Science Disproves Evolution

says the person who can't define basic science terms, needed to discuss evolution in a scholarly manner.

...hmmm, I would be careful how many rock you decided to sling inside your glass house.

So many strawmans. The great majority of scientists generally see the theory of evolution as valid.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Typically a large amount of people who study for years and have acess to modern technology and records, have a better chance at discerning fact from fiction.

Embryology 2
​

Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b. In 1868, Haeckel, using distorted data, advanced this “biogenetic law.” It was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c. “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.” Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

This should answer the deluded fiction guy in the other thread, he is a ctrl-c guy like most darwinists

What's the point in discussing when you and I already have our minds made up? I'm actually posting
evidence, none of which you have refuted. Before you were born you had an embryonic tail and
a coat of fur that was shed. Interesting fact, huh?

Well, its true. As much as I dont want to get involved, speaking as a scientist myself (though from a very different field then biology) I should probably say that its not like there's some massive anti-creation conspiracy going on. Evolution just explains everything we so so nicely that at this point there's not much need for anything else. Any little detail at this point isn't enough to overthrow the literal mountains of evidence and work thats been done on evolutionary biology, and biology in general, it can simply change how we think about some mechanisms and such.

I know this probably isn't going to convince anyone, but still. Creationism isn't really taken seriously by scientists because it doesn't really give us anything to work with. Its the same idea as why string theory isn't taken seriously by lots of physicists. Even then, while some things could possibly be explained better with creationism, theres tons more stuff that is explained better with evolution, and evolution explains the stuff creationism covers as well.

I know this is like, "key" to some of your guys belief systems, but this is so much of a non-issue I don't know why people fight about it so much. A good chunk of scientists are Christians anyway; heck my Physics department was the only all-Christian department on my entire college campus. The biologists were pretty much all Christians as well. This just isn't really a debate that gets us anywhere anymore, I dunno *shrug*

the irony is you have no clue to my position,
but its true its pointless to discuss anything with you.

you just redirect to a youtube video or book long article instead of just clearly stating your case.

one starts to wonder if you are able to.

You have posted articles that claim to have discovered evidence. Again and again, you obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. And now I see you claim to know about how important peer reviews are for writers? Are you kidding? People earning English degrees can't ever use anything but peer reviewed references in their papers. And by the way, Wikipedia has never been accepted in the world of academia as a credible reference. And you're demanding that we produce peer reviewed articles? You're "embryonic tail and coat of fur that was shed" proves nothing. I think a human fetus resembles a fish at some point in development, but it develops into a human and the fish develops into into a fish. So what makes that happen?

Oh well. This is pointless. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sure not learning anything here. If you're all that into this evolution thing, Crucifiction, why don't you go and major in archeology, biology, or something alike? Then you can at least present a genuine argument.

It's not that I don't think that's worth noting, Grey. But it still is not proof that macroevolution has graduated from theory to fact. I definitely believe a certain type of evolution is valid, but not to the degree it has been taken. Scientists just plain are not always right about everything. It is a well known fact that they call something true until more information comes in that makes them revise that "truth". Also, let's face it, you have to take on faith what they tell you in the first place. Because for you? It's all hearsay evidence, no matter what you might call it. You can't test everything they claim out for yourself! You have to go on their say-so. So yes, it's about faith, much like it is with Christianity. Well--wait. Christian's have faith in God. Science is about having faith in man's accumulated knowledge, and let's face it; no sane scientist will tell you that he knows everything about everything. So whatever he doesn't know may well make all the difference in this world! Again and again; you have one tiny missing piece of any formula, and you will have an inaccurate result.

There is no differentiation between Micro and Macro evolution in the eyes in the vast majority of scientists.

I completely agree, and thats why scientists don't assert to be "100% right on everything", that appears to be your argument on the theistic end when referring to the torah and new testament.

When someone says this is "true" in the scientific community they are met with skepticism. Even some aspects of the law of gravity are still considered theory. I do not take anything on faith when it comes to science. When it comes to theories, I only see them as valid after the due process of the scientific method, even then I see it as the most likely explanation for the phenomenon. And yes evolution and speciation have been observed in laboratory conditions, and both are easily visible in the genetic pool.

how do you define evolution and speciation?

<just curious, cruxification has yet to answer with her synopsis>

Do cross-species changes actually occur? If not, there is no evolution. What do reputable scientists have to say about this? Here are their statements. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Scientists Speak about Speciation

This material is excerpted from the book, SPECIES EVOLUTION.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Species Evolution.

