Science Disproves Evolution

Even if evolution were disproved how does that prove creationism?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34095/title/Dogs-Adapted-to-Agriculture/

Here's an article talking about how dogs have 122 genes which are different from wolves. Those sound like beneficial mutations to me.

All of the info in this thread is from "intelligent design" websites.

“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

And from what do all the positive mutations come?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34095/title/Dogs-Adapted-to-Agriculture/

Here's an article talking about how dogs have 122 genes which are different from wolves. Those sound like beneficial mutations to me.

Even if evolution were disproved how does that prove creationism?

Evolution teaches origins by natural, unintelligent processes. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. These are the only possibilities and they are contradictory. If one is true the other is false.

So to further expound on what I said last night. What we have here is a direct evidence of an increase in complexity of beneficial mutations. All of these mutations are based off already existing genes, but it is important to point out that that is the vast majority of evolutionary development. In fact, scientist only measure about 18 novel genes in the human genome and even these come from the non-coding areas shared with primates. So, even if there are limits in breeding (which haven't been demonstrated), I see no reason to suppose that humans are not the same kind as Chimps.

Here's the link about the 18 novel genes: Discovery Of Novel Genes Could Unlock Mystery Of What Makes Us Uniquely Human

[etc.]


Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[SUP][1][/SUP] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[SUP][2][/SUP] As Jonathan Wellswrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [SUP][3][/SUP] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory ofcreation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[SUP][4]
[/SUP]
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [SUP][5][/SUP] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparentdesign, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[SUP][6]
[/SUP]
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[SUP][7][/SUP] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[SUP][8]
[/SUP]
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

See also: Irreducible complexity

Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,[SUP][27][/SUP] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligent causes andintelligent causes. Unintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:

[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]“[/TD]
[TD]"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."[SUP][28][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both are discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science


Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligent causes can be considered.

Forensic sciences: Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

Here are important scientific facts which disprove the notion that mutations can produce new species. The truth is that all mutations are harmful. They never accomplish anything worthwhile. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: MUTATIONS: 1

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTRODUCING NEO-DARWINISTS

Evolution requires that new kinds of plants and animals be able to be made. But changes within species are normal and do not show or prove evolution. Evolution of life forms requires that changes be made which cross over from one species—and produce a different one. According to evolutionists, natural selection and mutations are the only two ways that new species have ever been made. In the previous major article in this series (Natural Selection), a surprising amount of scientific information was given, which clearly disproves the idea that natural selection could produce even one new true species. In this article, you will learn that mutations cannot do it either.Evolutionists who believe that natural selection accomplished the task are called Darwinists. Evolutionists who believe that only mutations can make the evolutionary changes are calledNeo-Darwinists. Many evolutionists have recognized that natural selection could not possibly produce trans-species changes, so they declare that mutations must have produced the multitude of separate species found in our world today. But there are clear-cut facts which reveal that it would be totally impossible for mutations to produce even one new species.—pp. 11-12. Here are these facts:

FOUR IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS

1: Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found in our world. Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.—p. 12.
2: Random effects. Mutations are always random—always! They are never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an important function.A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will produce damage.—p. 12.
3: Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure.—p. 13.
4: Very harmful effects. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.—p. 13. Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

Why mutations? Why then do the evolutionists cling to mutations as the means of producing species crossovers? They stay with mutations because, apart from the foolish theory of natural selection, they have nothing else!—pp. 13-14. At this point, someone might ask how we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed. More on this later.

