Replies

Evolution is a fraud. Certain proteins are expressed in the developmental stages of human embryos (or any animal). These proteins induce the formation of organs. However, if these proteins are continually expressed, cells will become cancerous. I would like for the evolutionists to explain how THAT process "evolved". If evolution is "fact", then the embryo would initially ONLY produce these signaling proteins. Therefore, you could NEVER evolve because all forms of life would become extinct due to the constant upregulation of these proteins (cancer). They would NEVER have the chance to "evolve" and put the 'brakes' on these proteins after initial development (as they currently do). Also, if evolution is "fact" then how did Insulin and Insulin Receptors "evolve"? EVERYONE NEEDS INSULIN!! Was the insulin produced first with nowhere to bind? Was the IR produced first? The insulin signaling pathway (shown below) is too complex and too well organized to have just "evolved".

This is just one example....think of the many, many, many other receptors in the human body as well.....how did they "evolve"? Any way you boil it down, signaling pathways in the human body are too complex to be explained by a stupid and outmoded theory such as evolution. The belief in evolution is in reality it's own religion, many use it to explain that there is no god. I'm not particularly religious, I definitely believe in God but don't accept Creationism in a literal sense. I sure as hell know that evolution is a fraud. I know the history behind the Scopes Monkey trial, the ACLU and how they used it to push evolution into the classroom around the early twenties. The founder of the ACLU stated that America would never knowingly allow socialism to take over. The ACLU needs to be locked up in Guantanamo bay with their terrorist brethren.

Any way you boil it down, signaling pathways in the human body are too complex to be explained by a stupid and outmoded theory such as evolution.

I love the way you've selectively chosen to believe certain things claimed by science, but rejected others such as Evolution.

I suppose consistency isn't your strong suit.

Also, if evolution is "fact" then how did Insulin and Insulin Receptors "evolve"? EVERYONE NEEDS INSULIN!! Was the insulin produced first with nowhere to bind? Was the IR produced first? The insulin signaling pathway (shown below) is too complex and too well organized to have just "evolved".

I'm curious: Is this insulin pathway argument yours, or did you get it from somewhere else?

I know the history behind the Scopes Monkey trial, the ACLU and how they used it to push evolution into the classroom around the early twenties.

Uh, no, apparently you don't.

Evolution was regularly taught in American High Schools starting around the 1880's. The only thing that happened in the 20's was that for the first time nearly all American youth were attending public high schools. Previously many had attended private schools, and even more had ended formal schooling before the high school grades. IOW the rise of the antievolution movement, and Scopes and all that, was not a reaction to more (or less) evolution being taught in the average school, but rather to more schools, each teaching about the same amount of evolution as American schools had for decades.

If you want to focus on results rather than causes, you're still wrong. The result of the Scopes trial was less teaching of evolution (mainly due to voluntary avoidance by publishers) not more. Evolution wouldn't become an important or central topic in textbooks again until around 1963, with the introduction of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks. This was part of the reaction to the Sputnik "crisis" in science education (math and physics having been tackled first) and these texts became a model for many private publishers. Their appearance is also why the antievolution movement (Seagraves v. California, The Creation Research Society, ICR, The Genesis Flood, etc) reappeared just about this time.

Certain proteins are expressed in the developmental stages of human embryos (or any animal). These proteins induce the formation of organs. However, if these proteins are continually expressed, cells will become cancerous. I would like for the evolutionists to explain how THAT process "evolved". If evolution is "fact", then the embryo would initially ONLY produce these signaling proteins. Therefore, you could NEVER evolve because all forms of life would become extinct due to the constant upregulation of these proteins (cancer). They would NEVER have the chance to "evolve" and put the 'brakes' on these proteins after initial development (as they currently do).

??? I don't understand the objection here. The regulation of these proteins is mediated by other proteins, or regions of the DNA that proteins bind to, or by the concentration of other chemicals in the cell that are in turn determined by the activities of genes. IOW it all goes back to the structure and sequence of the DNA. Why and how do regulatory mechanisms provide a different or special problem for evolution? It all comes down to the same mechanisms, changes in the structure of the DNA. If structural genes can evolve, so can regulatory ones.