Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by Llangollen7822beast

A fact is something that has been proven, observed and recreated beyond all reasonable doubt. None of these is the case with the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a well documented fact. There are lots of religious people from many religions that do not want to acknowledge that. Christians are not the only ones.

That is not to say, therefore, that it is wrong but that it is no more a fact than the Creation story we have been given in Genesis. I would go so far as to say that I know the Creation story as it is written in the Bible to be true but this does not make it a fact and no Christian should ever presume to argue that it is such in those terms.

There are actually 2 distinct creation stories in genesis and neither matches the world that we see. Thus each is wrong. That is a fact.

1. It is impossible for D. N. A. to gain information from an outside source.

Not sure how that statement is related to you pointing out that a plant is not really blue according to you.

For evolution to be true, all the necessary requirements for all fauna on the planet to portray the traits that they do would have had to have been in every organism's D. N. A from the moment they came into being.

Not true. Do I have to contain the DNA to code for blue eyes? Do I have to contain the DNA for red hair? Do I have to contain the DNA for every trait humans possess? The answer is no, no, and no. There are breeds of mice that breed true to a trait, because they do not contain the genetic material for other traits. That allows for the production of test animals that present little variability making it possible to detect small changes due to experimental conditions.

2. The fossil record.

You have the right idea that some, not all, rocks are destroyed through geological processes. Granites, the things that make up continents tend not to be destroyed, because they are less dense. Many old rocks can be found on continents. It is the ocean crust that is much younger.

Does it not make more sense that they died far more recently, a few thousand years ago, around the time the Bible claims the great flood took place?

No. The antiquity of the Earth has been known about since at least the time of Stenos. He was a titular bishop that formulated many of the basic ideas about rocks, relative ages, and that fossils were the remains of long dead creatures. The vast ages of the Earth and Sun is rather modern. Even in 1896 Wells supposed that the Sun will burn out in a few million years. His book the time machine was published just as radioactivity was discovered. Had Welles published a few years later he probably would have not made the mistake of using a chemical based age for the Sun's demise.

3. A brain, be it the brain of a person or the brain of a nematode, is hugely complex. Every connection in the brain is linked to a nerve-ending specifically designed to power one microscopic part of a body. For even a slight change to take place, massive cerebral metamorphosis would be required to take place. This, if gotten even slightly wrong, would render an organism completely incapacitated.

The brain is more plastic than you consider. There are many people that have suffered enormous brain injury and still are able to function when other portions of the brain take over for the lost portion. If you looked into the neurosciences you will learn that there is often a large variance between individuals of a species and yet the individuals function quite well.

reply to post by Llangollen7822beast


First, I have to point out that you are using a big fallacy here. You are claiming that as a plant biologist you are qualified to speak about genetics, paleontology, evolution and neuroscience. Those subjects are not related to horticultural biology, so the logic is fallacious and mentioning your credentials is misleading.

1. DNA can be changed by outside sources. This is a basic fact of genetics. Genetic mutations happen every time genes are passed from parent to offspring. There are many types of mutations. Some add new information, some delete information and some are neutral. Mutations are caused by various factors including solar radiation, so yeah it's pretty much a slam dunk that new information can be added to DNA. Also it is not necessary for all organisms to be able to produce the same information for evolution to be true. That doesn't even make the least bit of sense. If that were the case, you'd constantly see species giving birth to other species, which is the opposite of what evolution suggests. It doesn't have anything to do with being blue or appearing blue.

2. This is not true. Not all rock gets destroyed in the earth's mantle every million years. Plate tectonics is a slow process, and again, there are plenty of observable rocks that are from the dinosaur era and earlier that can still be observed and dated. All rock does not end up getting recycled into the earth, especially the solid ones that don't get destroyed during the process. If the mantle was enough to destroy all this rock, then rocks would be extremely rare and no fossils would even exist. In fact, the continental plates would probably have sunk into the earth by now if it were that hot.

3. faculty.education.illinois.edu...

Here's a good research paper on it. Evolution of the brain is something scientists are still learning about and there is still a LOT to learn. What you are talking about does not debunk or even question evolution. It's really asking about something that is currently being researched.

Evolution is a process that has been proven. It's not just a guess, it's based on facts like all scientific theories. As a scientist, you should know this.

8.) The origin of matter disproves evolution? The big bang theory doesn't cover it? Yes, it does. All matter currently in the universe was contained in a zero-dimensional black hole prior to the creation of the universe. As we all know, zero-dimensional objects technically don't exist, and therefore do not have to follow any laws of physics, thus allowing for infinite matter to fit into an infinitely small container.

