Science Disproves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Pahu,
It is quite difficult to debate when long passages are copied into the text. I would like a debate where your own opinions are forwarded, and we can discuss the conflicting ideas - these long quotes are quite tedious to trawl through.
I have found that usually a "debate" is nothing more than an endless conflict of evidence free speculation resulting in wasted time and energy better used sharing facts.

That said:
(1) Mathematics denies the possibility that sudden, multimillion positive-mutations could occur all at once. Quite true. Evolution does not postulate that multi million positive mutations occurred all at once
(2) Each such occurrence is said to occur only once every 50,000 years, yet two such accidental events would have had to occur within a mile or two of each other—and one would have had to be a male and the other a female. This does not make sense. This supposes that a mutation from one species to a completely different species happens suddenly and all at once. Evolutionary theory does not state this.

Which is why the statement is correct.

(3) One new species every 50,000 years could not produce all the species we now have. (*Gould and company have to stay with long-time periods to avoid the problem of why it is not happening today.) Where does 50,000 years come from?

From the statement in #2.

(4) Each new accident requires that all the mutations be positive and harmoniously interrelated. The vast majority of mutations are either negative or irrelevant to the host. A mutation only become positive if it occurs together with ecological or environmental pressures to ensure that the mutation is passed on.
Mutations

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.[SUP]a[/SUP] Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.[SUP]b[/SUP] No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.[SUP]c[/SUP]

a . “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,”Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

u
“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, ...” Ayala, p. 63.


b . “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.


u “In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at TBioMed | Full text | Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information.)


u “Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.


“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid., p. 103.


[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid., p. 100.


u “If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.


u Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.
Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.


u John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.


u “... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.


However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations, so the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!


u “Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.


u “The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ...” [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.



u In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:
Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.


c . “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.


“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.


u “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.



u “I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,”Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.


u “It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.


u “If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.


u “Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.


u For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 6.�� Mutations
 
G

Grey

Guest
Spent an hour and a half going through Pahu's quotes and debunking each one only to accidentally leave the page when I searched David C.C Watson, who ironically was a creationist.

But I've already demonstrated that Pahu's sources were null and void a while ago.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
Number of articles in this thread that have passed scientific peer review = 0.
Spent an hour and a half going through Pahu's quotes and debunking each one only to accidentally leave the page when I searched David C.C Watson, who ironically was a creationist.

But I've already demonstrated that Pahu's sources were null and void a while ago.
Translation: I don't have a good counter-argument, so I'll just assert that the Christian is wrong, and assert that I've already demonstrated all of Pahu's sources are wrong, therefore Pahu is wrong, and atheists are right. It's exactly like I said here.

Atheist logic 101: Christians are quote mining, therefore they're wrong, the Bible's wrong, Christianity is wrong, Christians are wrong, and no matter what fallacies atheists use, atheists are always right, and you just have to accept it.
 
G

Grey

Guest
Translation: I don't have a good counter-argument, so I'll just assert that the Christian is wrong, and assert that I've already demonstrated all of Pahu's sources are wrong, therefore Pahu is wrong, and atheists are right. It's exactly like I said here.
Look up David C.C Watson.
 
D

ddallen

Guest
Translation: I don't have a good counter-argument, so I'll just assert that the Christian is wrong, and assert that I've already demonstrated all of Pahu's sources are wrong, therefore Pahu is wrong, and atheists are right. It's exactly like I said here.
This is a debate - if someone cites references to support their arguments then the other participants are entitled, some would say obligated, to point out if those sources are incorrect. I would expect that from both sides. Grey mentions that he checked the sources and found them to be problematic - his prerogative as a participant in the debate. If you cannot stand 100% over your source - don't use it or put in a proviso.
I would expect anyone on the anti evolution side to do the same to me
 
Jun 27, 2013
133
0
0
[video=youtube;BS5vid4GkEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY[/video]

Here you go.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
This is a debate - if someone cites references to support their arguments then the other participants are entitled, some would say obligated, to point out if those sources are incorrect. I would expect that from both sides. Grey mentions that he checked the sources and found them to be problematic - his prerogative as a participant in the debate. If you cannot stand 100% over your source - don't use it or put in a proviso.
I would expect anyone on the anti evolution side to do the same to me
Oh ok, then in that case, I claim that pro-evolution sources are problematic, therefore, they're wrong, and evolutionists are wrong. Or am I not allowed to use the same "debating" tactics the evolutionists do?
 
Jul 2, 2013
178
0
0
I can understand why Grey would have issues with the Pahuquotes. Less than a quarter of them werepenned in my lifetime. Surprisinglyenough science has made a lot of advancements since 1949
Aside from that what Pahu presented are largely opinions,not results of scientific inquiry.
 
