Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

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

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

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. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[AndrewC]

|                    . .                     , ,                               
|                 ____)/                     \(____                            
|        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._                 
|     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.             
|   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.            
|  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |           
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.          
| |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
| `                      `       V V       '                      '            

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an Darwininian.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

[AndrewC]

an=a

I fart in your general direction.

[PatrickHenry]

[We evolution types interrupt this thread to bring you the following important message:]
George W. Bush is the greatest! Down with bolshevism! Defeat the socialistic dems! Win back the Senate! God bless America!
[And now, let the thread continue ... ]

[AndrewC]

(Newton, the Bible) stated is true.

Well DNA evidence backs up the Bible.

NOVA Online | Lost Tribes of Israel | Tracing the Cohanim

According to biblical accounts, the Jewish priesthood began about 3,000 years ago when Moses anointed his older brother Aaron the first high priest. Ever since, the priestly status has been handed down from father to son through the ages.

If this hereditary tradition has been closely followed, the Y chromosomes of the Cohanim today should bear some resemblance to one another because of their unbroken link back to a common ancestor, Aaron.

Genetic studies among Cohanim from all over the world reveal the truth behind this oral tradition. About 50 percent of Cohanim in both Sephardic and Ashkenazic populations have an unusual set of genetic markers on their Y chromosome. What is equally striking is that this genetic signature of the Cohanim is rarely found outside of Jewish populations.

...

Cohanim chromosomes coalesce at a date that corresponds with when the priesthood is thought to have begun.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

For evolution to work, you have to have no brains. People who have evolution, don't have souls/brains/sense.

Still waiting to hear your theory.

[AndrewC]

Still waiting to hear your theory.

Not a theory but this should differentiate you from others.

EMOR: Cohanim and The Illusion of Death

In his book on the laws of mourning ("Gesher Hachaim"), Rav Tokachinsky related the following parable in order to explain the Jewish view on life after death:

Twin brothers, fetuses in their mother's womb, enjoy their carefree life. Their world is dark and warm and protected. These twins are alike in all aspects but one. One brother is a 'believer' - he believes in an afterlife, in a future reality much different than their current, tiny universe. But the other brother is a skeptic. All he knows is the familiar world of the womb. Anything besides what he can feel and sense is an illusion. The skeptic tries to talk some sense into his brother, he warns him to be realistic, but to no avail. His brother naively insists on believing in an extraordinary world that exists after life in the womb, a world so immense and fantastic that it is transcends their wildest imaginings.

The months pass, and the fatal moment arrives. Labor begins. The fetuses are aware of tremendous contractions and shifting in their little world. The freethinker recognizes that 'this is it'; his short but pleasant life is about to end. He feels the forces pressuring him to go down, but he fights against them. He knows that outside the womb, a cruel death awaits, with no protective sack and no umbilical cord. Suddenly he realizes that his ingenuous brother is giving in to the forces around them. He is sinking!

"Don't give up!" he cries, but the innocent one takes no heed. "Where are you, my dear brother?!" he calls out. He shudders when he hears his brother screaming from outside the womb. His poor brother has met his cruel fate. How naive he was, with his belief in a bigger, better world!

Then the skeptic feels the uterine muscles pushing him out too, against his will, into the abyss. He screams out ...

"Mazal Tov!" calls out the doctor. "Two healthy baby boys!" 

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for that precious story! Hugs!

[AndrewC]

For those who want a "better" source for the proposition that Adolf Hitler was a creationist:

I almost missed this double B.S.

Still quoting Yoda as the expert. From your Stardestroyer.net expert.

More from the Hitler Expert.

Federation Government Structure

"The So'na have developed a procedure to collect the metaphasic particles from the planet's rings."- Admiral Dougherty
"A planet in Federation space."- Picard
"That's right. We have the planet, they have the technology. A technology we can't duplicate."- Dougherty
...
"With metaphasics, life spans will be doubled. An entire new medical science will evolve."- Dougherty
...
"There are metaphasic particles all over the Briar Patch. Why does it have to be this one planet?"- Picard
"It's the concentration in the rings that makes the whole damned thing work. Don't ask me to explain it- I only know they inject something into the rings that starts a thermolitic reaction. When it's over, the planet will be uninhabitable for generations."- Admiral

Analysis

We learned something very interesting about the Federation government structure in STI: the Federation considers all star systems within its borders to be its property, even if the Federation has never explored these systems and has established no contact whatsoever with their native societies. "We have the planet, they have the technology". Admiral Dougherty was not acting on his own- he had the approval of the Federation Council. This indicates that the decision to remove the Ba'ku from their world and render it uninhabitable to harvest the life-extending "metaphasic particles" was actually sanctioned at the highest levels of the Federation government.