9.) No life on Mars disproves evolution? What? Just because a planet may have the potential for life doesn't mean it has to have life. And even if it was going to have life, the planet went dead so soon life may not even have had a chance to arise.

10.) No signals from other galaxies... what? We've been aiming our telescopes at a small fraction of space for a few decades... radio signals from other star systems would take centuries to reach us, never mind other galaxies. Also, that's assuming we can pick up their signals with our primitive radio telescopes that pick up the most primitive form of communication that likely would've completely decayed milennia before it got here.

I admit, you have some points here, but these three just don't make any sense at all.

So DNA is self correcting? so the child born in India with four arms and four legs was okay'd? or that woman with two heads? DNA says that's okay too? I personally know of a male born with both feet pointing backwards took quite a few operations to correct that DNA 'pass'. One of my sons has a cross Alsatian/Siberian husky female, one blue eye one brown eye, DNA says 'yes', I could go on, but this will do.

Evolutionist say that we are 98% similar to apes in our genetics. To do this they said that only 2% of our DNA if functional and processes proteins to make our genes. The other 98% they say is junk DNA and has no real function which i think was a pretty big statement to make in the first place. This belief has been the case up until 2012 when the ENCODE project which involve over 400 geneticists around the world mapping our DNA.

But it seems late last year as part of the ENCODE project scientist discovered that at least 80% of our DNA is functional and not junk as they called it. The ENCODE program involves over 400 geneticists from around the world and they have published 30 research paper that show that junk DNA is not junk. They discovered that it is active and contains the DNA necessary for embryonic development and the blueprint and tools necessary to make a baby.

So does that now mean we are not so matched to apes now. It seems they didn't include the other 98% of our genes because they classed it as junk. But now it has been shown to play an important part in regulating gene production. So if the apes are so different in their DNA then does that bring into question that we have evolved from ape.

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

reply to post by stevevw


Nope, it still means that humans and chimps share a common ancestor along with all life on the planet. No evidence anywhere goes against this, not even junk DNA.

reply to post by edsinger

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.

One idea about evolution is that there are no destinations. Wandering can get you any where. You might cross a desert for whatever reason, sport or exploration or desperation.

Evolution didn't make a wing, per se. The components happened because they were possible, and chemistry did what it does.

First were the feathers. Feathers are like hair, they insulate. Also feathers can display colors and shapes to help in mate selection. The healthier the animal the larger the feather or the brighter the color.

Once the feathers were in place they could aid a creature vs. natural selection by functional improvements. Being able to withstand cold, or being able to move faster through the air. Becoming slippery in the jaws and escaping, or by showing faux appendages that are nothing but feathers.

Eventually, after many generations wearing feathers, some reptile was able to glide or maybe get a surge or dodge of motion by use of feathers on its body. Then a wing could have developed.

reply to post by edsinger


This thread is nonsense. All your arguments are specious. None disprove evolution. Period. Neither do any of your points prove creationism.

edsinger
((Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible))

***snip***

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.


***snip***
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?
***snip***

That one is easy.
Wings evolved with small stubs first as a means of gliding. First dinosaur/birdlike creature lived in the trees and to escape predators glide planes evolved to aid. Eventually flapping evolved into flight.
And yes. They started low and climbed higher and higher.

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

***snip***
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. ***snip***

They have actually.

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.

With millions of lightning strikes on earth every day and a long time to gain a result, earth was way ahead of todays scientist.

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

***snip***
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.

One of the main stream conspiracy theories on ATS is how the government tries to use chemicals on us to their aim of changing us in ways we can only speculate in.
Maybe NATURE is conducting likewise experiments to enhance what is so far achieved? DNA changes are the cause of evolution. But of course we could argue that God causes those defects as well.

I could go on but quite frankly - it is a waste of time with biased "facts" as presented by OP.

It is astonishing how some people keep on about their invisible friend. It is strange to be part of a society where we actively try to treat people for all kind of dillutions - except religion.

As someone said, the best proof of evolution ( and it's frequent errors in the DNA ) are people. Look in the mirror. Do you really believe you are the result of the Supreme Beings top effort?

reply to post by edsinger

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.


Species without a link proves that we haven't found a link. Last I read/heard, the missing link has not been found.
The Missing Link will probably never be found because there were not very many of them. The MLs must have been very fortunate in their niche, and very quickly evolving.

The presence of many species is consistent with evolution -- it does not prove or disprove evolution. The presence of many species proves that the Earth can support many species.