Jul 2, 2013
178
0
0
Oh ok, then in that case, I claim that pro-evolution sources are problematic, therefore, they're wrong, and evolutionists are wrong. Or am I not allowed to use the same "debating" tactics the evolutionists do?
Attacking the theory of evolution and the people who acceptit as fact does not show any evidence in any form of creationism. Just like finding a bunch of quotes from peopledenying the world is round doesn’t show any evidence that the earth is flat.
 
A

amdg

Guest
Oh ok, then in that case, I claim that pro-evolution sources are problematic, therefore, they're wrong, and evolutionists are wrong. Or am I not allowed to use the same "debating" tactics the evolutionists do?
Megaman125 it depends on what sources they are using. If they are citing "The God Delusion" then you are totally justified. However, if they are citing a study published in a peer reviewed journal, then that's totally different.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
The total humor of the old universe theory is pointed to by the voyager probes when they past Uranus and Neptune.
They were supposed to be cold, yet generated heat?!?
Strange how that could be, since they were obviously amorphous gases flung by the 'big bang' and coalesced around the sun billions and billions of years ago.
Yet each had it's own heated core.
Each has it's own power supply.
The evolutionists didn't expect this, so the data was hushed up post haste. (Yet it's still out there, look it up).
 
Jul 2, 2013
178
0
0
The total humor of the old universe theory is pointed to by the voyager probes when they past Uranus and Neptune.
They were supposed to be cold, yet generated heat?!?

Strange how that could be, since they were obviously amorphous gases flung by the 'big bang' and coalesced around the sun billions and billions of years ago.
Yet each had it's own heated core.
Each has it's own power supply.
The evolutionists didn't expect this, so the data was hushed up post haste. (Yet it's still out there, look it up).
First: you might want to look up just why something that far away from the sun has an internal temperature. no one has hushed up anything, its all out there and easy to find.

Second: try educating yourself on just how planetary systems form because you obviously have no idea.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
First: you might want to look up just why something that far away from the sun has an internal temperature. no one has hushed up anything, its all out there and easy to find.

Second: try educating yourself on just how planetary systems form because you obviously have no idea.
Try as you might, you fail miserably.
You need to go back and study what scientists believed and why, before the probes, (there were two).
Your unlearned condescension only shows your own ignorance on the matter.
 
Jul 2, 2013
178
0
0
Try as you might, you fail miserably.
You need to go back and study what scientists believed and why, before the probes, (there were two).
Your unlearned condescension only shows your own ignorance on the matter.
Yes I know what scientists speculated about the temperatureof Neptune before voyager probe reached Neptune. No one is hiding or denying thosespeculations.
The thing about science is when good evidence about somethingshows the speculation to be wrong Scientists adapt to the new data. And in this case they started working outjust why Neptune isn’t as cold as they first guessed it would be.
What they figured out is easily available and again you mightwant to actually look that up and educate yourself.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Well, since you already know, why don't you enlighten me? (By the scientific method)
Tell me why Uranus and Neptune are exuding heat that the evolutionary scientists said would be impossible.
(I want to here this......)
 
G

Grey

Guest
Well, since you already know, why don't you enlighten me? (By the scientific method)
Tell me why Uranus and Neptune are exuding heat that the evolutionary scientists said would be impossible.
(I want to here this......)

Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Or whether or not cores of planets are hotter than predicted.
 
G

Grey

Guest
The total humor of the old universe theory is pointed to by the voyager probes when they past Uranus and Neptune.
They were supposed to be cold, yet generated heat?!?
Strange how that could be, since they were obviously amorphous gases flung by the 'big bang' and coalesced around the sun billions and billions of years ago.
Yet each had it's own heated core.
Each has it's own power supply.
The evolutionists didn't expect this, so the data was hushed up post haste. (Yet it's still out there, look it up).
You do realize that all matter generates heat right?
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
You do realize that all matter generates heat right?
Yes, so did the scientists. It's not a matter of generating heat, it's a matter of having a core.
The scientists thought both Neptune and Uranus were gas clouds surrounding a cold core.
(Read up on it).
The temps didn't match up with their projections.
Both had more energy per cubit foot than Jupiter or Mars. - This should not be, according to the big bang model.
 
Last edited:
G

Grey

Guest
Yes, so did the scientists. It's not a matter of generating heat, it's a matter of having a core.
The scientists thought both Neptune and Uranus were gas clouds surrounding a cold core.
(Read up on it).
The temps didn't match up with their projections. - Which were made by the evolutionary model.
So there were originally two cores and only the fittest survived? But seriously astronomy=/=evolution