The implications of this fact are far-ranging: the Federation, due to the limitations of warp drive, has not explored the vast majority of star systems in its own territory, particularly the regions of its territory which are far from its heavily populated areas (near their borders with the Romulan Star Empire and the Klingon Empire). However, they have arbitrarily drawn borders around a large region of space and they have staked sovereign claim to all of the systems in this territory!

This is very similar to the European colonists' behaviour when they invaded North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. They staked sovereign claim to most of the continent in the name of their monarch, simply by virtue of declaring that it belonged to them. They had not explored this land, nor had they negotiated any sort of ownership transfer with the natives. When they found natives occupying the land that they had unreasonably staked claim to, they simply removed them by force (sometimes sanctifying their behaviour by talking them into signing treaties they didn't understand, so they would have paper justification). Similarly, the Federation has apparently staked claim to a large region of space even though it has not explored or colonized most of it, and inconvenient occupants of that territory can be forcibly moved out of their homes if the Federation decides to seize control of their systems.

Further ramifications

And I repeat

Adolf the Darwinist

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

Volume One - A Reckoning
Chapter XI: Nation and Race

In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

Straight out of the Darwinist Handbook.

[Agamemnon]

1. The "habitability' of the Earth is entirely unrelated to direction or strength of it's magnetic field.

We'll be interested to learn of your fate as you try to colonize Jupiter or a magnetic star some day. Be sure to send us a post card. You are obviously sufficiently unaware of the part Earth's magnetic field plays in deflecting harmful solar activity. If I were you, I'd write to your bursar back at Starfleet Academy and ask for a refund.

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.

In one direction or another, perhaps. No argumant there. Blinded by your mockery, the point lost on your inability to read and which you subsequently failed to address was that I was speaking of the inherent strength of the moment, not its position, which is tracked, and has found to be diminishing over time at a measurably and remarkably consistent rate.

[scripter]

Index ping.

[Junior]

I use p*** off parties for... lighter---fluid!

Which you then, evidently, imbibe.

[Junior]

Of course you wouldn't mention his quotes actually came from Mein Kampf, would you, as that might destroy what little credibility you could salvage from your position.

[gore3000]

The implication of common ancestry for any two species

No, it is not. Cows bear cows, dogs bear dogs, humans bear humans. We see this every day. We do not see, have never seen a species transform itself into another.

[gore3000]

I think there is actually more to this than mere temporal coincidence.

Nonsense. The abolition movement had started long before Darwin ever published the Origin. In addition, England had been promoting abolition for decades before the Origin. If that were not enough, there is nothing in evolution supporting abolition. The racism is patent throughout Darwin's work:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.

In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.

[gore3000]

I say it because you don't recognize any scientific process. You discount observational evidence and you have no statement of your alternate theory.

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, NEVER

I have also stated my alternate theory many times. Briefly: species are tremendously adaptable. They have a large gene pool which enables them to adapt to different environmental circumstances. This is how they were designed by their creator.

[gore3000]

but then top-notch biologists don't have a beef with evolution...

Just repeating the same old lies. I guess Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA is not a top-notch biologist?:

"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" (1981, p. 88, emp. added). "
from: Review of US News Article on Evolution.

[gore3000]

G3k doesn't like -- or understand -- these quotes,

Lying as usual. I guess that you, an inveterate atheist, understand the Christian religion better than Christians? The Pope's encyclical specifically says that any theory which states that man was created by material means is false.

If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the SPIRIT as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

To properly understand the above we need to understand what epephenomenon means.

epiphenomenon, n, a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it.

Reading the above paragraph after understanding what epiphenomenon means one sees that he is saying, very clearly that man did not descend from lower species - the central theme of Darwinian evolution. In the next paragraph he says:

"With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, ".

ontology, n, 1. a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being. 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existence.

He is saying that man is beyond the realm of the physical, that man exists in the realm of the divine, not the material. He clearly states further that the Bible is the guide to man and the meaning of life. Further he had made prior to this the assertion that materialistic views are not acceptable and the following is to the point:

" In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created."

[gore3000]

But then, comes along in the nineteenth century a thoroughly atavistic work entitled The Descent of Man. If anything, this book can be fairly understood as a recursion to a more primitive state of mind. IMHO it does not represent an evolution of human consciousness, but a devolution, a recursion, a “throwback” to a more savage past. Clearly it legitimates the practice of eugenics. And when you boil it all down, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the practice of eugenics and “ethnic cleansing.”

Great point! Moreover, what the evolutionists always ignore, is that Darwinism laid the foundation for Hitler's mass murders in the public mind. It legitimized such views. It called them science. Therefore Hitler just reaped what Darwin had sowed.

[gore3000]

it's sufficient for my purposes in debating those who claim that evolution is anti-Christian.

Materialistic Darwinian evolution is indeed anti-Christian and the Pope said so. Now what intrigues me Patrick is why you, a virulent atheist, should care a hoot about what the Pope says.