The basic early progression seems self evident from the fossil record
from single cells
to colonies of cells
to differentiation and specialization of cells within colonies
to plants
to animals
--- all preceding steps happened in the ocean.
Then on land--
first plants,
then animals.

The first step, single cells, took about 1 billion years.

Each step since then has happened in a shorter time.

I presume the fossil record shows this progression.

The best proof of evolution is when it is used to solve a problem. That is the whole reason to have a theory in the first place.

I think I remember that evolution has been used to find genetic relations among organisms and to find and explain physiological processes. These kinds of facts are not normally seen by most people. I usually see them when I'm looking for something else.

reply to post by edsinger

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.

There were, to our human perceptions, an infinity of lightning strikes, thermal pools, cosmic rays, and seconds of time
put into the assemblage of a reproducing biochemical unit.

The left hand chirality doesn't prove evolution, but it is consistent with a common ancestor.

Hm I'd like to point out:
1. why would certain animals need to evolve wings in the same place that other animals still have flaps and still today have flaps? Wouldn't their survival rates be the same so there never would have been a need for wings in the first place and everyone could chill with flaps... I'd actual rather have 4 arms at this point so evolution do your stuff!! Also macro evolution is bs as far as can be told but micro is 100% proven!!! (Jk 100% is a lie nothing is 100% not even me posting this 0.o) either way as it stands only micro evolution can be proven while macro is simply unobservable since we can only study it for so long before we kick the bucket and it takes quite some time for macro evolution to take place.

2. No lie since certain species make little sense in today's world, like the beetle (forgot it's name do your own research) that can't open its wings fast enough to fly away from ants (which seems silly), so instead has built in chemical repellant that it shoots all over itself to scare away the ants and then slowly takes off because it's slow! Why not just be like other insects and have faster wings? Obviously both work but most flying organisms can at least fly faster than others can run, am I right? In no circumstance can something be better off fleeing slower than getting caught when its best action is to flee, because what if what catches it doesn't care about its small chemical jets, then flying would have been much more useful. It's these illogical defense mechanisms that just make evolution seem so illogical as a whole, since for it to work order must come from chaos and thereby survival should go in a converging direction, not one that includes everything from death touch dart frogs to jellyfish (no further explanation needed on that weirdness). There are many more such as the horned lizard that shoots blood from its eyes, losing blood is hardly good.
3. Also if evolution is inadvertently moving towards the best survival, why are all species only getting more diverse rather than centralizing the best form of survival since obviously we can take out a species if we really wanted to. Really all species should converge to their highest form and end in a completely self-reliant species like say if we could just make food by photo-means rather than relying on other species for sustenance. Then we could easily wipe out all other life (not to be evil but that's probably what would happen, I'd still like to have cats and stuff but that's just me) and take to the rest of the universe. If only sentient life could actual depend on itself, curse ecosystems!

a reply to: TheLogicianVeritas

Sorry the Horn Lizzard has adapted to shoot blood from its Eyes for a very good reason....

the blood tastes foul to canine and feline predators.

Horned Lizard

Better loosing a small amount of blood than to loose the whole lot by being killed.

a reply to: TheLogicianVeritas

Sorry another one, i was trying to find the bettle you mentioned and an Idea came to me...

Beetle

Many species of Beetle have a Toxin like spray which can either spray onto attackers or on themlseves for protecion.

It seems to do a good job, What if they used to Fly very well and then started to use the toxin. Then naturally have the flying abillity fade away due to how well the toxin works.

a reply to: TheLogicianVeritas

if you approach the examples you cite from the belief :

" they were designed that way by an intelligent agent "

they make ZERO sense as by definition an aledged " intelligent design agent " has the ability to ` start from scratch ` where as evolutionary development cannot ,

a reply to: edsinger

Haven't seen this one before.

The sheer idiocy of this forum just continues to amaze me.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well it was made in 2005. Looks like a poster a few posts above you necroed it a few hours ago.

Natural selection might not be the only force driving evolutionary change, other processes might be involved like the physics of self-organisation.

Why do creationism and evolution have to mutually exclusive. The truth generally lies between the extremes.

Guided evolution works for me. What is doing the guiding, perhaps is something that is unknowable but we can
see the effects. The mere fact that we see the golden mean, pi manifest in the world around would suggest that
there is some order, plan that is unfolding even as we speak.

OF course we both sides of the issue were to find common ground it would leave nothing for many to argue about
and be right about. Hmmm, now that would be a shame. lol

a reply to: edsinger

You retard, have you ever heard of an Ostrich?