What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
amantine, silq's posts in this thread (both of them) make him look like a pathetic little kid, unable to argue without trying to insult the other.
I was actually surprised by Thomas' post, usually ignorant types like silq can just type away without anyone telling them what's the case.

As for your post amantine, I think when these people say evolution they mean how one organism evolved into several others, leading to the current amount of species on our planet.
The very start of everything is indeed something else, but in these kinds of topics you can just assume evolution means macro-evolution, since arguing about the very start of everything is rather pointless even though interesting.
Macro evolution has a lot of flaws, and every "proof" for macro-evolution I have read so far is based on assumptions. (ex: let's assume organism A turned into organism B)

Oh and silq, I am just another religion-junkie too brainwashed by my parents to "break out of the system" so don't even bother replying to my post k?

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Jakko]




posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Shoot pople, creationism and Darwin's evolution are not the only theories out there! Look up gradualism, or catastrophism, or that other one I can't remember right now. Whoever made the original claim (sorry, I didn't look at the user name), you don't sound like someone who has ACTUALLY read The Origin of Species, not just the excerpts of it you get from Science class or Bible study (No, I am not slamming you as a religious freak, I'm simply giving examples of where you could recieve contrasting opinions on the book).

Plus.........GASP!!!!! SHOCK!!!!!!!

ITS A THEORY. Can you say "theory," boys and girls? Good try. Tat means that it's not proved. If there weren't flaws, it wouldn be law, not theory.

Soo...basically all you accomplished was implementing its correct wording as a theory.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
As I said, there's more that I have to say, but it requires research that I don't have time for with 3 research papers

...the reason that most Creationists get in such an uproar over this is because Evolution is being TAUGHT AS LAW in several of our public institutions--at my college, MY TEACHERS called EVOLUTION a LAW, HIGHER RANKING THAN THE BIOGENESIS LAW, while the texbook called EVOLUTION this special thingy somewhere between a law and a theory...In highschool, it was called a LAW...I've had "MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" --aa part of the EVOLUTION THEORY pushed down my throat since I was 5 through EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR BOOK I EVER PICKED UP.

So, we proved it was a theory? Not to anybody out there, off this board--and certainly not to others who called the religous on here idiots becuase their precious "religion" of Evolution was "mocked."

The WHOLE POINT TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY IS TO ARGUE OUT THE VALIDITY OF THEORIES, so that we may BE RID of those that hold not their own weight. I wasted too much of my time reasoning with those, both in the scriptures and outside thescriptures over STUPID THINGS that they make no sense in to be able to say "so what" to every small minded person. It gives them no chance to grow, if I keep my mouth shut.

So, next it is time for a thread called the validity of
such-&-such theory, based upon this aspect
. If the theory is wrong, then it should not be taught. PERIOD


As iron sharpens iron...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
All the evidence points to evolution doesn't work. we all turn into a pile of sludge...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
As I've said in 2 other threads, I don't know what to believe on this issue. Evolution does not have to contradict the Bible.

How can I say this having read Genesis?

What were 7 days to God, before the existance of the earth? The order of development in Genesis coencides with geological and evolutionary development theories. So it is possible that "day" one would be the first stage, the Big Bang and the matter collecting into stars, etc.

I don't know, I don't have the answers. However, I do know that there are a lot more scientificly minded people who believe in evolution as opposed to creationism. No need to try to first insult someone, and insult their entire religion for putting forth a different viewpoint with a scientific backing


Precisely. I've never quite understood how the theory of evolution actively contradicts - or even threatens the concept of God. Unless a person's faith is foundationally weak, in which case, any revelation - however insignifcant - has the capacity to shake it to its core.

