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.

[DWPittelli]

Junior wrote: bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.... Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured.

So the indomitable Gore3000 wrote: Gee Junior, can't you make up your mind? Can't you stop contradicting yourself?

If I say, "wedding rings are simply another clue to the relationships between people," and "wedding rings are strong evidence that people are married," would anyone capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time claim a contradiction?

And if two organisms have a "relationship" in that one evolved into the other, wouldn't this be exactly what any literate and sane person would take Junior to be saying, to "square" that truly mind-blowing (to a troglodyte) circle?

[Junior]

The fossil record does not need to be explained by me, it needs to be explained by evolutionists.

And it has been. Now it's your turn. And, as for your contention that DNA denies evolution, nothing in the literature says that, indeed it states exactly the opposite -- that DNA evidence supports the evolutionist view of things. Unless, of course, you have any actual scholarship to back up your claims. Oh, I forgot, you don't actually do any research on the creo side, you simply carp at the guys down in the trenches doing the dirty work.

[DWPittelli]

There are a lot of theories on the Star of Bethlehem: conjunction, comet, supernova, meteor, aurora, hand of God. Any could be true, but none leaps out as the one that's particularly likely.

A conjunction is the only one known to have happened around then (although timing is unsure given that we don't really know the date of Jesus' birth). But conjunctions are pretty common and non-spectacular, and it's hard to see why it would be called just a "star."

[DWPittelli]

The evolutionists pick and choose what genes will prove their theory in different circumstances as the article Kangaroo, Platypus Are Not Related After All shows

What the article shows to me is that scientists are not afraid to contradict each other's conclusions based on the evidence at hand. It thus shows that science is not a conspiracy of dunces (unlike some other ways of seeking knowledge).

[gore3000]

Indeed. Mutations create new things, and natural selection eliminates the vast bulk of mutations, those which are harmful to the creature or hinder its ability to reproduce.

Well, that is the 'revised' version of evolution, but it does not work either. We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities. There is a famous example which shows the problems with the mutation theory brilliantly, it won a Nobel Prize for its discoverer. A mutation in a developmental gene resulted in a fly with a second set of wings replacing the stabilizers the fly had. Now the evolutionists claim this as proof of evolution however it proves the opposite. The fly needed the stabilizers. The second set of wings was totally useless because the mutation had created just wings, it had not created the support system necessary to make those wings useful. It is so with any function in an organism. It takes more than one thing to make a new function, therefore any mutation creating a new feature, even if it could be beneficial under the proper circumstances, will not be beneficial because the new feature will in all cases require a vast support system which in no way could have happened at random.

[balrog666]

Decay in the Earth's magnetic moment has been and is measured and observed.

Once again, you overlook the obvious. The geologic record shows that the Earth's magnetic field has both waxed and waned in the past. In fact, human artifacts have captured the strength of the magnetic throughout recorded history. Putting all your eggs in the decay basket (even over only a few thousand years) has already been shown to be a loser bet. Better luck next time. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA!

[balrog666]

It means letter-for-letter only when the alphabets are both phonetic.

[Heartlander]

DNA denies evolution,…

Now do a search on ‘Darwin gemmules’ and see what he speculated about what we now know as DNA. He was not a scientist mind you, so cut him some slack.

Was DNA what he predicted or was DNA something that was used to try to fit a preconceived notion? Does DNA fit better into a design scenario or a ‘no design necessary scenario’ as Darwin envisioned?
We will probably see two different things, but I hope you understand the general scientific philosophical flaw that I am suggesting.

[gore3000]

The fossil record does not need to be explained by me, it needs to be explained by evolutionists. -me-

And it has been.

You need to refute my post, not give us the nonsense that 'someone said it sometime somewhere'. Same for DNA, I gave you facts, I backed it up with articles. Your statement just means you disagree. We already knew your opinion, what we want is facts disproving my statements. Everyone has an opinion, I have the facts:

DURHAM, N.C. -- Classifying kangaroos and platypuses together on the evolutionary family tree is as absurd as adding your neighbors to your own family ancestral line simply because they share your love of the opera, according to scientists at Duke University.

But the current molecular method of using mitochondrial DNA to classify how mammals evolved is so flawed that it might have erroneously linked very different mammals, the scientists said. The mitochondrial DNA method of analyzing mammals has turned on its head the common-sense approach of linking mammals by similar anatomical traits or "morphology," they said.

