Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 1
95
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+74 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
((Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible))


Now before the Mods delete this, I would like to explore this as I am doing so in the wrong threads, so please bear with me. Please do not delete any of this as I want folks to at least read it, if you must, fine me points if necessary, but let me keep the text as I have presented it please.


The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these 'theories' outright no?

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow.

I will post mine first.........as a reply to another thread with BH. It was brought up that evolution is only theory but supported by Science and that no Creation can be supported as such....so lets see.

Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED)



The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.






Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.



Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.



Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible







Now as a side note, I would like to present this article for discussion also, lets call it # 12 shall we? This one I need to look into as I do not quite follow this as I should even though I took Introductory Geology. I am really having trouble with any scientific explanation for this one.

I know I posted more than I should but most will not follow the link, maybe this way they will actually READ it before responding.






Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead


A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.


Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing intelligent design in nature. One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system called a bacterial flagellum found in many bacteria including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint and flexible propeller. The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much to small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer.

I had always heard that the smallest living thing has 23 parts, and it could not exist without all 23 and therefore could not have evolved. It made sense and I am sorry I do not remember where I heard this but the text directly above is darn near the same thing. How can evolution explain this?

How can these smallest of parts that need to be there in number evolve? It doesnt make sense. Just as the deeper you go into Space, when you travel to the smallest parts of creation, it gets MORE complicated, not less.



It would seem that some scientists at least believe that evolution can not explain this complexity in the world.




CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Cell
- Overconfidence in Evolution the Problem - Get rid of that fairy tale, and we will begin to deal correctly from effect to cause
- Too Much Complexity in Just One Cell - It is bigger than New York City!
- Cells Only Reproduce after Their Kind - They obey the law of Genesis 1
- Evolutionary Theories Are Ridiculous - They do not explain the facts
- Each Cell Is Full of Complicated Parts - We still do not understand its full complexity
- All its Parts Had to Begin Operating at the Same Time - Gradual changeover could not succeed
- Evolutionary Theory Offers No Solutions - We must look elsewhere for answers



SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE CELL

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.



Well this one sure does put a halt to evolution in the grand scheme of things. I mean adaptation can explain a bunch but you can not adapt matter from nothing.

Its a real paradox, but to be fair, it can legitimately be asked, then who created God?


It is one that my mind is to minuscule to understand I am sure as I have always wondered how something could have no beginning and no end.

But there is a saying that I say quite a lot that sums it up.

As it was in the Beginning, is now, and ever will be. God always was. Then again I am limited to my 4 dimensional mind, I can not think in 14 dimensions and mathematically we know there are many. Time does not 'bind' God for He created it....

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
It'll take time to read all of this but, one problem I noticed in several places as I was scanning it - there is the near constant refrain of "it must be false because we haven't yet discovered it".

If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work, then I somehow missed that announcement. Can you help me find that memo?

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison

If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work,

Thanks!


I dont believe science is dead at all, it is language to understand Creation as is Mathematics.


+32 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Ah where to begin. You creationist's love to beat the monkey becoming a human thing. I guess I'm going to go with Creationist Disinfo for 100 Ed. Err sorry make that Mythology Scientific Fact No. 7
 


Lets define evolution shall we:


Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
evolution.berkeley.edu...


Decent with modification right. Now while the Creationist or should I say thier new cover ID'ers love to point out the "absurdity" that we evolved directly from apes, or chimps, or some other simian type. However, where exactly is that said? Down the road we may have had a shared primate in our way past but each species at some point followed its own evolutionary path.

See below:




Further to the point:



Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Humans are not “higher” or “more evolved” than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to our own lineages.




Ohhh and lastly:



The location of our very own twig: Humans on the tree of life
This tree is based on morphological and genetic data. Chimpanzees and humans form a clade with DNA sequences that differ by only 1%1. This genetic similarity made it hard to figure out exactly how these two primates are related, but recent genetic studies have strongly suggested that chimpanzees and humans are each other’s closest living relative.2





I don't know if I want to delve into the huge strawman with your "fact"#8. Hmmm could we explain the atom 200 years ago? Didn't gods supporters burn people for suggesting the earth was round? Watch out for the serpents that lurk on the edges
Just because there is no explanation as of yet does not mean we will not find one soon.