Please recall, too, folks, that the Church took till 1990 to officially "recognise" Copernicus' heliocentric theory. Hm.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyby
Flaws in the Assumptions of Evolutions
Flaws:
The Mississippi Delta grows by 300 ft/year. How can evolutionists explain this.
Radioactive Carbon Dating
Flaws
Groundwater seeps through the Earth carrying with the radioactive elements. Of all
known radioactive elements, only C14 does not dilute with water.
Flaws


Do you know anything about science?
C-14 only enters biological organisms because it is a rare radioactive compound present in the air that requires photosynthesis to be converted into a solid, also known as glucose. This was performed on Mars as one of the tests for life. The c-14 is given out as C02 again, or remains there when the animal/plant/etc dies. Hence we can check it against it's decay pattern

How does the mississippi river have ANYTHING to do with evolution?

Carbonates (CO3) are not soluble in water. At all. This means when you react Carbon Dioxide (with c-14) and CaO (calcium Oxide, easily found in limestone etc, which ARE CaCO3) it wont dissolve.

Evolution actually has been proved to a degree. A certain species of bird flies around the globe, and as you follow it round, it changes into a very distinct other type of bird, similar family, but so different they cannot breed succesfully. You'll need to go online to find it, but trust me, it does exist.

Evolution is, by common sense, true.
Background radiation etc affect/ionize our DNA which causes mutation in our genes which in turn affect our body. Then survival of the fittest comes into play, if you have a better mutation than someone else, you'll survive. If you have a bad mutation, you'll die
However, you have to consider how many mutations we've lost just because the animal died of an illness, or being hunted or something. But, in terms of laws of probability, survival of the fittest does apply. And this is how evolution occurs. It is not some crazy-azz theory, it's just completely logical once you think about it. It's completely natural, if it wasnt for radiation then there would be no evolution (well, not true, there are other things, such as dodgy sperm/eggs/etc)



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyby
Did you know that Evolution has more flaws in it than MCI? Let us Look at the
facts carefully. What most professional evolutionists will admit only in private
is there is no scientific evidence for evolution!


Number one... there's no such thing as a "professional evolutionist." Do you mean geologist? Paleontologist? Biologist? Archaeologist? Anthropologist? Cosmologist? Primatologist? What, precisely is meant here?



Georges Cuvier assumed that each layer of sediment occurs one at a time.

And you can have multiple deposits per year, separated into layers. Now... do show some proof that a single event will lay down (say) eight or fifteen layers at once.

Something replicatable that we can do in the lab, involving silt and mud.


The Mississippi Delta grows by 300 ft/year. How can evolutionists explain this.


This has nothing to do with evolution. It does, however, have something to do with geology. The explaination is quite simple... the scoffers assume that the Mississippi has *always* looked like it does today. And with a billion acres of land and more to drain, what's so unusual about 300 feet of it ending up in Mississippi each year. You might want to send your source web page a note on this, suggesting that they look at the REAL data:
gulfsci.usgs.gov...


Radioactive Carbon Dating
Groundwater seeps through the Earth carrying with the radioactive elements. Of all
known radioactive elements, only C14 does not dilute with water.

I don't know what your source is on this, but it's obvious they know less about science than the squirrels in the trees out there. Elements don't dissolve in water. This doesn't actually address how ancient material is dated... apparently you're not aware that C14 dating is only ONE of many methods and is only appropriate for a limited number of items. You can't date rocks that way, for instance.

No. The Earth's oceans only have 15 million years of settlements How can evolutionists
explain this?

The pages where you get your information from are sadly ignorant about science. This is geology, not evolution. And there's a lot more sediment down there than that.

Geology has nothing to do with evolution. It does date the age of the Earth, but doesn't tell how things developed from simpler lifeforms to more complex ones.


Where is the Primordial Soup Evolutionists claim exist.
The probabilities for life to come from randonmess is so small that it would be
easier to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 1 in 10^4,478,296

Goddess... you've GOT to get better resources. The chances for it to come out of randomness is exactly 1. Not zero. Not one in a gazillion. It's 1. Kindly refer to any book on statistics if you doubt me.

Second... I don't think your sources know anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics or they wouldn't be citing that. That's like saying "the chances of life appearing out of randomness are less than your finding a series of doric mode chords in solar output."


If junk DNA exists, why does it then produce necessary activities for life?

