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.

[AntiGuv]

Thank you. I've enjoyed the discussion likewise. Have a g'night.

[AndrewC]

But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.

Since my calculator cannot display all of the numbers involved I must use logs. First 4²⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰ is not a small number, in terms of 10 it is 10^150514.9978 . Consequently even if the odds were increased 5.48E29, ----no let us say 5.48E29 times a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, times more (or 5.48E74) the odds would be ~1 in 10¹⁵⁰⁴⁴⁰

Since this is beyond comprehension if we use instead 4^250 as the beginning odds, the final number becomes a more reasonable looking 1 in 5.97334E+75, that is including all of the adjustments increasing your odds. Now how does this relate to anything we can conceive? Well given a 20 billion year old universe(fudging in your favor) with 366 days per year(again fudging in your favor), 24 hours per day (no fudging), 60 minutes per hour(again no fudging) and 60 seconds per minute(straight as an arrow) we can calculate that there have been 6.32448E+17 seconds since the beginning of the universe. Hmmm. If we allowed your total scenario to occur every second since the beginning of the universe we cannot cover all of the possibilities for even a chain of 250. Well how about doing the process every picosecond? That would make the iterations 6.32448E+29, still far short of the 5.97334E+75 combinations remaining.

[elbucko]

It is still a horse before and after its immune system adapts.

Your point is a good one. The example I gave is but a nanosecond in the evolution of the horse. Actually, fossil records for horses are quite contiguous. The modern horses hoof is actually its middle fingers, finger nail. Some semblance of former digits are still observable. However, since the modern horse did not exist in North America until the Spanish conquest the fossil record is not contaminated with equivocal evidence. The skeletal development of the horse in North America is quite complete and progressive. The horse evolved from the size of a small dog to that of a horse. It isn't announced in a chapter in Genesis, but it's good enough for me.

[AntiGuv]

The mathematical odds are of no great consequence unless you have some genuine standard of measure. If the odds are even so monumental that the event would happen only once in the entire history of the universe - and even then, perhaps, by happenstance - then whatever sentient beings arose would still have arisen due to those slimmest of conceivable odds. Until you can assert that it has happened dozens or hundreds or millions of times on other planets, then all you have is the fact that it happened once. However slim the odds of life arising, from whatever source, they became a reality at least in this one instance here on Earth. It does not follow that the evolutionary model is suspect or that natural selection does not occur.

[Hunble]

But but but...

If you believe in magic, this is easily performed. See, you just wave your magic wand and poof...

Ok, so to keep some people happy, have must wave that magic wand a few more times to crate those false fossile records. Pain in the butt, but easy enough to do.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

I am reluctant to post this question, as I am still smarting from a well deserved beat-down of epic proportions that I incurred only two days ago, but I will go against better judgement and do so at my own peril.

This question may be familiar to some of you who are more educated than I, which would be a lot of you, but I have not heard it addressed yet in this crowd, nor elsewhere.

If all human life descended from Adam and Eve, what, is the explanation for the multitude of distinct human races? Anglos distinctively pale, Africans distinctively dark, Asians and others with profoundly unique facial features, etc.

Would this not suggest that groups of humans have changed since the Dawn of Man, that they have become different than the Original Pair, and would this not be classified as "evoloving?"

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[elbucko]

If you believe in magic,

Oh but I do believe in magic. I once saw a Unicorn draw close to drink at the bank of river that emptied into the ocean, not far away. There, on a rock was a Mermaid that had swam upstream. They looked at each other and the Mermaid said to the Unicorn: "If you believe in me, I will believe in you".

I like that. Good Night all.

P.S. Say Gore3k, have you ever heard of Dr. Erwin Corey? You two would make scientific history.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Good grief....make that "evolving" thank you.

[Hunble]

If all human life descended from Adam and Eve, what, is the explanation for the multitude of distinct human races? Anglos distinctively pale, Africans distinctively dark, Asians and others with profoundly unique facial features, etc.

Actually, I do have a simple answer to your question.

Today, we have some outstanding breeds of dogs. Take a few minutes and look at those same breeds from around 1850. Finding those old images is not easy, but possible.

If you are able to find those pictures, you will realize how rapidly a 'race' can be created.

[AntiGuv]

Yes. This is evolution. As you can see from looking at the various human races, it doesn't even take very much time in the grand scheme of things for genetic variations to emerge and become pervasive within even a relatively isolated group of the same species. With sufficient time, you would have enough genetic drift that subgroups would be unable to reproduce with one another. As a matter of fact, the Aborigines and the rest of humanity were already quite close to this threshold when the British colonized Australia. Indeed, the number of live births that would result from interbreeding between those two groups would probably be almost nonexistent without modern medicine.

[Hunble]

Thanks, and I do believe in magic.

But Science will be my first choice.

[AndrewC]

The mathematical odds are of no great consequence unless you have some genuine standard of measure.

They are important when the cause for an event is stated.

"I don't know" is the answer that makes the odds of no great consequence.

[AntiGuv]

Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution. The opening declaration of this thread was that evolution has been disproven, not that abiogenesis has been disproven. Therefore, I am debating the validity of evolution, not the original spark of life. However life got sparked - whether or not by divine intervention - evolution has evidently followed.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Selective breeding on that scale, done in a time when humans were barely cognizant, seems like it would take a level of intelligence, sophisitication and previously existing innate differences in complection that most likely was not available at the time.

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Selective breeding on that scale, done in a time when humans were barely cognizant, seems like it would take a level of intelligence, sophisitication and previously existing innate differences in complection that most likely was not available at the time.

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

WERE not available at the time....I'm hammered.

[AntiGuv]

The key point here to keep in mind is the concept of genetic drift. The longer two populations reproduce in isolation from one another, you will have more and more genetic drift. You can clearly see the evidence in that - for whatever reason - Africans drifted toward darker skintypes while Asians drifted toward slanted eyes and Europeans drifted toward aquiline features. At some point, if you isolate two populations of the same species long enough, they will drift apart to the point where the sperm of one will not fertilize the egg of another, or where females of one can no longer carry infants of the other to term. Whenever this juncture is reached, then you will have yourself two or more divergent species. There won't even be a "bright line" between the two. You probably won't be able to tell the one species from the next just by looking at them. That's why there are many closely related species that look almost indistinguishable from one another - but they've drifted apart just enough that they can no longer mate with each other.

[AndrewC]

Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution.

That's the beginning, yes, but evolution is touted as beginning with the first self-replicating system and includes aspects of randomness which are clearly also dependant on numbers.

[AntiGuv]

Evolution does begin with the first self-replicating system regardless of how the first self-replicating system began.

[philman_36]

Short and "too sweet"...
Evolution is Religion—Not Science
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.