Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence for Evolution

Lew Rockwell ^ | 10/2/01 | Bill Sardi

[Ada Coddington]

Title is a bit misleading.

[self_evident]

Misleading? The molecular clock was controversial when it was proposed, and remains so. That scientists debate facets of evolution is hardly evidence that evolution is false. They continue to treat science as a political movement, which is just bizarre.

[meenie]

It is also evident that evolution cannot be claimed to be true according to DNA evidence. The main thrust of this story is that it jeopardizes the use of DNA in legal procedures as being unquestionable.

[Physicist]

Title is a bit misleading.

The title is an outright lie. First, evolution in no way requires the existence of any molecular clock, and second, there are myriad ways in which genetic evidence does support evolution.

[f.Christian]

Try taking evolution to the bank---"squatters"--it flys in the psuedo-intellectual circles like helium boomerangatangs---no title paper work!

Chest thumpers from the caves--trees on a free ride in a govt. paid for bananna train---"schollarship" of the swamp-jungle!

[Robert-J]

There are myriad ways to support evolution. Yeah right knucklebrain. The evolutionist/libertarian types here are definitely FR's "weakest link."

[Robert-J]

"They continue to treat evolution as a political movement." Well, it certainly isn't science.

[Who is George Salt?]

Your post provides pretty convincing evidence of de-evolution. What on earth are you babbling about?

[Helms]

These posts keep cropping up, even during wartime. Talk about denial.

[f.Christian]

knock yourself out... saltie!

[fourdeuce82d]

"The main thrust of this story is that it jeopardizes the use of DNA in legal procedures as being unquestionable. "

only on the planet zandor...

all the article says is that the rate of change in a specie's DNA may not be as constant as was thought. Doesn't say anything about our ability to match a sample of DNA found at a crime scene to whoever left it ther.

[aposiopetic]

But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA

Looks like the writer's 'molecular clock' is in need of repair as well.

[Robert-J]

You know, these clowns have to rely on personal insult. Their theory is so weak. When are they going to admit the truth. Evolution is an atheistic religion (Buddhism is also an atheistic religion.) And universities should change the doctoral degrees of people like Physicist from Doctor of Philosophy to Doctor of Theology. In fact, people like Physicist, in their newly recognized role as priest, rather than scientist, should start wearing funny robes, and should learn some incantations.

[steve-b]

But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA

It seems that Bill Sardi went to one of those schools where they don't expect students to know silly things like names and dates, but give them plenty of self-esteem.

[medved]

Critics of Darwin's theory of evolution point to flaws in the fossil record (no new species, no missing links) as evidence that the theory is false. But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA and were quick to suggest that the rate of change in DNA is evidence that confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

Only the ideologues. Quotes from intelligent scientists didn't read like that:

"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence." (pp. 211-212)

    Charles B. Thaxton  (Creationist)
    Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard,
    Staff member of the Julian Center
    The Mystery of Life's Origin:
    Reassessing Current Theories
    Philosophical Library, 1984

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt

    I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
    Member NY Academy of Sciences
    Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
    Darwin Was  Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
    New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

[.30Carbine]

Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution

Of course not.
Most scientists won't really look is the problem, IMHO.
They are simply out to prove their point, which is very unscientific research.
An intelligent design necessitates an Intelligent Creator. Take that to the bank.

[.30Carbine]

Re: #13 - Evolution is an atheistic religion

Truth bump.

[Wm Bach]

There are myriad ways to support evolution. Yeah right knucklebrain. The evolutionist/libertarian types here are definitely FR's "weakest link."

You know, these clowns have to rely on personal insult. Their theory is so weak. When are they going to admit the truth. Evolution is an atheistic religion (Buddhism is also an atheistic religion.) And universities should change the doctoral degrees of people like Physicist from Doctor of Philosophy to Doctor of Theology. In fact, people like Physicist, in their newly recognized role as priest, rather than scientist, should start wearing funny robes, and should learn some incantations.

You failed to demonstrate how this latest finding would invalidate the use of mitochondrial DNA to map genetic similarities amongst various species. But thank you for sharing your feelings.

[Junior]

Okay, so what's your explanation for the life we see around us? Did God zap it all into existence in one week a few thousand years ago? Or has life been changing and adapting (evolving) for billions of years? For which does the most evidence exist?