That's one of the evidences for evolution. The scraps from the "remodeling" of species. The "poof, you're a dogfish!" school would mean that there is NO junk dna because there was no remodeling done of the creature... ever.


How easy is it to make a 100 amino acid by chance. (1/20)^100 This will turn
out to be in 10 with 130 zero's comming after to 1. Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor
Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of life at 10^40000 to 1

Really, you shouldn't quote that page. And the "how easy is it to make amino acid..." concept shows how little the writers know about it. The answer is "100%." It's very easy to make amino acids.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that disorder must increase in a closedsystem with time. Yet the order of the universe as a whole has stayed the same.

Oy. Again, your reference web pages apparently never bothered with astronomy. Or physics. Guess what... the Earth isn't a closed system. We continually get energy from the sun.


The Law of the Conversation of Angular Momentum forces all matter to stay at a course. How can the Big Bang Theory explain for the order and the planetary motion that we see today?

Geez. (insert rant about people not paying attention in junior high school courses)

Big bang doesn't explain planetary motion or anything. It explains origin of universe. This has nothing to do with evolution. Planetary motion isn't related to how the universe started.

Sit yourself down and start watching Discovery channel and some other good educational television. Go talk to the folks at www.badastronomy.com. Do take some time to read up on paleontology from sites on archaeology (and not on religion.) Your arguments will be better phrased once you learn to avoid the very stupid mistakes and moronic websites by people who seem to think that "evolution" also includes "Big bang" and cosmology and physics as well.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Byrd]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Hurrah thank you


Maybe in the next 100 years, people like these will be evolved out of the population.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
No insult headed your way from me, Big A. Silq added nothing to the thread, only insults toward the thread starter and Christians in general. I decided to give him a taste of his own garbage rather than do as a Mod should have and merely warn him and take points from him. Maybe that would have been a quicker and more Mod-like way of handling it, but I preferred to handle it as a fellow poster. You are probably right. In the future, I will do it as you suggest and take punitive action against the poster.

I started to post another comment, pointing out how, you in particular, added an opposing viewpoint with corroborating links for additional information. I hoped that using you and other contributors to this thread as examples of good and educational information exchange might aid in opening his eyes, but then I thought it probably wouldn't help much, as the obvious difference between your posts and his would be enough evidence for an intelligent poster to see.

Big A, you and the others keep up the good work, as well as the original poster of this thread.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I read a book named darwin's black box, from what I remember it talked a lot about blood cells and how all the systems of the blood cell have to be in place in order for the blood cell to work, how did a blood cell evolve if all the systems of the blood cell are interdependent on each other?



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
How do creationists explain that species which evolution says have evolved from the same ancestor have the same retrovirus-DNA still in their DNA? The trees made with retrovirus DNA are the same as the trees made from morphological and DNA comparisons. Differences in cytochrome-DNA also show the same trees. Did God make all those things exactly so it would seem like evolution was true?

Symbiotic organisms were not symbiotic before they were together. When they started living together, they evolved to be symbiotic.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by amantine]


Would not a common creator use the same building blocks for all his creations?



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mauskov
Creationism is bunk.
Special Creationism....Well, that's almost bunk.

There's virtually no support for creationism, aside from that book which is often "thumped" by those who seem to lack the fundamental grey matter to comprehend "ee-vo-lusion." Meanwhile, there are case studies (Hell, go back to Darwin's finches, for goodness sake), from which can be extrapolated that evolution is a very real thing.

Statistically, the universe occupies an infinite amount of space. Thus, even if planets do not occupy this much space, there are still an infinite number of planets, no? Infinity - 1 is still infinity.
So, yes. The staggaring improbability of life evolving as it has is not impossible. It is merely improbable.
That is, if you put enough monkeys at enough typewriters, eventually they'll bang out "Hamlet."

