Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by vasaga


That guy is wrong. I mean, he calls the scientifically uncovered facts of evolution a belief system. He's also misrepresenting a scientific paper...

Also, why do people keep bumping this long-dead, long-refuted thread?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i've always been asked what's wrong with accepting the concept of a designer to explain something in science.

it leads to bad science.
there is no scientific evidence of a designer, and if you say ID is, then you're going in circles. you're saying we know the designer exists because we've seen what it designed.

accepting a designer means that we accept that a being outside our realm of understanding (due to the fact that it did not need to be designed itself, unless you want to keep going on like that forever) and therefore outside of science, is part of science.

it's a way to bring religion into a classroom, and nothing more.

My opinion - I think people often confuse the evidence for intelligent design with the implications of intelligent design.

We have NO EVIDENCE when it comes to intelligent design / creationism

Yeah there is, take a look around you. I don't know who, what or why, but there was a purposeful design behind all of this.

Originally posted by aero56

Originally posted by MrXYZ
We have NO EVIDENCE when it comes to intelligent design / creationism

Yeah there is, take a look around you. I don't know who, what or why, but there was a purposeful design behind all of this.

"It looks pretty" isn't evidence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hahaha of course he is... He didn't misinterpret anything. He is a biologist you know.. You just assume he did because you're completely biased. I bet you didn't even look at the paper, nor look at who he is.

reply to post by vasaga


Lipton is misrepresenting the work of Cairns who didn't disagree with evolution, though his work contributed to a greater understanding of it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ok. Tell me exactly what he did misinterpret. What about the other two papers he was talking about? A unicorn in the garden and A heresy in evolutionary biology? Those papers do exist. Why are they there then? Hm?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok. Tell me exactly what he did misinterpret. What about the other two papers he was talking about? A unicorn in the garden and A heresy in evolutionary biology? Those papers do exist. Why are they there then? Hm?

First of all, Cairns' paper is from 1963, almost 50 years old. Scientists found a TON of supporting evidence since then. Either way, if you actually read Cairns' paper, you realize he's not advocating against Darwinian evolution at all.

The claim that bacteria can't replicate because they have no suitable food is invalid too. There's bacteria that eats stuff we thought impossible...read up on the latest Mono Lake bacteria discovery. It lives of substances we thought lethal to all living beings, including bacteria...yet they eat it because they ADAPTED to the surroundings and their physiology evolved (!!).

Scientists aren't even 100% sure that mutations are random: LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ


- No, it's from 1988

- My argument is not about evolution not being true. It's about evolution not occurring the way it's being told to the majority of people, which basically comes down to, "we are here by accident and you are a slave of your genes."

About the bacteria, I think you missed the point.. Bacteria were not supposed to reproduce without food. The bacteria used in the experiment can not eat lactose. Without reproducing, no accidental genetic mutations can occur because no DNA strands are being replicated, so no "mistakes" can be made. And even if a few could reproduce from leftovers or whatever, there wouldn't be enough mutations to cause the exact gene to change to allow the bacteria to eat lactose, if mutations were random. But, it happened anyway, meaning, mutations are not random, and/or they can happen without reproducing. Bacterial adaptability definitely seems "guided", which is why they proposed that bacteria "choose" their genes. If this is the case, then the whole randomness of the universe doesn't fly anymore, and you'll come to Biocentricity

Your argument that bacteria can eat almost anything doesn't change the fact that it seems like bacteria actually can change their own genes specifically to adapt to certain environments. They are not accidental, and yet, the whole current model of the evolution theory is based on every mutation being "random". It's funny actually. Your link supports the video I posted, plus, it says that the idea that mutations are not random "is going to shake things up majorly", which is exactly what Lipton was talking about.... The non-randomness which they talk about in that link you posted, that's what Bruce was referring to as them trying to find a mechanism, other than the bacteria choosing its gene modification. Guess even the most recent scientific papers are proving Lipton right..

Also, there will eventually come a point where scientists have to realize that randomness does not exist. It's all dynamics which we don't understand or misunderstand..

reply to post by vasaga


Last time I checked, nothing in the findings of that study had anything to do with a biocentric universe...and the idea of a biocentric universe is frankly absurd. There is simply no evidence to show that the universe is indeed biocentric. It actually holds so far as we know that the universe exists without life and existed far before life was possible.

As for the bacteria, how did you go from the study to the idea that the bacteria chose their adaptations? Last time I checked, the study didn't actually say anything of that sort.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You're only making it more obvious that you never read the paper. You only assume that it would never say that.. The following quote is the first sentence of an article released in Mosaic. You can look up the 1988 paper, and that sentence is directly in there..

