity as well as Judaism. So, which god was it to whom you were referring?
I'm referring to the God that allows us to observe and understand his creation.
You speak of God then require scientific evidence.
This thread is based on criticism of a scientific theory, and I'm supporting the theory based on science. I would say that I'm the one staying on topic. I'm not criticizing God or calling him a liar, but I do say the Bible makes a poor science book by today's standards of modern technology and scientific understanding.
Is this about Hillary?
Statistically, yes.
Can you post a version of the 2nd Law that supports your claim?
We do have a different perspective. You’re expecting God to conform to current scientific understanding, which will change. I expect that science will eventually conform to the unchanging truth of God, of which we have a guide in the form of scripture, and that any apparent conflict between the two is the result of error in science that will eventually be resolved.
I don’t deny the usefulness of scientific research relying upon certain assumptions implicit in the ToE, however there must be a basic flaw in the underlying assumption.
The best explanation that can allow the two to coexist would be to state that species are not “related” to one another by common descent, they are “related” to one another by common design. The time horizon can be greatly compressed rather than constantly expanded to accommodate this or that discovery that does not fit a flawed theory.
There are STILL PLENTY of short people.....I'm one of them.....and there are super tall people.....I think God made ALL people as different human beings...period.
Not papers...EVEIDENCE of one thing changing into another...STEP BY STEP.....BONE BY BONE....ORGAN BY ORGAN.
Why then did it virtually disappear shortly after the battle of Agincourt?
It fell out of favor because there weren't enough people strong enough for its 100=120 lb. draw. The Little Ice Age had begun and growing enough food in Britain got a lot more difficult. As a result, people were not as large and strong.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Papers ARE evidence. The only evidence worth anything is a peer reviewed paper. The answers to all your questions are there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.