Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
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.
That's actually not what I said, but if what you're asking for is a reference that calls your new claims into questions, I will happily provide what I have.
I am asking what you have. You claim to have researched these claims; why won't you share what evidence you have? Why won't you share what you knew about the T-rex soft tissue claims?
Why play hide-the-ball with the evidence for the claims you so readily make? If you have it, share it.
I am asking what you have. You claim to have researched these claims; why won't you share what evidence you have? Why won't you share what you knew about the T-rex soft tissue claims?
Why play hide-the-ball with the evidence for the claims you so readily make? If you have it, share it.
M
Then show me a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that verifies the HYPOTHESIS that MICRO EVOLUTION automatically leads to MACRO EVOLUTION. If you are unable to provide this evidence, then your claim that micro evolution leads to macro evolution is not a claim that is supported by evidence. It is nothing more than a faith based belief.
I can explain them, yes. Am I going to do the reasearch and type pages and pages of essays just because you spew forth some random link, when you ultimately have no interest in anything other than "evolution is absolute truth" and respond with a typical one-liner like "Everything you said is wrong because you don't accept evolution and therefore are wrong."? Answer: No, I'm not about to waste my time with people who don't care to hear.
Hey Pahu, a little heads up about this guy, he will evade pretty much every question you ask him. We even had an agreement in another topic that I would answer his questions when he answered mine, then he asked me to list the questions he had previously evaded, which I did. He ignored them completely, then called me dishonest for not answering his questions and bending to his whim. A typical evolutionist tatic I'm sure you're well aware of Pahu.
I can explain them, yes. Am I going to do the reasearch and type pages and pages of essays just because you spew forth some random link, when you ultimately have no interest in anything other than "evolution is absolute truth" and respond with a typical one-liner like "Everything you said is wrong because you don't accept evolution and therefore are wrong."? Answer: No, I'm not about to waste my time with people who don't care to hear.
Hey Pahu, a little heads up about this guy, he will evade pretty much every question you ask him. We even had an agreement in another topic that I would answer his questions when he answered mine, then he asked me to list the questions he had previously evaded, which I did. He ignored them completely, then called me dishonest for not answering his questions and bending to his whim. A typical evolutionist tatic I'm sure you're well aware of Pahu.
Fossil Gaps 15
i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.” [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs (Talk.Origins)
(Redirected from (Talk.Origins) Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs)
Response ArticleThis article (Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Claim CB731:
Most scientists believe that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. But theropod dinosaurs have lost digits IV and V from a primitively five-fingered hand, leaving them with digits I, II, and III. Birds, on the other hand, have digits II, III, and IV, having lost digits I and V. It is almost impossible for the two groups to be closely related with such a significant anatomical difference.
Source:
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Anatomists initially thought bird digits were I, II, II based on their anatomy. This was revised on the basis of bird embryology; the digits are seen to derive from condensations II, III, IV. It is plausible that dinosaur digits also developed from condensations II, III, IV, and a frame shift in the development of digit identity causes those three condensations to developed into digits I, II, III. Such a frameshift occurs in kiwis, in which digits II, III take the form of I, II with the loss of the condensation for digit I.
This is nothing short of an admission that the claim is 100% correct, Talk Origins just throws in a bit of baseless speculation to try to save the dino to bird theory from reality.
Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from (Talk.Origins) Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs)
Response ArticleThis article (Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Most scientists believe that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. But theropod dinosaurs have lost digits IV and V from a primitively five-fingered hand, leaving them with digits I, II, and III. Birds, on the other hand, have digits II, III, and IV, having lost digits I and V. It is almost impossible for the two groups to be closely related with such a significant anatomical difference.
Source:
- Sarfati, Jonathan, 2002. Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory. Creation 25(1): 34-35.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Anatomists initially thought bird digits were I, II, II based on their anatomy. This was revised on the basis of bird embryology; the digits are seen to derive from condensations II, III, IV. It is plausible that dinosaur digits also developed from condensations II, III, IV, and a frame shift in the development of digit identity causes those three condensations to developed into digits I, II, III. Such a frameshift occurs in kiwis, in which digits II, III take the form of I, II with the loss of the condensation for digit I.
Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
It's nothing of the sort. Talk Origins notes that:
a) Theropod digits were originally labeled as DI, DII, and DIII based on their anatomy.
b) Bird digits were originally labeled as DI, DII, and DIII based on their anatomy.
c) Bird digits are now understood come from CII, CIII, and CIV based on embryology.
d) We do not have theropod embryology.
e) We have evidence of frame shifts that can lead to CII->DI etc.
None of this is "baseless speculation;" each of the above statements (a) - (e) are fully established facts, and together they completely destroy the claim that theropod digit development is inconsistent with bird digit development.
a) Theropod digits were originally labeled as DI, DII, and DIII based on their anatomy.
b) Bird digits were originally labeled as DI, DII, and DIII based on their anatomy.
c) Bird digits are now understood come from CII, CIII, and CIV based on embryology.
d) We do not have theropod embryology.
e) We have evidence of frame shifts that can lead to CII->DI etc.
None of this is "baseless speculation;" each of the above statements (a) - (e) are fully established facts, and together they completely destroy the claim that theropod digit development is inconsistent with bird digit development.
D
We need to define here what macro and micro evolution means. Talk to an evolutionary biologist and they will tell you that they are the same thing, just over different spans of time. Asking to show how micro evolution leads to macro evolution is not a valid question.
I we are being asked to show a situation where a fish gave birth to a dog (I have seen this asked to prove evolution) this cannot happen - where it to happen that would throw evolution out, it is not scientifically possible or possible through any form of evolution.