All of the material in quotes and images were taken from:
evolution.berkeley.edu...


+36 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Now before the Mods delete this,

Why would any of us delete it? Or are you subtly tryingto tell us that you know its not true?


fine me points if necessary, but let me keep the text as I have presented it please.

We only muck with stuff thats against the agreed upon rules.

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply.

No.
I mean, Je refusai!


The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection.

Incorrect, somewhat.
Evolution is a fact; species change over time. The theory of darwin's is that it occurs via a mechanism of natural selection. This is slightly, but I think critically, different from what you are saying.



This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

I do have to note that it has nothing to do with being bigger better faster.


Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species.

Darwin doesn't actually talk about speciation proper very much at all. Better to say that speciation is cause by reproductive isolation. Darwin tended to think that species change via anagenesis, where changes accumulate and whole populations are transformed into new species, whereas lots of research shows that speciation occurs via splitting of lineages and often in concert with isolation, irrespective of traits often.


These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

Er?

Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
(I'll increase the size of the title for ease of reference.

Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?

It didn't. This is the 'half wing is no wing' arguement. Its simply wrong. The fossil record shows that dinosaurs were evolving into bird like animals. What eventually becomes a 'wing' in birds has other functions in dinosaurs. Evolution isn't saying that an animal decides to become a bird one day, and then sits around waiting for its arms to slowly turn into wings. Evolution is not 'teological' or 'goal oriented'. At each 'stage' of the 'progression', all that is happening is that natural selection is working upon the population. So at each 'stage' that character is adaptive and increases fitness. For dinosaurs, it appears that protofeathers evolved probably to aid in retaining warmth, since these are animals with fast metabolism who can't afford to just loose body heat to the air. It also looks like proto-feathers became more feather-like when they were used as Display Characters. Dinosaurs as a whole seem to have evolved lots of different structures for to purposes of communicative display. It also turns out that having longish feathers on the arm and body are good for brooding eggs, at least one specimin of an oviraptorosaur is presevered in just such a brooding 'position', arms over eggs. From here on, its a matter of the arms and feathers being co-opted for flight. Many dinosaurs were adapted torwards living in trees, and we find that they have adaptations that seem to favour gliding from tree to tree. Not much of a step from soaring thru the air to flying in the air. However, there is another theory wherein it was noticed that young fowl will, upon being threatened, clamber up trees and slopes to escape. They don't actually fly, but rather use their wings (juvenile 'half wings' at that) to create wind forces that keep the birds scrambling feet in contact with the slopped surface, even when vertical. This would have to be tremendously advantageous to small, otherwise defenseless, dinosaurs.

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants.

This is so stupid as to be not worthy of a response.

Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.

This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.

Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring

Please see my response to the section titled "Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong".

DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Ditto.

Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists

You seem to have neglected to realize that the 2lotd only applies to closed systems. Organisms are very much open, and can, therefore, become more 'complex'.

The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Evolutionary theory is as well supported as the theories on thermodynamics.
Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA

Plants do it very often.

Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

Its been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing.

"God did it" is not much of an answer. And its just plain silly to say that the lack of an explanation for the origins of the universe is a problem for theories evolutionary biology, but its 'aok' for other theories that you are personally comfortable with.

The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either

Of course it doesn't, nor does it claim to. Do you know what the big bang even is?? It has nothing to do with the origins of matter.
Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms

Its freezing and the atmosphere is inhospitable. You have absolutely no basis in fact to say that its suitable to support, let alone create, life forms.

The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory

I think you've already stated thatevolutionists can't account for the origns of life, so, again, you have absolutely no basis in fact for saying that there should be life on mars. Water is required for life as we know it. That doesn't mean that water leads to life any more than turning your car on means that you're driving down the highway.

Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how life evolves. It means that there aren't radio signals on the specific bands that seti searches currently bombarding earth. Its absolutely meaningless.



I honestly suggest that whoever wrote that stuff at least try to learn a little about evolution, the author is obviously completely ignorant of basic science, and incredibly deficient in analytical and logical thinking abilities.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Rather than go into a longish explanation, since, I dissapiontedly have to say, you don't seem to be interested in whats going on but would rather reassure yourself that 'academic evolutionists' are scum, I'll just present the 'short refutation' and longish articles.

Short Refutation

The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).

Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial (Wakefield 1998).


Polonium Halos
Age of the Earth

Having said the above, I'd happily discuss any of it, I'm just saying I will be (pleasantly) surprised.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Nygdan - I appreciate your reply.
As for the deletion, I dont know how many times I have spent a lot of time only to have it erased and "use the link" posted and nobody reads the link.

Thanks for your understanding in this matter then.


As I have stated before, I do believe animals can adapt based on conditions but it doesnt explain evolution as a whole.

Some of these arguments are stronger than others I will agree but #3 is the one that sticks out.



Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

quote: The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.

This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.



Well thats true but wouldnt evolution imply that these parts evolved from other parts? A single cell for example has (?)23 parts and it CAN NOT exist without the whole 23, so did it just start with 23(?)



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
If there is no evolution, maybe you can explain things like the Nene goose to me. It's colored exactly like a Canada goose, but is a completely different species of goose. It doesn't swim, doesn't fly much, lives in one area its entire life, doesn't migrate, etc. If you look at the feet, they are webbed like a Canada goose, but with smaller webbing, and thicker skin, and claws, because they life on rocks, and old lava fields. According to what you're saying, God must have just decided to make them one day because He was bored, or wanted to confuse people, because they couldn't have evolved naturally. There are many species that this has happened with in the world, especially here in Hawaii.

As far as the single cell organism, there were a lot of things we couldn't do 100 years ago that we take for granted now and don't even think about. Just because we can't do it now, doesn't mean that in time we can't. If we said anything we can't do now is impossible, then we'd still be living in caves.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

--------------------------------


I don't know if I want to delve into the huge strawman with your "fact"#8. Hmmm could we explain the atom 200 years ago? Didn't gods supporters burn people for suggesting the earth was round? Watch out for the serpents that lurk on the edges
Just because there is no explanation as of yet does not mean we will not find one soon.





Well that makes sense and all but where is the fossil record to support it? Is it complete?



As for #12 can you explain that one?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
.
No. 1
Many many animals have flaps of skin for gliding that don't actually fly.
The step from there to actual flight is just a matter of degree. [Is it just me or does this assertion seem easy to refute?]

No. 2
I believe that during good times a species genome tends to spread in all viable directions. Then the environment suddenly changes, perhaps Climate, perhaps a new [predator, competitor, prey, symbiote etc.] species makes landfall, in any event the enviornment selects out those strains of the broad genome to reign in the broad genome into one or more distinct strains that only are successful by remaining within their particular strain.
edit:
The fact that there is random chance in what is preserved and what is not, means it is likely that big chunks of lifes transitions will not be recorded.
Life is very efficient at grabbing any available organic chemistry before it has time to fossilize.
Is evolution connecting dots?
Yes.
Which is an improvement over denying dots, or that somethings didn't get recorded as dots are logical extrapolations.

No. 3
Lightning bolt?
That sounds like some ridiculous religious story.
DNA and cellular development is just selection for the best and most persistantly efficient organic chemistry molecule/system.

Selection started at a molecular level.
What we now call life is just what the selection of organic chemical systems has produced so far.
Our emotional desires, egos, wills are all just a part of the most likely successful type of system. [one has to get past one's own ego enough to think intellectually]

No. 4
Yes, lemarkian evolution has been discounted, I believe quite appropriately.
But Humans learn, so we can get things from other people that are not genetic. That is what evolution [enviroment selection/filter] has favored for our species.
Genetically you can only get some kind of scramble of your parents genes [recessive unseen traits as well as observable] with the occasional insertion of some reproductive cell virus.

No. 5
DNA does have built in correctors.
In some species this has even been shown to have corrections from several generations back, which was unexpected based on all previous observations.

The Jump to saying any/every genetic change is corrected is leap of faith on your part.

No. 6
If you add energy to matter it becomes more chaotic and random.
If you subtract energy from matter it calms and stablizes.
Ice from water is an increase of order.

Life does an amazing thing though,
It not only goes to order, But then goes on to create organization, becomes systematic.
Life may infact be an anti-entropic force in the Universe.
Life may simply be quantifyable as an almost mystically organized organic chemical system(s).

No. 7
Here the Human brains tendency to think in [simplistic] abstractions gets in the way of the reality of evolutionary process.
Species is an abstraction.
Gene is an abstraction.
Chromosome is an abstraction.