So please make your case against evolution again? kthx


Last time I checked the universe was very finite as proven by relativity and quantum mechanics.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
SilQ, you are an offensive and ignorant creature. As far as he and I are concerned you are a misinformed, pathetic human, blinded by the lies of Satan using a system of lies perpetuated by those who have twisted science to support an agenda. However, we see you as pathetic as we see us all; weak and subject to Satanic lies. The way you call him names, it is clear you are merely a caustic little creature, and one who'd return love with hate. This guy is more concerned with you buying into lies and going to Hell, and you, being the typical anti-Christian, return it with foul words.

FlyBy, yes, evolution is more flaw-fouled than almost everything, but to say moreso than MCI...I'm not sure that is accurate.
Moderator or not this reply was interesting and ironic. A Christian outraged at oppression of ideas and theories by use of name calling and intimidation.


Anti-Christian? I find that name to be a small small victory for you over the names the Christian Institution as a whole has been sporting for the last couple thousand years...lemme rattle some off...Murderers, rapists, thieves, racists, whores and a host of other names...sure these names are shared by the secular world...but shouldn't that be expected being the secular world are inspired by satan and the Christian Instituion isn't?

A Christian has a right to be offended at names being used against them personally but honestly I find their righteous anger at "christian persecution" as a whole to be downright hilarious.

As for the Evolution/Creation debate...it's interesting but both are nothing more than theories. There is no empirical data supporting either whether people argue there is or not. I, personally, find both intruiging but ultimately futile. I believe humans can evolve as well as create so to me the present is the most important part of creation & evolution, not the past. Our beginnings may always be shrouded in mystery.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Preest]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Preest

Anti-Christian? I find that name to be a small small victory for you over the names the Christian Institution as a whole has been sporting for the last couple thousand years...lemme rattle some off...Murderers, rapists, thieves, racists, whores and a host of other names...sure these names are shared by the secular world...but shouldn't that be expected being the secular world are inspired by satan and the Christian Instituion isn't?

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Preest]


Let me clarify something for you......

Murderers, rapists, thieves, racists, whores may claim to be a Christian however, they did not perform those acts for God. The only way that they could become a Christian afterward would be to repent their sins which means to truley feel sorry for what you have done and apologize for it and ask for Gods forgiveness. Christians do not do the above just people who think they are.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I decided to give him a taste of his own garbage rather than do as a Mod should have and merely warn him and take points from him. Maybe that would have been a quicker and more Mod-like way of handling it, but I preferred to handle it as a fellow poster. You are probably right.


Of course you would, you live in the pit!


Back on the topic, the CATHOLIC church didn't recognise that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. One sect of christianity didn't recognise this. There are still people out there spouting off that the earth is flat. (non-Christian group)



ITS A THEORY. Can you say "theory," boys and girls? Good try. Tat means that it's not proved. If there weren't flaws, it wouldn be law, not theory.


Yes, it is a theory, but it isn't held up as such. Only thing I was taught in school, after 3rd grade, was evolution. If you watch the science channel, the History channel, the Discovery channel, etc. Evolution is held as fact. "This creature which evolved from this one, does this" etc. I have never seen a science program that states "according to current theory, " or "This creature may have evolved from..." No, this Darwinian "law" is being forced down our throats much the same way Newtonian law was shoveled down people's throats back in his day even in the face of facts saying it is wrong.

You know what's really sad, though, I try to follow science...and I haven't heard of any of those other origin theories. Well, at least that are being practiced or tested today.

EDIT: Thanks, amantine

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Let me clarify something for you......

Murderers, rapists, thieves, racists, whores may claim to be a Christian however, they did not perform those acts for God. The only way that they could become a Christian afterward would be to repent their sins which means to truley feel sorry for what you have done and apologize for it and ask for Gods forgiveness. Christians do not do the above just people who think they are.
No need to clarify. You're not completely correct. God fearing, god loving, modest people have committed heinous acts in the name of God from accusing witches who weren't witches to burning books that didn't agree with their theology to supporting racism. Their Christianity or genuine love for god had/has nothing to do with their ignorance. Simply saying "True Christians wouldn't do that because their love of Jesus blah blah blah..." doesn't cut it. Some of the worst acts in history have been made in the name of Christianity and Christ. These churches and movements were filled with repentant, god fearing and loving Christians...who committed horrifying acts in the name of Christ because well...the Bible says SUFFER NOT A WITCH TO LIVE...or because THE BIBLE DOESN'T LIKE HOMOS. There's more excuses used by the faithful to excuse their horrible actions. Simply by dismissing the thousands of years of terror and injustice by simply saying they weren't TRUE christians isn't really all that mature. Surely not all Christians are evil or criminals...but then again neither are secular people with no religious beliefs. And yet...I always find the Christian quick to accuse those in the "world" of being "led by Satan" and "inspired by the Devil" and "on their way to hell"...if anything today the Christian world is the guiltiest of judging.

