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.

[Junior]

You have a wonderful proclivity for taking bits and pieces of what's being communicated to you and turning out something completely different. You do this with scientific quotes, knowing full well that what you're doing is a lie. I don't know what's in your Bible, but "thou shall not bear false witness" is in mine. Of course, since you are a master at taking quotes out of context, your Bible might read "thou shall ... bear false witness."

A fact is a fact; science consists of theories supported by facts and observations.

[Junior]

If he had proof of such he would not be doing research on it now would he?

Dear Lord, give me strength! He has an observation; he has a hypothesis to explain that observation; he's going to do research to see if his hypothesis is correct or if he needs to modify it. That is science, but you wouldn't know that, would you, Mr. "A circle is not an ellipse, the planet's have wildly elliptical orbits, 'strong evidence' equals 'absolute proof,' and 1⁷²⁰ is a really big number."

Actually, now your misrepresentations of science make a lot of sense. You consider science like a religion -- complete and not in need of constant revision. The fact that researchers are constantly doing research is an insult to your sensibilities -- they should "know" the answers already.

[Junior]

Junior is going back and forth saying on one post that science proves nothing and on the next that evolution is fact.

One more time, Mr. "I can't understand what's in front of me." Evolution is science. It is a theory supported by facts. Nothing has come along to "disprove" evolution, regardless of your plaintive bleatings.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is science. It is a theory supported by facts. Nothing has come along to "disprove" evolution, regardless of your plaintive bleatings.

Nothing, that is, except for everything science has accomplished in the last 150 years.
</flaming idiot creationist mode>

[gore3000]

You do this with scientific quotes, knowing full well that what you're doing is a lie.

No it is not a lie. In fact, if you notice post#659, it is I who posted the whole article. In addition, almost invariably when I post a quote, I give a link to the whole article. What more can anyone ask for?

It is interesting that you can only call me names, but cannot refute my scientific quotes. The reason is that my statements are true. You are showing yourself to be a loser. You have been proven wrong and like almost all the rest of the ideologues of evolution you ungracefully and ungletemanly insult the messenger for daring to tell the truth.

[gore3000]

Dear Lord, give me strength! He has an observation; he has a hypothesis to explain that observation; he's going to do research to see if his hypothesis is correct

Exactly what I said. Right now it is an ASSUMPTION. When he finds proof for that assumption, get back to me. He will not. The scientific facts both these scientists under discussion discovered show the impossibility of evolution.

[gore3000]

Junior is going back and forth saying on one post that science proves nothing and on the next that evolution is fact. -me-

One more time, Mr

One more time I gave strong evidence for my position, I gave FACTS. You said science cannot prove anything. When I called you and told you that then evolution is nonsense, you went back on what you said and repeated the moronic mantra which neither you nor any evolutionist can back up that evolution is facts. I disproved any sort of materialism in my article and in post# 652 - with facts, with scientific facts. You could refute them so you lamely went into skeptical mode. Okay, here's my post again. Let's see you refute it with facts instead of with the 'science can't prove anything' garbage:

There is such a theory and it has been discussed many times on this site, it is called intelligent design. It has been proven many times to be true and it at the same time proves evolution to be false. The bacterial flagellum is the most famous proof, however there are many more. The story in the article about Newton is one. In fact it has been proven through since then, that is why atheists are proposing an infinite amount of universes as the explanation for our universe. Another proof is the impossibility of abiogenesis which I show in the above article. Another proof is that biologists call the developmentat process whereby one cell multiplies into 100 trillion cells in exactly the correct place, of the exactly correct type during development a program. That is a trifecta against materialism and no one can refute it.

[gore3000]

Evolution is science. It is a theory supported by facts. Nothing has come along to "disprove" evolution, regardless of your plaintive bleatings.

Repeating the mantra and offering no proof. Repeating the mantra and not refuting anything I have said in my posts or in the article above. When are you and your evolutionist friends going to show us how those species in the article evolved? What's the matter my statement that they could not evolved is true? What's the matter, you and your friends cannot find a refutation for my NUMEROUS PROOFS against materialistic evolution????????

[gore3000]

Nothing, that is, except for everything science has accomplished in the last 150 years.

