Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[AndrewC]

But in an already existing line of self-replicating creatures (which would quickly dominate the Earth, there being no competition),

A completely false assumption.

[tutstar]

bump for creation and to read when I have more time and quiet...

[AntiGuv]

Since the coelocanth has come into discussion again, I thought I would note that there's no evidence that the coelocanths of today could reproduce with the coelocanth of 100 million years ago. The fact that you cannot distinguish these by their skeletal morphology does not establish procreative compatibility. There are numerous species today which would look indistinguishable for all practical purpose from some very closely related species were they both fossilized. In other words, the coelocanth may be an almost uniquely stable species or it may be a species undergoing minimal evolution of the sort that hasn't discernibly changed its morphology. Either (or both) of these statements would apply in that present population (they would not apply to the entire population of primordial coelocanths because the groups which did indeed evolve would no longer look bear any resemblance to a coelocanth).

[AndrewC]

Since the coelocanth has come into discussion again, I thought I would note that there's no evidence that the coelocanths of today could reproduce with the coelocanth of 100 million years ago.

What is your point? Is it that if two things can produce viable offspring they are the same species?

[gore3000]

However life got sparked - whether or not by divine intervention - evolution has evidently followed.

Evolution is a materialistic explanation of life. It supposes some very unlikely things to occur in order for it to have brought about the numerous transformations from bacteria to humans. If there is any sort of an intelligent designer that created life, the more reasonable explanation is that these transformations were achieved by the intelligent designer who created life.

In fact, the evolutionist explanations of how life transforms itself from one lower species to a higher one have been constantly disproven by science. Essentially evolution is always trying to 'catch up' with science in order to 'explain away' the objections presented by new scientific discoveries. It thus keeps constructing more and more unlikely explanations for how evolution could have occurred.

[Junior]

Arguments from astonishment and quotes taken out of context do not a disproof of evolution make. When you have something concrete Mr. Nobel has a prize for you.

[gore3000]

The image of man affects the nature of man...We become what we think of ourselves." -A.J. Heschel-

It is a very telling point and a very true one and it shows quite well the importance of this debate. If evolution is true, then life has no purpose. The lowest and basest instincts are therefore excusable. Eugenics, mercy killing and even abortion become legitimatized. Even mass murder as a form of 'helping' natural selection becomes viable.

One must doubt if any society can survive under such terms. One must doubt if any species can survive which acts in such a way. For the above is a prescription for destruction not for creation. What man needs is hope, not despair in order to better himself and evolution only provides despair.

[Agamemnon]

The problem with the "open" vs. "closed" system argument is that the "open" system of an essentially unlimited, suitable supply of energy (which you point to in hopes of getting past the relevant Thermodynamic issue) has likewise been available for the millions of years you believe you require to fuel random acts of progressive evolution on Earth without any loss in thermodynamic energy expenditure to the system.

While I can make the argument that the sun, earth, and the rest of the universe are themselves closed systems in that their supplies of energy are limited to the amount of fuel they have left to burn, did you ever ask youself the following question:

Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures?

The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

Quite simply, if you haven't got the time, you haven't got a "theory."

As to your argument on chance assembly of simplest of life forms (which you do admit is unlikely) ask youself the probability that the essential oxygen transporting protein Cytochrome C (104 amino acid primary structure, never mind secondary) could spontaneously come into being. That figure is a chance of 1 in 20 to the 104th power. Now give it a reason to come into being in what evolutionists speculate earlier on was an anaerobic primordial soup.

[gore3000]

The key point here to keep in mind is the concept of genetic drift.

Actually no. Genetic drift is a false proposition. Neutral mutations do not spread. Reason is quite simple, in any population the genes of each individual will reproduce at the same rate as that of other individuals. Since the original mutation occurred in only a single individual a neutral mutation will only have the same number of descendants as those of any other individual in the population. What this means is that if there were 1000 individuals in the population, a neutral mutation will always be present in only 1/1000 of the population no matter how much the population increases and no matter how many generations one goes forward. Further, because a new mutation is only present in a single individual, the chances of its being lost by either random accident to the individual carrying it or by a short string of unfavorable odds (for example if one only has two quarters and consistently bets on heads coming up, chances are that after enough tries one will lose both quarters). So neutral mutations will not spread and most likely will dissappear from the population entirely.