FLAWS IN THE MUTATION THEORY

1: Not once. Not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation!There are instances of reshuffled genes, which produced better varieties of grapes, apples, and roses. But those were normal changes within species. (They were still grapes, apples, and roses.) None of these are mutations. A true mutation is a damage factor which produces injury or death.As a result of millions of fruit-fly experiments, under intense radiation, not one useful mutation has ever been found.—p. 14.
2: Only harm. Those organisms, which mutate and do not outright kill, are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Given enough mutations, not evolution into something better—but death—would come to everyone on earth.—p. 14.
3: Usually eliminate. Organisms which have mutations are so badly weakened, that they tend to die out or are weeded out by the problems of life.—p. 14.
4: Mutagens. For decades, scientists have been warning us about the dangers of radiation. What is that danger? It is X rays, radiation, and certain chemicals which can cause mutations in our body. How can such a terrible curse benefit us or produce new species?—pp. 14-15.
5: Dangerous accidents. It is only the rareness of mutations in the natural world (apart from X rays and atomic bombs) which protect the race from being destroyed by mutations.—p. 15.
6: Intertwined catastrophe. Each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes. This complicated interweaving of the DNA codes means that each mutation can result in damage to many things.
There is no way that a bunch of mutations could help anyone.—p. 15.
7: Only random. People can never predict in advance when or where a mutation will occur or what type of damage will result. It is a totally random event.—p. 15.
8: Small changes cannot do it. Evolutionists say that, given enough time, a few mutations, here and there, can produce new species. Each one changes one species a little more toward another. But that is not true, for we find no halfway species anywhere! All are distinct and different.—pp. 16-18.
9: Mathematically impossible. Not enough mutations could naturally occur to accomplish any trans-species changes. Mutations usually occur only once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.Assuming that all mutations were beneficial (which none are), the odds of even several mutations naturally occurring within one organism would be very unlikely. Four mutations, for example, would only occur once in a billion, billion times.—p. 17.
10: Time no solution. Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations, all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. This could not be done in a little amount of time or immense amounts of time. How long would a new type of animal last while waiting for millions of years of mutations to put it together?—p. 17.
11: Gene Stability. There is a reason we can know that mutations have been as infrequent in the past as they are now: the factor of gene stability. If mutations had been abundant earlier, then, during past centuries, our bodies would have been destroyed by them.—p. 17.
12: Syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it were already complete with all its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. Everything in a species has to work right, or it becomes weak and eventually dies out. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist.—p. 18.
13: Minor changes damage offspring the most. Most mutations are small, but it is those little changes which would hurt offspring the most. That is because major mutations kill too quickly for there to be offspring.—p. 18.
14: Single generation required. Hundreds and even thousands of positive mutations, working harmoniously together would be needed—and it would all have to occur very fast. It would be impossible for mutations, strung out over centuries or ages to produce the needed changes from one species to another.—p. 18.
15: Not big enough. Most mutations are so minor that, although they are damaging or deadly, they could not possibly change one species to another. They just do not make a large enough change.—pp. 18-19.
16: Reproductive changes too infrequent. Mutational changes in the reproductive organs occur far less often than elsewhere. Yet it is reproductive changes which would especially be needed for new species to be formed.—pp. 19-20.
17: Evolution requires increasing complexity. Evolution, by its very nature, must continually move upward. Yet mutations only tear down and disintegrate.—p. 20.
18: Evolution would require new information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required, for a new species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a bat in a china closet would improve the glassware stored there.—pp. 20-21.
19: Evolution requires new organs and different structures. But mutations would not provide the new physical equipment and capabilities.—p. 21.
20: Not enough visible mutations. For every visible mutation (which changes a body part in a way to be seen), there are 20 invisible ones which generally kill the organism.—p. 21.
21: Never higher vitality than the parent. Geneticists tell us that each mutation weakens the organism. Never is its offspring stronger than the damaged parent. Soon the family line ends.—p. 21.
22: No evidence of species change. Mutations are not producing new species, yet we should see it occurring. In a later major article in this series (Fossils and Strata), we will learn that there is no evidence of new species production in the past. (We can know this, because we should be able to find the halfway species in between, yet they have never existed.)—p. 21.
23: Gene uniqueness forbids species change. Because there are millions of factors in every DNA code, it forbids the possibility of wholesale change by mutations.—pp. 21.

MUTATIONS - 1

MUTATIONS - 2

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1

Pahu is deaf, he is incapable of forming his own arguments. Merely a mouth piece.

takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation and God;


Did EVOLUTION directed the human eye???


EVIDENCE OF GOD:


the human eye:


The light reaching our eyes from nearby or distant objects arrives as billions of photons streaming from billions of data points from the light-giving object. We might say that each atom of those light-giving objects, complete with its vibrating electrons, is the source of a light data point. From each data point flows photons of electromagnetic light energy.


Therefore, we have the form of plentiful light generation and effective transmission of light energy through space. What remains is the function of light detection, that is, our sensory organs of light detection. Initially, light is transmitted through the layers and substances of our eye—the cornea, aqueous humor, lens, and vitreous humor. However, the most spectacular functional organ, or, if you will, body tissue, is the specialized retina with its millions of rods, cones, and other specialized cells.


These cells are triggered by photons to begin their work of sensing messages of light to the brain.the eye has over 130,000,000 light-sensitive rods and cones. They cause photo chemical reactions which transform the light into electrical impulses. Every second, one billion of these impulses are transmitted to the brain. These are also replaced ever 7 days. 70% of the sensory neurons in our body are located in the retina. The retinal tissue is just over 1000 square mm in area.


Roughly, this converts to the area of a teaspoon. In this small area there are well over 100 million rod cells and four million cone cells. This gives 150,000 cones per square millimeter in the central retina, the area providing clear, color vision of our central visual field. Cone cells function for humans in bright light. In the periphery of the human retina, there are many more rod cells which provide us with effective colorless vision even in extremely dark conditions.


It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the image even gets to the brain. It is sobering to compare this performance with the best output of the worlds most powerful computer: to simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing on a super computer; and because there are about 10 million such cells interacting with each other in many complex ways, it would take something like one hundred years of computer time to crudely simulate what takes place in the eye, MANY TIMES EACH SECOND.


So out of "necessity" all these intricate parts were all placed into exact positions to enable it to work through process of time called evolution?.......ONLY IN THE MOVIES.


Perhaps this is why some scientists today are now referring to evolution as a myth.......

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Precisely. The word "theory" seems to mean "guess" to some people as if someone somewhere is just pulling all this out of thin air or making it up as they go when the reality is when it pertains to science it more or less means our understanding based on the evidence we currently have. It's not called a "fact" because we don't know all the details yet and when more evidence arrives there needs to be wiggle room for change based on the new evidence we receive. And that's really what makes it beautiful. Facts are absolute, but theories have things still within them we haven't uncovered yet and until we have all the evidence they shall remain theories.