As sentences in scientific papers go, this was guaranteed to raise eyebrows: "We describe here experiments and some circumstantial evidence suggesting that . bacteria can choose which mutations they should produce." The sentence appeared in a 1988 Nature paper, ' The Origin of Mutants," by John Cairns, Julie Overbaugh, and Stephan Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health

Source

As for the bio-centric universe, that's too shaky a subject to actually discuss about, but, I really see no problem. It contradicts none of our current theories anyway. You people are so darn closed-minded.. What you do on this website is beyond me.

reply to post by vasaga
I would check the credibility of that website before pursuing your thought further. And I couldn't find Cairns 1988 paper. This is from the article you posted:

Cairns's report in Nature was provocative but short on experimental details and data. Several biologists have since obtained experimental results, mainly with the bacterium Escherichia coli, that they say support Cairns and what has come to be called directed mutation. Meanwhile, some criticize the results on theoretical grounds. A few have produced experimental results that contradict at least some of the observations supporting directed mutation.

It seems he had a notion based on insufficient data, essentially evidence that was circumstantial and lacking in sample size, and published the possibility in Nature.

Its easy to get lost in the apparent bacterial affinity to convenience. But its just natural selection acting on random mutations under a spectrum of exponential growth. Safety in numbers.

His last paper published in 2002 was about the creation of novel stem cells. Stem cells in mice appear to have lower mutation rates at certain loci and have mechanisms to preserve the original form differentially, so mutants in order to spread need the original stem cell to die, thus spreading the mutant version.

Otherwise known as evolution.

reply to post by vasaga


Sure, it was a suggestion, but it has hardly met the rigor of the scientific method...and directed mutation wouldn't be the same as a conscious choice. It could be a mechanism that detects a food source and automatically provides a mutation for all we know...and that is far more reasonable than the presumption that a single-celled organism has the capability to make a choice.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by vasaga

 

I would check the credibility of that website before pursuing your thought further.

Mosaic science magazine is of course so hard to Google.. Of course, I have to do it for you...
www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org...

Obviously the magazine is dead. It doesn't make the papers any less scientific.

Originally posted by uva3021
And I couldn't find Cairns 1988 paper.

Because you people can't darn search for crap.. Or maybe you didn't search at all and are pretending to.. It's easy.. Go to scholar.google.com, search for the origin of mutants, and you'll have it.. Here you go..

isites.harvard.edu...

Is it really so hard? And I left the whole link standing there, so you can see that the source is Harvard, before you pull another "I dunno if that's a credible source" garbage out of your hat.

Originally posted by uva3021
.It seems he had a notion based on insufficient data, essentially evidence that was circumstantial and lacking in sample size, and published the possibility in Nature.

Which is why in the vid I posted earlier, Bruce Lipton was saying they were trying to undermine his findings, but, ultimately they couldn't, and if you want any evidence of that, look at the link MrXYZ posted, which came out in 2010..

Originally posted by uva3021
Its easy to get lost in the apparent bacterial affinity to convenience. But its just natural selection acting on random mutations under a spectrum of exponential growth. Safety in numbers.

Repeating same old crap over and over and over again. Is that your idea of progress? What part of
no food = no reproduction = no gene duplication = no possibility of random mutation
don't you understand?

Originally posted by uva3021
His last paper published in 2002 was about the creation of novel stem cells. Stem cells in mice appear to have lower mutation rates at certain loci and have mechanisms to preserve the original form differentially, so mutants in order to spread need the original stem cell to die, thus spreading the mutant version.

Otherwise known as evolution.

Not relevant. Like I said before:

Originally posted by vasaga
- My argument is not about evolution not being true. It's about evolution not occurring the way it's being told to the majority of people, which basically comes down to, "we are here by accident and you are a slave of your genes."

The "randomness" is the issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by vasaga

 

Sure, it was a suggestion, but it has hardly met the rigor of the scientific method...and directed mutation wouldn't be the same as a conscious choice. It could be a mechanism that detects a food source and automatically provides a mutation for all we know...and that is far more reasonable than the presumption that a single-celled organism has the capability to make a choice.

A mechanics that detects a food source and automatically provide a mutation? How is that really different? The one doing the detection is in that case the bacteria, or at least part of the bacteria. If there is a direct and guided mechanism, evolution is still not random and mutations are still not an "accident".

Excellent post, evolution is simply disproved in the fact that all species individually and as a whole would be in the process of evolution, according to the theory, and would be for ever changing. So we should be able to look out our windows and see animals at different rates of evoloution, but we do not. Real science actually proves that all animals/species have been the same since the oldest fossil records or bones found. Simple.

Originally posted by thehonestone
Excellent post, evolution is simply disproved in the fact that all species individually and as a whole would be in the process of evolution, according to the theory, and would be for ever changing. So we should be able to look out our windows and see animals at different rates of evoloution, but we do not. Real science actually proves that all animals/species have been the same since the oldest fossil records or bones found. Simple.

Actually, given that everything is always evolving, you can actually look outside the window and see evolution in the making. Of course it takes TIME and you will never see a bird lose its wings from one generation to the next...if that's your understanding of evolution, and it seems to be, it's seriously flawed

And you claiming the oldest fossils being the same as the ones today is beyond ridiculous. I challenge you to find me a human skeleton from the time of the dinosaurs!! Or a chimpanze skeleton, or a pretty much every species that lives today. Hell, even species that remained relatively unchanged, like the crocodile, are still so different in their physique that today's croc could not mate with the croc from 450mil years ago.