INTRODUCTION

The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most tend to assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

SPECIES, THE GREAT MYSTERY

Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of theSpecies."—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (1985), p. 33.

"But in the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: `In dim outline, evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we are, if anything, worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is `a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"Evolution is . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself."—*Keith S. Thomsen, "The Meanings of Evolution" in American Scientist, September / October 1982, p. 529.

ONLY WELL-DEFINED SPECIES

If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speciation and wrote: `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.

"We recognize the great powers of observation possessed by Darwin, but we are amazed that he did not observe the limits of variation. Variation, he should have recognized, can produce new varieties only within kinds already in existence—a situation which could never produce evolution. While tracing migration paths of plants and animals [from South America to the Galapagos], Darwin never grasped the fact that he was able to trace those routes because the migrants were still bona fide members of the same basic kinds to which their ancestors belong."—Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. [italics his].

"Species do not originate. All they do is remain in existence or become extinct."—*G.H. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation Research Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.

"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the `folk classifications' of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries between types at all times and all places . ." `But,' says Gould, `how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?' For an evolutionist, why should there by species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.

"If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"Despite this, many species and even whole families remain inexplicably constant. The shark of today, for instance, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years ago. And this constancy is seen at higher levels too: Birds vary widely in size, shape, coloring, song, and habits, but are still substantially similar to the birds of the early Tertiary." According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in 1968: `What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me the problem [in evolution] now—the problem of constancy rather than that of change.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 141-142.

ONLY THE SPECIES EXISTS

Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications. (Some creatures classed by men as genera or subspecies are really species.)

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

"According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."—*G.W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment made during review of *Mayr's authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology].
"Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups."—*Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (1969)."There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics (1946), pp. 222-223.

THE SPECIES BARRIER

There is always a limit beyond which a species cannot be bred.

"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual continuous change, species could (in Wallace's phrase) ` . . depart indefinitely from the original type.' Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the`pure line research' of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they `depart indefinitely' from the original type or are there built-in limits and constraints?"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin's theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or `pure lines') of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect."Johannsen's work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, `as unyielding as iron.'" Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long." He found you could breed some super layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from `lower than maximum' producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.

"Darwin's gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness."—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through [the passage of] time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.

A CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE

If evolutionary theory were true, then man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors.

"A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals, `. . the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man [should possess] a smaller gene potential than his animal ancestors! [!] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!"—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), pp. 129-130 [italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57].

CONCLUSION

Only God could make the species.

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible." To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION

There are a ton of scientists, dude. An absolute ton. The ones you list are tiny minority drops in the massive ocean that is the scientific community.

Coming from the scientific establishment and having some general level biological training, I can assure you that there IS NO CONSPIRACY. Having written papers and stuff before, the entire thing seems ludicrous. The only possible "conspiratorial behavior" one could think of is that the editors of some journals may flat out not want to publish you because they dont like your research or you. One of my professors got denied by three journals because they didn't like some of his numbers, and it wasn't even wrong research or anything particularly groundbreaking. But you'll always find journals willing to publish information, as long as its decent research. My professor I mentioned earlier did eventually get published too!

Fundamentally, science isn't some over-arching institution. Its a group of people doing things, and this kind of drama and baggage goes wherever people are. Peer review isn't flawless, its just as flawed and biased as we are, but that's why its done a LOT so that the net bias effectively goes to zero.

Furthermore, all the links to books and stuff you listed carry no weight to me. The only way to talk about this is in journal articles. Find me some authentic, peer-reviewed articles from a non-sketchy source and we'll talk. I'm not trying to be like "oh i need evidence you can't give blah blah" i'm just saying, if we want to treat this like a scientific question, which it would be, then we have to talk about it scientifically. Journal articles aren't like, a smoking gun, they're just the scientific equivalent of those papers and things you listed. So like I said, find me that and we'll talk.

And this thread is not copy/paste?

The term "microevolution" is an atheists fantasy, it does not exist. It is nothing more than variation within the genetic code. Macroevolution is fiction. We have never seen one species turn into another. DNA simply will not allow it. Evolution is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Completely misrepresents macroevolution. Let's see what real science
has discovered.

Transitional fossil of fish with legs known as Tiktaalik


Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transitional fossil of feathered dinosaur known as Archaeopteryx


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Hominid fossils


List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fossils don't lie!