Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Disproving Evolution
myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by 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

DNAProteing
Synthesis

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.



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 981-984 next last
To: Scully
geology clean up at #472
541 posted on 10/14/2002 7:43:49 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
I do not believe science should be bound by anything.

But science has been able to succeed inside its box. Otherwise it'll get bogged down in orthodoxy and won't be able to support our technological society (science tends to get bound up in orthodoxy periodically in spite of its box).

With ID, you're postulating a Designer to use as a filter on the observable data. Saying "evolution is wrong" is not evidence for a Designer.

542 posted on 10/14/2002 7:48:40 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Modern biology recognizes your underlined quote to be part of evolutionary theory traditionally called "Darwinian" since Darwin wasn't able to define "slow". So I suppose you could call it a third way if you're a "Darwinian literalist".

So then who is Shapiro talking about when he jumps on Darwinians in "The Third Way"? But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

More to the point, "stochastic" has nothing to do with slow.

543 posted on 10/14/2002 7:49:21 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
So then who is Shapiro talking about when he jumps on Darwinians in "The Third Way"?

I think you've been on these threads long enough to know the answer to that question. They usually drop out after a rude comment or two.

Biologists are not the monolithic body that they are assumed to be. They agree on very little. If you put a bunch of them in room, they're almost as bad as Physicists.

544 posted on 10/14/2002 7:52:36 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: All
Time for my medication.
545 posted on 10/14/2002 7:56:43 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
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.

This is one of the sillier things you've asserted. Genes don't fade away, and a single mutation that a sexually reproducing creature has will appear in half his offspring. If the mutation trait is dominant, and beneficial, it will almost certainly maintain itself and take over the population in short order. If the mutation trait is recessive, it will be entirely hidden in the second generation, and will rarely appear in subsequent generations, and its growth or elimination is more a matter of chance, but it will not rapidly disappear.

To take an example that works just like the former mutation case, if a person with a single gene for brown eyes (dominant trait) moves to where everyone has blue eyes, half of his offspring will have the gene for brown eyes, and of those, half of theirs. (The absolute numbers don't decrease though, because the number of descendants also doubles in each generation)

And being dominant, the gene will express itself visibly (brown eyes). Now, if brown eyes are a neutral trait, the gene is as likely to increase in count as to decrease, but since the number of people with it is not much larger than zero, with random drift it is more likely to disappear at some point.

But if brown eyes are beneficial, or for whatever reason the people with brown eyes produce more offspring and so on than people with blue eyes, then eventually the whole country will have brown eyes.

New mutuations, if they are neutral, are no more or less susceptible to disappearing than brown eye genes in this case, if they are neutral.

546 posted on 10/14/2002 8:01:03 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
With ID, you're postulating a Designer to use as a filter on the observable data. Saying "evolution is wrong" is not evidence for a Designer.

First, ID does not say evolution is wrong, it says that the ‘natural’ mechanisms alone in the processes do not make sense. Some IDers’ go further but so do some Darwinists towards the naturalism spectrum (Princeton University was a Christian College?).
It comes down to basic philosophy (at least for me).

I do not see any new science as a threat to me but can Darwinism say the same. It is general philosophy as far as the “Theory of common descent” goes…

547 posted on 10/14/2002 8:16:42 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
This is one of the sillier things you've asserted. Genes don't fade away, and a single mutation that a sexually reproducing creature has will appear in half his offspring. If the mutation trait is dominant, and beneficial, it will almost certainly maintain itself and take over the population in short order. If the mutation trait is recessive, it will be entirely hidden in the second generation, and will rarely appear in subsequent generations, and its growth or elimination is more a matter of chance, but it will not rapidly disappear.

You need to take this up with the folks at Talk-Origins. You know the Darwinian bible folks.

From their Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Neutral alleles

Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix.

...

Deleterious alleles

Deleterious mutants are selected against but remain at low frequency in the gene pool. In diploids, a deleterious recessive mutant may increase in frequency due to drift. Selection cannot see it when it is masked by a dominant allele. Many disease causing alleles remain at low frequency for this reason.

...

Beneficial alleles

Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.)


548 posted on 10/14/2002 9:18:05 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
1) You have been shown time and again on these threads the way evolution explains the fossil record (that morphological changes describe evolution). Your inability to absorb or even remember this is a testament to your cognitive abilities. Now, how do you explain the fossil record? Oh, I forgot -- you can't. You have nothing. You can only sit and carp while science passes you by. So, put up or shut up and be relegated to my "ignore file."

2) Your article does not indicate that DNA evidence refutes evolution. It does indicate a couple of researchers have found flaws in another researcher's work. That is science, as if you'd know. The creos haven't done any actual research because they know what they'll find.

549 posted on 10/15/2002 2:13:36 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Who cares what Darwin thought of DNA? It wasn't even discovered until the mid 20th century. Hell, there was oodles of speculation and experimentation between Darwin and the discovery of DNA to work out the mechanics of heredity.
550 posted on 10/15/2002 2:17:33 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities.

Blonde hair and blues eyes are both fairly recent mutations. I think you'd find some argument over whether this decreases the owner's chances of passing on his or her genes.

Methinks you have a twisted (go figure) idea of what a mutation actually is.

551 posted on 10/15/2002 2:28:59 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Junior
fairly recent mutations.

Penny ante science...do you ever play with a full deck---no wild cards/straight poker!

552 posted on 10/15/2002 3:00:43 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Evolution allows you the advantage because you can twist/conjure reality to support any belief!
553 posted on 10/15/2002 3:03:31 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The creos haven't done any actual research because they know what they'll find.

How can you find morphing animal bones when it never happened!

554 posted on 10/15/2002 3:09:55 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Isn't that the The Joy Of Evolution...crooking God---science!
555 posted on 10/15/2002 3:10:41 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
So, not only can't you complete a rational thought, you can't see the pictures of the fossil progression VadeRetro provided.
556 posted on 10/15/2002 3:23:15 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Here's the breakdown---approximations...

45% creationists/science(sane/normal)...

45% creation and evolution(confused/schizoids)...

10% hard core atheists/materialists---EVOLUTION only whacks
557 posted on 10/15/2002 3:27:03 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Morning placemarker.
558 posted on 10/15/2002 3:50:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Finding real evidence for sudden genetic changes, however, has been slow. By using phylogenetic surveys, however, McDonald and King were able to distinguish between the youngest HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses) and more ancient lineages -article-

In other words, further evidence that HERVs evolved from older retroviruses.

Nope, you have a reading comprehension problem. They were able to separate the new from the old by comparing the whole bunch to those that were found in other species. That's how "The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling" came about. As noted for this happen all of a sudden, all of them working together, is unexplainable by evolution.

559 posted on 10/15/2002 6:07:16 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
the linear clumping pattern of the red blood cells that occurs in carriers of this mutation is a new function that did not exist before the mutation.

To call a deadly disease a 'new function' proving evolution is ludicrous. Guess if you kill everyone you improve the species. Sickle cell, if it were in the whole population would kill 25% of everyone born. Also, while evolutionists call this a great benefit, somehow those who do not carry the sickle cell gene manage to survive malaria also.

560 posted on 10/15/2002 6:13:37 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 981-984 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson