Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner
Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.
| Religion and Science: | |
| Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research |
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" |
| Intelligent Design: |
|
|
| Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN | A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall |
| Mutations: |
|
|
| A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations | Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily. |
| Junk DNA: |
|
|
| The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows |
Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself. |
| Abiogenesis: |
|
|
| RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness | There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible. |
| Darwin and His Theory: |
|
|
| Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin | Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V. |
| Evolutionist Censorship: |
|
|
| Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec) | Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents. |
| Species Disproving Evolution: | |
| Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related | Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species        |
| Various Topics: |
|
|
| A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews | While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. |
Actually I am not a moral relativist. I believe we have made much moral progress in the last 150 years, as exemplified by the fact that even most abolitionists did not believe blacks were equal; they merely believed it was wrong to enslave them. There are numerous examples of prominent abolitionists making racist comments.
I see you understood my point. Things change. The only thing that remains the same, is change.
And you say: "The statement is also completely relevant to a discussion of evolution. Evolution does assert that some are inferior to others. Evolution does assert that destruction of the weak leads to progress. So the statement is a central part of evolutionary theory and cannot be written off as a personal eccentricity of Darwin.
Whether or not Darwin's "social Darwinism" is amoral or evil or has merit has no effect on the historical truth or falsity of evolution. If Heisenberg were a Nazi, would that affect the truth of his uncertainty principle? Does the answer depend upon whether his political philosophy gave him insight into the physical world? Should philosemites accept Einstein's science, while anti-semites object that it is "Jewish science" (as actually happened). Did the failure of Marxist politics disprove Larmarckian evolution, or did the failure of Lamarckian techniques disprove themselves?
God made the universe so life could evolve.
The first sentence is true today. But the first life forms had no competition, and were floating in a soup of amino acids and other nutrients, making the second (bold) sentence false.
Your point would be relevant if an insect were the simplest possible life form. In fact, it is not, and the debate is whether the first life (self replicating chemical cell) was only somewhat simpler than the simplest currently known or feasible bacterial cell; or much simpler than that, in the early primordial "soup" where it would have had no competititon and would have been surrounded by nutrients.
Yes, but those figures are down from the averages of the Revolutionary War and basically reflect harsh conditions during the westward expansion that preceded the Civil War. Remember the name of Roy Rogers's backup singers? "The Sons of the Pioneers." The real sons of the pioneers grew up scrawny on hardscrabble pioneer farms and then had to fight the Civil War.
There was a high reject rate and a high mortality rate from exposure, TB, and pneumonia during hard-weather campaigns like Fredericksburg in late 1862. Poorly-supplied Southern soldiers in addition faced the menace of scurvy at times.
Amen to that, Bro. Amen to that!
Here you have point, and you don't. Average life expectancy has risen dramatically in developed countries. That reflects good eating and good health care.
Maximum life expectancy has only slightly budged as modern technology attacks late-life killer diseases such as stroke, heart disease, and cancer. There have always been a very few people who lived to be close to 100, even in pre-tech societies in hard conditions. In the NY State/Great Lakes region of the late 1600s, Daniel Garacontie in his 90s was an important chief of--I think--the Iroquois. The average life expectancy for that time and place would have been laughably low compared to what it is for the modern residents.
In fact, it is easy to increase order in an open system. To take a trivial example: Insert a seed in a sterile medium. Let the sun shine. A plant will grow.
Perhaps more to the point, the problem of the initial code: I agree that it is very unlikely that the first self-replicating cells had DNA, or at any rate used DNA in anything like the current system, where base pairs are read by other complex chemical structures and code for amino acid chains. Too complex to self-assemble randomly, as all you creationists would agree. But in an already existing line of self-replicating creatures (which would quickly dominate the Earth, there being no competition), there is no difficulty in evolving new structures and functions. Indded, it would be impossible for this not to happen, as more successful creatures with useful innovations would of course be those which left more offspring.
Has there been no evolution? Have no nontrivial changes occurred to life since creation? Have there been no extinctions in the past? Is the Earth about 6,000 years old? Were fossils made by the Devil to confuse us? If not, how is their existence compatible with your Creationism?
As you can probably tell, my point is that there is no possible creationist theory which is logically consistent and compatible with the physical evidence, with one exception: God, or the Devil with God's aquiescence, has gone out of his way to fool us into believing evolution. In which case, doesn't God want us to believe in evolution, and so isn't it a sin to be a creationist?
Finally, if you are afraid or unable to answer these questions, then why shouldn't we dismiss you out of hand as a hopelessly confused hack?
Yes, some species are fairly stable. But your claim is that all species are stable. Giving a few examples of stability is not evidence for your proposition, especially given the numerous counterexamples. Indeed, by implicitly accepting modern interpretations of the fossil record, you have opened the door to the counterexamples.
Do you even believe that any fossils are that old?
If Darwinian evolution has been disproven, it is in the way that Newtonian Physics has been "disproven" by Einstein -- which is to say, tweaked around the edges, or shown not to apply in bizarre and unearthly circumstances. Is Newton's theory a sham and a hoax? If so, why do you quote him as an authority. (I wouldn't quote him as an authority for a number of reasons. First, he was not a biologist. Second, arguments from authority are inherently weak. Third, he lived hundreds of years ago and knew little of the evidence which is now apparent.)
They aren't amino acids, they are nucleic acids. They don't all self replicate. In fact, evidence is that none "self-replicate".
Not to make too fine a point on your dazzling argument, but if my aunt woulda had balls, perhaps she woulda been my uncle. I suppose you have faith that such a simpler organism existed in the past and was easier to spontaneously generate than a more complex one?
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.