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.

[gore3000]

What a scientist assumes is of no consequence. What counts is the evidence discovered. Let's look at the link showing why Hartwell got the Nobel Prize and why I gave the link as evidence of design:

Leland Hartwell (born 1939), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA, is awarded for his discoveries of a specific class of genes that control the cell cycle. One of these genes called "start" was found to have a central role in controlling the first step of each cell cycle. Hartwell also introduced the concept "checkpoint", a valuable aid to understanding the cell cycle.

As the above shows, a gene, to function properly, requires other DNA to control it, tell it to function, tell it how much protein to produce and when to start and stop. Now a gene without this additional DNA would not operate period. Therefore to have even a simple new function, you require (as I have been saying all along) more than one mutation. Indeed it requires quite a few mutations working together for it to work. This makes evolution utterly impossible and proves intelligent design.

[gore3000]

You have certainly claimed that a natural origin of life is impossible

The evidence against abiogenesis is right in the article and you cannot disprove it. To call the solid evidence presented there as a belief is to demean the strength of the evidence. If Andrew considers that evidence insurmountable, it only shows him to be a rational person unlike the atheists who, while not being able to refute it, insist that abiogenesis is possible without any evidence for it or even a rational explanation of how it could have happened.

[gore3000]

Then, my child, it isn't science, as science cannot "prove" anything.

Uhmmm, guess now you claim that evolution is not a fact? That evolution is not science? After all if science can prove nothing then evolution must be total nonsense and a belief not a fact.

It is interesting that when given solid scientific evidence against their theory the evolutionists always withdraw into skepticism and 'nothing is true' mode. Some scientists you folk are!

[gore3000]

If all the dots are subject to revision, it seems to me that the dots prove nothing at all! -me-

Wrong, idiot. The dots aren't subject to revision, the context is.

The fact that you find it necessary to insult me because you put your foot in your mouth and admitted that the bones do not prove anything since they are always subject to revision shows the truth of my statement above. Therefore paleontology is no proof of evolution as I have detailed in other posts.

[balrog666]

The fact that you find it necessary to insult me because you put your foot in your mouth and admitted that the bones do not prove anything since they are always subject to revision shows the truth of my statement above. Therefore paleontology is no proof of evolution as I have detailed in other posts.

Boy, you really are stupid. How anybody outside of a mental institution could read my posts and glean those ideas is truly incredible!

Oh, and objecting to my characterization of you is really funny, Mr. Slime, Mr everybody's-a-liar, Mr evo-Taliban, Mr doesn't-understand-a-"proof".

[gore3000]

"Proof" is not within the lexicon of science.

Then evolution is not a fact, it is nonsense. Seems I must have given pretty strong and pretty irrefutable scientific evidence for both you and Junior to cower behind this skeptical nonsense.

As to the "Beak of the Finch", yes there are some reviews that gloss over the important evidence. Nevertheless the proof that the different 'species' of finches do mate, do reproduce, and their progeny are even more viable than the non-mixed 'species'. In addition, the book also shows that the beaks lengthened and shortened and lenghthened again in the short period of a dozen years. This back and forth shows that the changes were not due to mutation but to genetic information inherent in the species. In other words, as I said, the species adapted, they did not mutate as evolution requires.

Don't even bring up Newton. He's a charlatan, a fiend,

Insulting Newton because he disagrees with your theory and gave strong proof in the little story in the article against it. How low can you guys go! The man was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, a genius mathematician and decent man. Guess that is a good reason for you to attack him eh?

[Condorman]

...Therefore paleontology is no proof of evolution as I have detailed in other posts.

Balrog, you careless fool! With that dreadful lapse--an anonymous post on a small website--you have singlehandedly destroyed the foundations and findings of 150 years of research. The Atheist Council for Evolutionary Science is going to revoke your membership for this!

[snif] How could you...?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Condorman]

[Newton] was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, a genius mathematician and decent man.

Phooey! All of his "facts" about motion and gravity have been proven wrong. I also hear he picked his nose.

[balrog666]

Balrog, you careless fool! With that dreadful lapse--an anonymous post on a small website--you have singlehandedly destroyed the foundations and findings of 150 years of research. The Atheist Council for Evolutionary Science is going to revoke your membership for this!

[snif] How could you...?

Oh, noooooooooooooooo! I'll be drummed out of the Council! Quick, let's engage in a flame war and get the thread pulled! Hurry, somebody ping the moderator!

Oh, wait, we already did that! BWAAAAHAHAHA, that was laugh out loud funny. Maybe I should wait until the tylenol-3 wears off before I respond to Pope goreMMM again.