In short, you should read this.

reply to post by vasaga

"we are here by accident and you are a slave of your genes."

Well, you might not like it, but you ARE a slave of your genes. Cancer can be linked to genetics, which is why if cancer has always been occurring often in your family over the generations, you have an increased risk at cancer. It's genetics...and so far there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how much you don't like it

But, it happened anyway, meaning, mutations are not random, and/or they can happen without reproducing. Bacterial adaptability definitely seems "guided", which is why they proposed that bacteria "choose" their genes.

Even if mutations weren't random, what's your OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for a deity or intelligence interfering? To say "it seems" isn't scientific and most certainly not evidence or proof. Mutations could be a response to the environment...if it rains, you go indoors in order not to get wet. Doesn't mean someone's guiding you to go inside

Evolution isn't based on things being random!! The entire theory is based on the fact that species constantly adapt to their changing environment. Wether there's a random element and to what extent doesn't really matter as the simple fact of adapting to a changing environment is part of the theory and most certainly not evidence for a guiding intelligence.

Also, there will eventually come a point where scientists have to realize that randomness does not exist. It's all dynamics which we don't understand or misunderstand..

Again, wether randomness plays a part or not doesn't matter. The theory is largely based on species adapting to a changing environment. And even if it's not random, it's based on the ENVIRONMENT and there's ZERO evidence a guiding intelligence is involved

reply to post by MrXYZ


How in any way, shape or form can you look outside the window and see any animal species in the proccess of evolution? You weren't even thinking at a simple enough level to get what I said. Religion is a reality and there are no fossils of any humans from millions of years ago, because millions of years ago, humans as we know them didn't exist. We were in spiritual bodies, not flesh and bone. Evolution isn't doing anything because evolution doesn't exist. A true scientist would probably laugh at what you just said. My point is, there would still be humans that looked like half monkeys. Just use your common sense. People often confuse extinction due to pollution and destruction of our own doing with evolution.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Cancer is caused by toxins and unnatural chemicals entering the body. You seem to lack knowledge. Our government openly acknowedges that something as simple as Teflon, found in certain stove top pans can lead to cancer. Ciggaretes lead to cancer. It has NOTHING to do with randomness and your post was some-what off topic and seemed almost offensive. You are indeed a trouble-maker. "It is wiser to sit in silence and let the people THINK you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. "

reply to post by thehonestone

How in any way, shape or form can you look outside the window and see any animal species in the proccess of evolution?

We've witnessed evolution including speciation in the lab as well as in nature: LINK 1 LINK 2

It's a continuous process...

You weren't even thinking at a simple enough level to get what I said.

Something as complex as the evolution of life can't be dumbed down to "god did it" levels

Religion is a reality and there are no fossils of any humans from millions of years ago, because millions of years ago, humans as we know them didn't exist.

Oh, sure...religions exist, it's just that their premise has no objective evidence behind it. But I'm glad you understand that millions of years ago there were no humans because they hadn't yet evolved from the lifeforms that lived back then.

We were in spiritual bodies, not flesh and bone.

And that's called random preaching No objective evidence whatsoever as backup...

Cancer is caused by toxins and unnatural chemicals entering the body. You seem to lack knowledge.

You're wrong if you believe genes play no role...

It has NOTHING to do with randomness

Nobody said anything about random here. If your genes make you more prone to certain types of cancer then there's no randomness involved...other than when it comes to the probability of you actually getting that cancer in the end. If you have the gene, you have an increased probability of getting that cancer, often not a 100% certainty. So yeah, you could call that random...but there's still a cause for the cancer. You have inherited those genes...and will pass then on most likely.

And yeah, cigarettes and other bad stuff will increase those chances too...which again means the cancer isn't really totally random. You have an increased chance of getting cancer if you certain genes, or if your body comes into contact with stuff that also increases the risk of cancer...like radiation.

You are indeed a trouble-maker.

LOL, trouble maker...that's a new one

Why? Because I ask for objective evidence and don't just blindly believe in something that has ZERO objective evidence as backup?

"It is wiser to sit in silence and let the people THINK you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. "

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8922520de32.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by thehonestone

"It is wiser to sit in silence and let the people THINK you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. "

Oh the irony!

Cancer is caused by random MUTATIONS in the regulation genes. The mutating agent can be physical, biological, chemical etc. And genetic predisposition to cancer surely exist, bceause genet determine the effectiveness of anti-mutation defenses in the cell.

Religion is a reality and there are no fossils of any humans from millions of years ago, because millions of years ago, humans as we know them didn't exist. We were in spiritual bodies, not flesh and bone. Evolution isn't doing anything because evolution doesn't exist.

A true scientist would surely laugh at what you just said. There is zero evidence for religion, on the other hand, evolution is proved beyond doubt.

My point is, there would still be humans that looked like half monkeys.

This just shows you dont know anything about evolution.

Just use your common sense.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus people, educate yourself.