[gore3000]

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.

No, no, no. It is not amoral, it is immoral. It is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century. By any moral standard it is evil. As to whether this immorality makes it untrue, kindly discuss the points I make in post#208 .

[balrog666]

Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures? The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Creationist projections maybe - but then who cares about projections based on deliberate ignorance?

[Tribune7]

Thanks

[balrog666]

Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! You really are funny.

1. The "habitability' of the Earth is entirely unrelated to direction or strength of it's magnetic field.
2. The Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past. It is always waxing or waning in one direction or the other.

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I can't wait for your next "scientific" announcement of doom.

[philman_36]

To me it's also a devaluation of life. As the value of a life is lessened so is the inherent value in the living of that life.
As an aside...
Q1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

[betty boop]

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.

Darwin: brilliant scientist or crass eugenicist? One supposes his theory supports the notion of creating a master race. I gather Hitler thought so anyway.

Thank you so much, gore3000, for pulling together all these links. It must have cost you much time and effort, and I'm grateful for this resource.

[elbucko]

"No, no, no. It is not amoral, it is immoral. It is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century." (Evolution)

The horrors of the 20th. Century have not been from evolution or religion. The horror was brought on by the morphing of a bogus system of economics, socialism into the state religions of Nazism and Communism. Last night, during this Creation vs Evolution thread, I felt I was observing the morphing of religion into science and this science into the demand of a state religion ..

I now understand the fear the Left has of conservatives. I felt a cold fear this AM as I contemplated the inquisitional zeal at which the Creationist pursued their ideology. I have no issue with "what" they believe, but I distinctly got the impression that they would be more than willing to make me believe it at the point of a gun. Should I not convert, it would be a "Holy Murder" to kill the "Infidel".

I fear you Creationists are cut from the same cloth as those that rammed the Twin Trade Towers on 9/11. I think your extremism is the main reason this country is drifting to the left, away from fundamentalism and not, paradoxically toward socialism.

"I fear for my country when I contemplate a just God". Jefferson.

[AntiGuv]

No. There are those aberrations (i.e. horse & donkey) where different species can produce viable offspring. My point, however, is that when two populations can never produce viable offspring via natural means, then they are invariably of different species. This means that if a coelocanth of today has drifted far enough away from a coelocanth of 100 million years ago that they would be unable to mate, then the two are genotyped as different species even if their phenotypes are virtually identical.

[AntiGuv]

Heliocentric cosmology is a materialistic explanation of the universe. It supposes some very unlikely things to occur in order for it to havebrought about the numerous transformations from interstellar dust to planetary ecology. If there is any sort of an intelligent designer that created the universe, the more reasonable explanation is that these transformations were achieved by the intelligent designer who created the universe.

(The next sentence is meaningless because had any such thing been disproven then the evolutionary model would've been discarded already.) Regardless, astronomy is similarly always trying to 'catch up' with science in order to 'explain away' the objections presented by new scientific discoveries. That happens to be the sort of thing which scientists do regardless of whatever the Flat Earth society wishes to believe.

[DWPittelli]

[Darwinism] is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century. By any moral standard it is evil. As to whether this immorality makes it untrue, kindly discuss the points I make in post#208.

The horrors of the 20th Century (Communism, Nazism) can reasonably be laid at the door of atheism and/or man's inherent sinfulness, but not Darwinism.

One of the insanities of Stalin's Russia was actually the repudiation of Darwinism. Commies believed in Lamarckian evolution, by which an animal's "struggles" would alter its offspring.

As far as equating Nazism's search for lebensraum at the door of Social Darwinism, to the extent there is a connection it is the other way around. Such genocidal struggles for territory and resources long predate history, let alone Darwin.

Finally, your post #208 makes a reasonably strong point that we shouldn't want Darwinism to be true. It says nothing at all about whether it is in fact so.