[Condorman]

Oh, and it seems you overlooked this.

[DWPittelli]

One beneficial mutation is not impossible though highly unlikely as you yourself admit. However several beneficial mutations, all of them working towards the same goal, occurring at random is totally impossible.

Only if you ignore these factors:

There is a lot of DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA. Although that name overstates the case, it is not generally expressed (read as a protein). Mutations there (and pre-existing oddities) will not generally express themselves, but such coding can do so if the right "start reading DNA code here" sequence is added.

For a given base pair, it is not always a case of, virtually everyone has, say, a "G" here, and any of the other 3 letters is a mutation. A given percent of people will have some other base pair, and as long as people don't have offspring with their siblings, that's rarely a problem even for "hamrful" mutations.

In the same way that a very short piece of computer code can call up a big subroutine and perform a complex function, a single base-pair mutation can cause a big difference in an organism's structure. While the fruit fly example where an extra pair of legs or wings pops up with a single mutation is not a useful feature, that doesn't mean that no such mutation could be helpful, given how many will occur.

Viruses can transfer larger pieces of DNA to radically different parts of ones chromosomes, and even between species. Large expressed sequences are not apt to be helpful, but some will.

[Gumlegs]

Seems that David Baltimore, while throwing that little bit about evolution at the end,

So you realized it's there. That's progress. Now all you have to do is understand its plain meaning.

...realizes the utter complexity of DNA and not only compares it to a computer program, but thinks even that such a metaphor is way too reductionist to give it justice. As he admits, it is far too complex for us to understand it now or for many decades to come.

Fine.

Such complexity cannot arise by chance.

This is entirely undemonstrated.

Programs, even the simpler ones we use in our computers, do not arise by chance. More importantly, they cannot be modified by chance either which is what evolution requires.

No it isn't. Go look up the meaning of "metaphor." As even you were able to figure out, Baltimore says the metaphor is "too reductionist." Your interpretation is not only too reductionist, you don't even seem to understand it's a metaphor.

Here's the whole article which shows the interpretation that this is the work of evolution is totally wrong. Such a complex, decision making system, was clearly intelligently designed.

Tell it to Baltimore. He's the one whose article -- the one you've reproduced -- assumes evolution.

[Gumlegs]

Leland Hartwell (born 1939), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA, is awarded for his discoveries of a specific class of genes that control the cell cycle. One of these genes called "start" was found to have a central role in controlling the first step of each cell cycle. Hartwell also introduced the concept "checkpoint", a valuable aid to understanding the cell cycle.

G3K: As the above shows, a gene, to function properly, requires other DNA to control it, tell it to function, tell it how much protein to produce and when to start and stop. Now a gene without this additional DNA would not operate period. Therefore to have even a simple new function, you require (as I have been saying all along) more than one mutation. Indeed it requires quite a few mutations working together for it to work. This makes evolution utterly impossible and proves intelligent design.

And as I have been saying all along, you're postings are rubbish. Again, I post Hartwell's own words describing his current work:

My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution. Evolution acts through selection of preexisting genetic variation in populations.

If he'd "disproved" evolution, as you keep insisting, why is he bothering to study "how molecular circuits support evolution"? These are the man's own words! If you are right, he's either a liar or an incompetent. Which is it?

[Gumlegs]

Insulting Newton because he disagrees with your theory and gave strong proof in the little story in the article against it. How low can you guys go! The man was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, a genius mathematician and decent man. Guess that is a good reason for you to attack him eh?

Gee ... don't these awful attacks on Newton sound remarkably like other attacks on these threads? The attacks directed at Darwin, I mean. (Did you know that Newton went mad? Twice, in fact. Go look it up).

[Junior]

Uhmmm, guess now you claim that evolution is not a fact?

Evolution is a theory supported by facts.

[Junior]

It is interesting that when given solid scientific evidence against their theory the evolutionists always withdraw into skepticism and 'nothing is true' mode. Some scientists you folk are!

You haven't presented anything except for a few ancient, out-of-context quotes; some name-calling; and arguments from astonishment. None of this adds up to "solid scientific evidence." BTW, did you not notice that the two sources you referenced earlier actually assume evolution occurs and that nothing in what they wrote countered that assumption?

[Junior]

I think you mean this.

[Condorman]

I did mean that. Netscape works with either link format. IE may be more picky.

Regardless, that question has yet to be answered. And apparently you still don't know beans about astronomy. ;^)

[Junior]

I know a lot about astronomy! For instance, I'm a Gemini.