Science Disproves Evolution

I can show you several scientific theories that you would never believe are facts because they are not. Leave defining to the dictionary.

Ok, hit me.

theories' are just theories... scientists uses them when they have nothing to prove.. besides, they cant prove the evolution, they cant repeat the process. just like they cant recreate the bigbang and us coming from monkeys
it is just a theory and there is no facts! if there were facts, then there would be dumb made up facts that they pulled from their butt.

evolution is a crutch for the weak, just like atheism is crutch for the weak. i find it interesting people dont want to believe in a god so they can do what ever they want.

[Edit] if say man wrote the bible its true and we might not trust it, but man also wrote the science books your reading with unproven facts so how can you trust that?

Lol wait dude you know what your profile picture is, right?

troll face.. problem?

Noooooope.

cool story mam

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) | TopTenz.net

Before you say they aren't theories because they were proven wrong, scientific theories are constantly being thrown out and evolution is another theory that hasn't been proven wrong. I know of several great scientists including Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun, who reject evolution and even modern day scientists and other renowned scholars rejected it and are quick to point out it's many flaws. Believing in a scientific theory takes as much faith as believing in God. There is credible evidence for both which many refuse to take, and mysteries about both which may never be explained. The only difference, God will never be proved wrong.

Well I am by no means a scientist, and I have not taken very many science classes.

BTW thanks for that article, it was an interesting read!

I disagree with you regarding the faith thing, and I disagree that there is credible evidence for god because that is something I haven't seen. I have, however, seen very convincing evidence for evolution.

You're right, I don't think you can prove that there is no god. More importantly, I don't think you can prove there IS a god.

Evolution has never been disproved.

I believe some of those scientists were before Darwin so they didn't even know about evolution.

Altruism 1
​

Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?

a. “...the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.” Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:


“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do no t appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

If you've really disproved evolution you should get that peer reviewed. It would be a breakthrough in modern science.

To be fair, the early form of Darwinism that was presented on page 1 has been disproven for ages. It doesn't reflect modern evolutionary theory, but it is 'evolution' and it is 'disproven'.

For example you would not find a credible peer review journal anywhere today that supported Lamarckism. Darwins theory used it, today's does not.

Altruism 2
​

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).

c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This
hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Again, why are you posting this here? Get it published, you'll become famous!

JGPS Well I actually haven't read anything he's written haha, but if he's so sure and he really thinks he's disproved evolution he really will become quite famous. Yet he has not responded nor has he tried as far as I know so me thinks something is wrong with his science

He's restating things that early Darwinian evolution believed almost a century ago. Most of those ideas he's 'proving wrong' have been proven wrong decades and the theory itself has, for lack of a better word, evolved.

Look at his references, many are from 1927 and 1918 and such, many more are from the 60's, none are later than the 80's.

Evolutionary theory is changing constantly, what is now believed in very few ways reflect what evolutionists of the 50's believed. The fundamental presupposition is the same, but the theory itself and the proposed evidence for it is very different.

Extraterrestrial Life?
​

No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?”]



Figure 6:Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 297. For a full understanding, see pages 285-345]

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

A theory is an idea based on observation. It is not a fact. A theory is then tested and depending on the results it can become accepted, but evidence can still emerge and the theory then changes.

It was a theory once that the earth was the center of the universe. New evidence emerged to contradict that, and now it is a scientific FACT it is not.

Language 1
​

Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.” Chomsky, p. 60.

e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).” Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]