Yes, nothing that science has accomplished in the last 150 years has tended to prove evolution. In fact, the very year in which the Origins was published, Pasteur disproved materialistic spontaneous generation which only some 10 years later Huxley 'wrote out' of evolution. A few year's later Mendel showed that Darwin's 'melding' theory was totally false. In 1953 DNA was discovered and it showed that creating new functions was virtually impossible. By the year 2000 when the genome project was being completed, we found that genes were just factories and did nothing on their own. That they needed a vast support system for which Darwinian evolution could never account for. So yes, the statement I made some months ago has not been disproven:

ALL DISCOVERIES IN THE LAST 150 YEARS HAVE TENDED TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

[Junior]

I gave FACTS.

You gave erroneous conclusions, not facts. That you conclude bacterial flagella are too complicated to evolve through random mutation and natural selection is not a "fact" simply because you claim it is. Neither are any of the other "facts" you purport. What you have presented are conclusions based solely upon, "golly gee, I can't figure out how it happened, so it must be too complex to happen naturally, duh huh."

[Condorman]

Junior (#723): Evolution is a theory supported by facts.
gore3000 quoting Junior (#727): Evolution is facts.

One of these things is not like the other. How is this not blatant dishonesty?

[Junior]

you and your friends cannot find a refutation for my NUMEROUS PROOFS against materialistic evolution????????

Because there are no "proofs" in science. Proofs are found in mathematics, and one cannot prove a negative (i.e., you cannot prove evolution is wrong mathematically). A proof also follows a set order: If A, then B; if B then C; therfore if A then C. Your arguments follow the order "I cannot understand how something is done so it is impossible."

That you cannot grasp simple concepts makes me wonder how anyone can possibly take you seriously when you spout off about subjects you know absolutely nothing about (geometry, astronomy, paleontology, biology, etc.).

[Junior]

It's called "lying for God." g3k gets special dispensation for breaking a commandment because he's doing it "in a good cause." It's a bit like the Clintons running roughshod over individual rights "for the children."

[gore3000]

You gave erroneous conclusions, not facts.

Whatever you call it you cannot refute it. Your opinion is irrelevant, prove me wrong.

[gore3000]

you and your friends cannot find a refutation for my NUMEROUS PROOFS against materialistic evolution????????

Because there are no "proofs" in science.

Going back and forth again. So refute my facts, my interpretation whatever you call it. I have posted scientific facts. You cannot refute them. Science does not support evolution, it supports Intelligent Design. Evolutionists do not have a single example of a mutation that has made an organism more complex. Evolution does not have a single clear example of a species that has evolved into a more complex species. Evolution does not even have a single clear idea of how evolution could have arisen. Evolution cannot even describe how complex functions could have arisen gradually. Evolution cannot explain the species I have posted in the article. Materialism cannot explain how an ordered Universe, how life could have arisen at random. In other words Junior, what you and your evolutionist/materialistic/atheist friends have to support your theory is just a big fat ZERO.

[AndrewC]

Speaking of lies (click on the logo for the page).

But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

[balrog666]

Do you have to hide behind you mommies skirt cry baby?

Do you have to hide behind other people's words?

[AndrewC]

Here is the actual program in case you have lost the information.

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY 
RICHARD HARDISON

10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON
11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET"
12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING"
13 PRINT "SUCCESSES."
14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS
15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE"
16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO
17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT"
18 PRINT "LETTER"

[Gumlegs]

Attention, Everyone!

We have a Nobel-class Freeper with us! I refer you to Gore3000's post 715 to this very thread. Behold:

I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.

Shall we repeat that again, to help it sink in? I'll try increasing the font size, too.

I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.

Wow! This should really be in "Breaking News," doncha think?

And as we say in advertising, "But wait, there's more!" Check this out:

I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution.

It apparently needs to be re-stated, for those of us compelled to post in blue, that in no place, at no time, did Dr. Baltimore ever claim his discovery "backs up evolution."

The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution.

Your assessment of the evidence against evolution remains unconvincing.

Baltimore didn't say "how his discovery proved evolution," because he a) Wasn't trying to prove evolution, and b) He probably understands, as you obviously refuse to, that one does not prove theories.

In consecutive sentences, you've asserted that Baltimore has failed to either "back up" or "prove" evolution. Using the same distortion twice did not make it any more convincing. It is possible, given your somewhat eccentric view of mathematics, that you might believe something of zero credence would double its effectiveness in the second stating, but most of us believe that 2 x 0 = 0. (That would be a "zero" on the right side of the "equal" sign with the same numeric value as the "zero" on the left side of the "equal" sign.

In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.

Make that three times.

[PatrickHenry]

We have a Nobel-class Freeper with us!

It's a thrill just to lurk here.