Using a more comprehensive method to analyze the genetic material of 15 types of mammals, Duke researchers have shown that the mitochondrial DNA method that links disparate animals (hippo and whale, kangaroo and platypus) is statistically unreliable when it comes to evolutionary genetics, said Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology at Duke University Medical Center. Their own research using nuclear genes (genes from the nucleus or core of cells) has shown a nearly 100 percent statistical likelihood that the Duke results are correct.
From: Kangarood and Platypus Not Related .

As you can read above, the evo 'scientists' threw out mtDNA as evidence of relationship and made up a totally subjective (and unexplained) 'scientific' analysis to prove their theory. In other words, since the DNA disproved their theory, they made up a new method that would. So no, DNA evidence disproves descent.

[DWPittelli]

it takes more than one thing to make a new function

It only takes a single point mutation to "make a new function" that allows people to resist malaria.

The fact that a new wing would not be immediately useful is an interesting counter-example, but I bet it's self-evident to most readers that using a new wing is going to take neural and other changes due to the complexity of aeronatics, whereas lengthening a body part, or even adding a new limb for ground locomotion, is not nearly so complicated.

[gore3000]

What the article shows to me is that scientists are not afraid to contradict each other's conclusions based on the evidence at hand.

As the post above shows, the phony scientists of evolution made the evidence fit the facts which is the only way that the phony theory of evolution can be proven - with phony evidence.

[DWPittelli]

And since when is it "the 'revised' version of evolution," as you call it, that mutations create novelties and natural selection chooses from among the successful novelties? It's in Darwin. Have you even bothered to read the original text?

As I stated, most mutations are harmful. Everyone agrees. So what's the point of your harping on that fact? As long as not all mutations are harmful, evolution can occur. And the sickle-cell/malaria example shows that not all mutations are harmful. So any number of harmful mutations that you might pratt on about aren't really relevant, are they?

[gore3000]

It only takes a single point mutation to "make a new function" that allows people to resist malaria.

First of all you are assuming that it is a mutation. Second, this mutation is absolutely deadly and would destroy any group in which all members had it (because it would kill 25% of the population each generation). This is very destructive and in no way supports evolution. What you need is beneficial mutations and those cannot be found anywhere. There is also not a single example of any organism - virus, bacteria, fruit fly, or whatever, which has ever in the numerous experiments conducted on them been transformed into a more complex creature. Not one.

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

In his commentary "The Third Way", Shapiro most definitely addressed concerns about Darwinian beliefs and demeanor in the debate.

I stand by my statements. Shapiro did not describe any new non-Darwinian theory. And he's right to address concerns. There is very little that is definitely settled by biologists. That's why it seems strange when some folks here use quotes that are so old.

[gore3000]

As long as not all mutations are harmful, evolution can occur.

Nope and that is why I posted that last item in the article. Read it and see that evolution is impossible and why:

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.

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

They were not designed at random, they were designed with a purpose.

So extinct species represent what? Failures of the Creator? I don't think so.

Maybe failure of your theory? Species were designed to fail?

[gore3000]

Shapiro did not describe any new non-Darwinian theory.

Of course he did. Programs are written by intelligent beings, they do not write themselves. In addition let me point out the problem materialists have with their 'randomness' theories. If the Universe were random, there would be no scientific laws possible.

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

What threads have you been reading? The article above is about scientific facts and the evolutionists only want to talk about religion and bash Christianity.

That is certainly one side. It seems the same on the other side to me.

Who is opting out of the scientific process? Are you making the ridiculous and easily refutable claim that all scientists are atheists?

I'm saying that students who don't learn the scientific method will be at a significant disadvantage in the competition for jobs and university positions.

Discuss the scientific questions presented against evolution instead of bashing your opponents. Again if evolution is science - defend the science of evolution.

I think some of the posters here have done a fine job of defending evolution. It's about time for Creationist/ID'ers to make their case that they're talking about science and not scripture. Have barely seen a peep of that.

[Heartlander]

It only takes a single point mutation to "make a new function" that allows people to resist malaria.

Is this truly a mutation if the ability already existed?

[gore3000]

So extinct species represent what? Failures of the Creator? I don't think so.

Ask a theologian, I do not claim to know God's will. I am talking scientific facts, not religion. Explain euglena, the platypus, the wasp, the bat, the Cambrian, the butterfly in an evolutionary way. You claim evolution is science, then defend it in a scientific way. Do not change the discussion to a religion which you do not understand and do not believe in.