I we are being asked to show a situation where a fish gave birth to a dog (I have seen this asked to prove evolution) this cannot happen - where it to happen that would throw evolution out, it is not scientifically possible or possible through any form of evolution.
Life Sciences
Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 7.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time ≠ macro)Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.
Figure 4: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.
Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes, as well as in the drawing above.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.
Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Sciences
Actually, pretty much everyone including ID proponents accept that a non-dog (in this case, a wolf) evolved into a dog through relatively recent contact with human beings. Rather than "only conjecture and blind faith," we have historical evidence and written records which illustrate this process.
Darwin discusses domesticated animals in Origin of Species and then explains how "natural selection" can play the same role as selection by humans in causing changes in various animals over time. You should consider reading it.
Darwin discusses domesticated animals in Origin of Species and then explains how "natural selection" can play the same role as selection by humans in causing changes in various animals over time. You should consider reading it.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION
Competent scientists wish to tell you the truth about so-called "natural selection," as a mechanism for changing one plant or animal species into another. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
This material is excerpted from the book, NATURAL SELECTION.
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, Natural Selection.
Many evolutionists believe that natural selection is the only way that cross-species changes (which is what evolution is) could possibly occur."
So far as we know . . natural selection . . is the only effective agency of evolution."—*Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 36.
But scientists heartily disagree. They tell us that so-called "natural selection" could not possibly produce evolutionary changes."
So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Poper's standards."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149 [Director, British Museum of Natural History]."
It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and lawman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Decent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11."
Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea. As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's thoery, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."—*Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.
Even *Charles Darwin could not conceive how his "natural selection" theory could produce the wonders we find in nature."
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190."
Consider the eye `with all its inimitable contrivances,' as *Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at a different distance, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of the light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), the retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.
*Darwin, himself, later repudiated natural selection and returned to the discredited theory of Lamarkianism."
I admit . . that in the earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attributed too much to the action of natural descent of the survival of the fittest."—*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. 1 (1871 1st ed.), p. 152.
Natural selection is based on total randomness of process. Yet the structure and functions of plants and animals had to be the result of very intelligent planning."
How could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?"—*Stephen Gould, in Natural History, August-September, 1979."
In the case of artificial selection, man intelligently controls the breeding to produce an improved end result. Under natural conditions, *Darwin appealed to blind chance, which could have no innate intelligence, but there was a dilemma: The theory said that life began as a simple organism and evolved into more complex organisms, which implies an intelligent directing force, but he wanted at all costs to avoid any kind of inference to the supernatural."—Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1984), p. 159."
Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survived. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather . . that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"—*Science Digest, January 1961, pp. 61-63."
Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence. The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms."—*Sayles B. Clark and *J. Albert Mould, Biology for Today (1964), p. 321."
I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available time."—*A. Szent-Gyrogyi, The Evolutionary Paragon and Biological Stability, in Molecular Evolution: Prebiological and Biological, p. 111.
Conclusion.
"It might be argued that the theory [of Natural Selection] is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (1953), pp. 118-119."
Natural selection is irrelevant to, or negligible in context of, macroevolutionary change."—*A. Hoffman, "Paleobiology at the Crossroads: A Critique of Some Modern Paleogiological Research Programs," in Dimensions of Darwinism (1983), pp. 241, 262.
"Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two distinct self-replicating units or entities. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms."—*T. Dobzhansky, "Synthesis of Nucleosidase and Polynucleotide with Metaphosphate Esters," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems (1965), pp. 299, 310.
"In the strictly chemical system, molecules lack the property of self-reproduction—the activated molecule does not perpetuate itself by reproducing its kind, but rapidly returns to a normal level if it does not undergo reaction. Reproduction of stable patterns and stable variants of these patterns is essential for evolution by natural selection."—*Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 157.
". . Nobody has ever succeeded in producing a new species, not to mention the higher categories, by selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Theoretical Genetics."I venture to say that few who have made a special and practical study of evolution, and are well-acquainted with recent progress in that study, have much faith in Natural Selection."—*J.T. Cummings, British Scientist, Nature, March 3, 1923.
"The whole real guts of evolution—which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things—is outside the mathematical theory."—*P.S. Moorehead, and *M.M. Kaplan, Eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwin Interpretation of Evolution, The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5 (1967), pp. 13-14.
"Natural selection per se does not work to create new species. The pattern of change in so many examples in the fossil record is far more a reflection of the origin and differential survival (selection extinction) of species than the inexorable accumulation of minute changes within species through the agency of natural selection."—*Niles Eldredge, in Natural History, Vol. 89, No. 7 (1980) [Curator of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City].
"The theory of natural selection is not really an explanation of organic evolution at all—not even a bad one."—*S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 16 (15th ed., 1974), p. 16 [quoting empiricist philosopher Carl Hempel].
"Although natural selection theory fails to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties, its greatest shortcomings in terms of evolutionary theory is that it fails to explain evolutionary diversity."—*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978), p. 372.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION
Pahu, are you aware that what you just posted contains a number of dishonest, out-of-context citations - a process known as "quote mining"?
I'll give you just one example, and I would ask you to either tell me which of the OTHER quotes above are actually honest quotations, or just repudiate the whole list as dishonest.
CA113.1: Evolution of the eye.
I'll give you just one example, and I would ask you to either tell me which of the OTHER quotes above are actually honest quotations, or just repudiate the whole list as dishonest.
CA113.1: Evolution of the eye.