Just my opinion...based on history and personal experience.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Preest]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Would not a common creator use the same building blocks for all his creations?


I didn't state it correctly in my first post. You can construct a tree how the species evolved based on what retrovirus DNA the DNA of a species contained. This gives you a certain tree. This also show that monkeys and humans have a large amount of retrovirus DNA in common, much more than humans and fish or humans and fungi. This supports the argument that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as monkeys.

Cytochromes are important enzymes of your cells' metabolic pathway. Every organism has cytochromes and they do the same thing in every organism. They are part of the basis of life. Cytochromes are made in your mitochondria and have a special property: a lot of the amino-acids of the enzyme can be replaced without the functioning of the enzyme changing. If we look at the differences and similarities in the DNA that codes for the cytochromes we get a tree that is almost the same as the trees we get from retrovirus DNA and normal morphological and DNA comparisons between species.

Both retrovirus DNA and cytochrome DNA support evolution. Species with a common ancestor have more similarities in the retrovirus DNA and cytochrome DNA. If all species were created by a creator seperately we wouldn't expect to find this. We would except either exactly the same retrovirus and cytochrome DNA for every species or totally different DNA for every species.

I'm going to talk about abiogenesis now, not evolution. The usual probability argument against abiogenesis is flawed. It only calculates the chance that if you take a certain (unspecified) amount of aminoacids, how large the change is that a certain combination in a certain order comes out. The problem is that you neglect that these reactions happen with millions at the same time. If you calculate the time it takes for a certain selfreplicating protein (Ghadiri ligase) to be formed, you get that it only takes a week! Longer proteins take a longer time, but all well within the billions of year of time we have for the creation of life (source).

BTW, if I could vote for you on WATS, Byrd, you would get my vote. Good post.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by amantine]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
As far as your argument for evolution neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why a creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all of his created life forms. This is evidence for Intelligent design not evolution, let me explain.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee similarity, noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimps. Why shouldnt they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities, whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else are better explained in terms of a common creator than by evolutionary relationships. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor in the primordial soup. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimp DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and humans are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence, such as Cytochromes, as proof of evolution. However, as noted by anthropologist Roger Lewin in his book Family Feud on page 39, the genetic evidence contradicts the fossil record.


The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.


Summarizing the genetic data from humans Geneticist N.A. Takahata in his book Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans on page 343 notes


Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished pase can be achieved only by creative imagination.


Dr. Lewin also notes in his book that genetic data is inconsistent with the fossil record but also with the comparative morphology or the creatures. In this quote taken from page 36 Lewin notes just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian proof


The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores is in fact more closely related to the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duck billed platypus is equal evolutionary footing with kangaroos and koalas.


There are many many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

In respect to abiogenesis it could have never happened because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law of increasing entropy stipulates that all systems in the real world go downhill, as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

The law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems in fact, in all systems without exception.

In their article A fresh look at Entropy and the second law of Thermodynamics in physics today April 2000 edition, page 32 if you care, EH Lieb and Jakob Yngvason point out the completeness of the law.


No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy, or the first law of thermodynamics, the exsistence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.


Practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists, that is they insist that there are no vitalist forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist however, that abiogenesis is a fact anyways, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an open system with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of the system rather than decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Also, the secon law rules out evolution altogether because evolution has neither a guiding program or an energy conversion mechanism. Mutations are not organizing mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial(at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the exsisting order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof evolution, past or present.