Actually you can interbreed many close species of animals.
producing a reproductively viable offspring is the trick.

One species does not suddenly become a new species.
It gradually expands its genome and then the enviroment filters out only certain strains.

Evolution does not happen as the simplistic set of abstractions we think of. It does not follow any rule but one. Anything that works. PERIOD.

If one chromosome doesn't fit exactly with another. doesn't matter.
a long chromosome has an intermitant tendancy to break at one or several places. doesn't matter.
Evolution doesn't care how many deformed and unsucessful offspring struggle, suffer and die without reproducing. Pain and misery are no obstical to pure pathological process.
It all comes down to numbers of offspring that can sucessfully reproduce to become the next throw of the genetic dice.

It can't cheat because it has no rules.

It is just organic molecules that through time are favored by their structure and patterns to persist long enough to create the next organic chemical system that will itself persist long enough, to create the next organic chemical system . . . and so on.

No rules. Just evolution.

PS. the emotional attacks and defamations, might lead some to believe that your arguments and assertions were not of a cerebral nature or high caliber.

No. 8
I think this is the realm of Physics.
You want to take on Physics as well as Evolution?
I will say you have cajones,
I won't say your brain has thought through this very well though.

No. 9
You do understand that Mars used to have a magnetic field that protected an atmosphere before the planet's core cooled and it losts its protective magnetic field?
Actual living microbes may still be found in the water-ice that is burried under dirt. Places on Mars also show increased levels of Methane. A potential indicator of living life on Mars.
If living life is not found, the remains of primitive forms of life may likely be found.
If life is a fundamental action of organic chemistry in certain environmental conditions, we should find it elsewhere in the Universe.
Mars still holds a good possibility of having had and possibly even still having life forms.

No. 10
The light and radio waves we get from the Universe are mostly billions [multi-billions] of years old. What we see is what was and not what is.

It seems likely that the Universe has to get to some point of optimal conditions as environments for life. And those environments have to persist for long periods of time with out stellar or planetary disruptions. We are an example that has persisted. Likely Mars is an example that didn't persist.

If another intelligent species has arisen say 100,000 years ago in some other galaxy their radio waves wouldn't even get here for a billion or so years. We may not even be here ourselves when they arrive.
.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by slank]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
As I have stated before, I do believe animals can adapt based on conditions but it doesnt explain evolution as a whole.


Ok, but the last time I heard, that adaptation was evolution. They EVOLVED into a new organism that could survive in the new environment, so thererore your claim that evolution is false and impossible is debunked by yourself.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Ed. I thought it was ten points not 12???


Are you suggesting that evolution is incorrect because we cannot find fossil recods for possibly trillions of species that existed, Never mind that plate techtonics may have cause whole fossil records to cease to exist. Nor can we did up the entire planet looking for records that will even if found in thier entirety convince beleivers in a pseudo science that they are worng.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well thats true but wouldnt evolution imply that these parts evolved from other parts? A single cell for example has (?)23 parts and it CAN NOT exist without the whole 23, so did it just start with 23(?)

The simplest cells are very primitive bacteria, and they don't have very much too them (relative the the more advanced eukaryotic cells that you are problably thinking of).

Those eukaryotic cells show evidence of having acquired their cellular 'organelles' by regular adaptation, and also by a process called 'endosymbiosis'. The mitochondria, now an organelle within cells, is thought to have once been a free living organism, extremely primitive, that 'infected' larger cells, and, once there, like many 'parasites', it devolved into what it is now. And infact there has been an exchange of genetic information between teh nucleous of the cell and the mitochondrion (something that happens in viral infections also), and this has resulted in them being very finely enmeshed. Similar circumstances are thought to have occured for numerous other cellular organelles.

So the eukaryotic cell can, to a degree, be thought of in that way.

But I will say, no matter what, there is still this big problem of where did life come from in the first place. There are lots of theories as to the what might've happened, some are more widely favoured than others, but there is no consensus amoung scientists as to how those first living things came into being.

There is also no evidence that suggests it requires god, miracles, or design. Organic Chemistry, as a field, is only something like a hundred years old. This means that, from a historical perspective, we're at the very begining of our inquiry into how life arose. Its going to be a difficult problem to investigate and solve, but there's nothing that actually suggests that it can't be solved.