[Edited on 4-5-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Just did a search into geochronometers...Found some interesting results. I'm about to corroborate the results with some other sites, but this one seems to contend that evolution is the key factor in establishing the age of our planet, because every other geochronometer...well, take a look at some of their examples yourself:



Non-radiometric Age Estimates

Rate Process: Estimated Age (years)
Erosion of the Continents 15 5 million
Oceanic Sediment Buildup 7525 million
Continental Sediment Buildup 199+47 million
Ocean Salinity Buildup 240+20 million *
Mountain Uplift 5 billion

* Residence time for Na ion, not age
# Minimum growth time necessary


www.grisda.org...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
As far as your argument for evolution neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why a creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all of his created life forms. This is evidence for Intelligent design not evolution, let me explain.


The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee similarity, noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimps. Why shouldnt they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?



Cytochrome DNA is not morphologically related, because the order of the amino acids in a certain part of the protein does not change it function. This is allows us to look at genes that are not dependant on the physiology of the organism. There are many other genes like this for all the organisms, like ubichinon and DNA-synthase, and the number of the genes is even larger if you only want to look at relations within a certain group, like the mammals. You can look at the differences in the genes that code for hemoglobin or enzymes required for the myelinzation of the longer nerve-cells. We can also take a look at redundant genes or junk DNA. This is not related to the morphological features of the species.
We can also look at mytochondrial DNA. Mytochondria have seperate DNA, not related with the DNA of the organism. Although the form of the organism may favour certain versions of the enzymes used in the mytochondria, we can use the junk DNA of the mytochondria to check for similarities between species.


Similarities, whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else are better explained in terms of a common creator than by evolutionary relationships. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor in the primordial soup. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?


DNA always undergoes some kind of change over long periods. In different environments with different selection factors, different mutation are positive and different are negative. Some species will develop in a different direction than others, depending on their environment (biogical and abiogical selection factors).


Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence, such as Cytochromes, as proof of evolution. However, as noted by anthropologist Roger Lewin in his book Family Feud on page 39, the genetic evidence contradicts the fossil record.


The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.



Different genes might tell different stories, not very different stories, but somewhat different stories. That's why we look at universal genes like the cytochrome DNA and retrovirus DNA, which is easily identifiable.


Dr. Lewin also notes in his book that genetic data is inconsistent with the fossil record but also with the comparative morphology or the creatures. In this quote taken from page 36 Lewin notes just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian proof


The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores is in fact more closely related to the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duck billed platypus is equal evolutionary footing with kangaroos and koalas.


There are many many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.


Interesting, but not bizarre. It would be bizarre if we found that a cow is more related to a fungus of zygomyceta kind than to a horse. I do enough about these comparisons and the genes involved in the research, but I can guess that maybe they were caused by looking at genes related to morphology or that maybe the DNA comparison is sometimes better than the normal morphological ways of constructing trees.


Evolutionists commonly insist however, that abiogenesis is a fact anyways, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an open system with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of the system rather than decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.


The evolutionists are right and your argument does nothing to disprove it. You say heat, not energy, increases the entropy of a system. That is true. However, external energy can be used to lower the entropy of a system. See that I say energy and not heat? If energy couldn't be used to lower entropy, we would also not be able to build buildings, where we use energy to lower the entropy of a certain area and a certain groups of stones and glass.


Also, the secon law rules out evolution altogether because evolution has neither a guiding program or an energy conversion mechanism. Mutations are not organizing mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial(at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the exsisting order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof evolution, past or present.


Mutations can become a positive influence in combination with environmental conditions. You see, a random mutation can cause an enzyme to function completely different. This can be both good or bad, depending on the environmental conditions. Bad mutations are more common than good ones, but if a mutation occurs, the organism dies. Good mutations give the organism an advantage. Good mutations survive, bad ones die out. If new mutations give a certain enzyme a new function or changes it's old function, it can create new order.





new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join