Also, there is a bit of a semantic issue here. A virus is not usually said to be alive, this is because it can't replicate on its own, it doesn't have the proteins to do it, it has to 'hijack' the replicating machinery of other cells to make copies of itself. How primitive is too primitive then? When we have a stable set of reactions in a dilute mixture, do we have life? Or has life been achieved when we have something that replicates? Is a relatively stable set of organic reactions within a 'small shallow tidal pool' 'life'? Or does it have to have a 'covering' or be contained in a bag? There are peices of dna that can cut themselves loose from the rest of the genome, move over to another portion, and that splice themsleves into it. Is it alive? There are peices of RNA, normally only genetic material, that have functions, just like proteins. Are they alive, or if something like that was floating around in some scummy layer of water would we say its not alive? What if some of these functional ribosyzmes could make copies of themselves? Prions, which cause mad cow diseases and other diseases, are freakishly twisted proteins that have functions (the 'wrong' function tho), and when they come into contact with normal proteins, the induce them into becoming prions, iow, they replicate in an off handed way. Are they alive? Would a protein that can do that be cosidered alive? Would a soapy mixture of amino acides and lipids and ribozymes and prions trapped in the warm pore spaces of greasy sediments be a living thing? Is it such a leap for components like that to get stuck in a slimy bubble and float off on their merry way?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
[Is it just me or does this assertion seem easy to refute?]

The problem alleged is that there are stages in that 'increasing by degrees' process that are maladaptive. Having flappy skin between your fingers is understandable, but why would it 'grow' into a wing if you are not flying? Evolution can't think in the long term, everything that happens has to have an advantage for the particular generation its in in order for it to be passed on to the next generation in 'sufficient' numbers.

Of course, this often is just a problem of imagination. Its hard to say that an entire series of changes can't be advantageous; iow, half wings won't help you fly, but you can see that they can help with other sorts of things also. The crux of the problem is that people tend to think that evolution is 'progressive'; the animal needed to fly, so it started the long arduous process of growing wings over millenial, having to cope with life on teh ground in the mean time. Evolution is not foreward thinking.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Wow, there goes the fossil record.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
slank,

Thank you for answering the questions. As a side note, the 10 proofs were not mine, see the link.

But still it doesnt make sense to me #3 is just to complicated and the "before' organisms dont exist. can someone explain how something that needs the 23? parts to live can evolve from less than the 23 needed to sustain life?



Zaphod58

Not a new organism, but one that is a wee bit difference. Galapogos Island lizzards for example.



FredT

#12 was added by me, there were 11 listed on my link,
Still the fossil record is incomplete. To many holes, missing "links", are just those missing links the ones destroyed by the crust of the earth? Why only them?



Nygdan

What you write makes sense, I might not agree with the explanation as your backgrond in genetics and biology is obviously much more far reaching than mine
. I will admit it. I never really thought of virus's in that manner before.

Still those first amino acids that formed the chains to make life, how can that be by chance? The mathematical odds are daunting for sure.




Thanks fror the feedback guys, this is good.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Actually, the Galapagos Lizard is a perfect example. There are lizards on all the islands, but they're all completely different species from each other. They started out related to each other, but evolved into seperate species of lizards. There are distinct differences in each of the lizards on the different islands.

Marine Iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) [Galapagos]
Galapagos Land Iguana (Conolophus subcristatus) [Galapagos]
Floreana Lava Lizard (Tropidurus grayi) [Galapagos]
San Cristobal Lava Lizard (Tropidurus bivittatus) [Galapagos]
Hood Lava Lizard (Tropidurus delanonis) [Galapagos]
Galapagos Lava Lizard (Tropidurus albemarlensis) [Galapagos]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
.
Jungle animals leap from tree to tree.
One freak has a flap and can glide a little, so perhaps it can glide further than a predator can leap.
It survives while others didn't.
bigger skin flaps better escapes from predators,
better dispersal of species in a region by being more mobile.

bigger skin flaps allow small mammal to catch flying jungle insects.
bigger skin flaps almost fly like insects = more insects = better fed = healthier = reproduces more and is more attractive to mates.

Flight.
.






top topics



 
95
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join