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.
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
"Wait, are you asking to see a group of animals turn into a group of animals in a different clade? Because that would disprove evolution."

How so, if we all come from a common ancestor?

(Nice to see the kringly philosophe from class 101 back at it.)

Tell me, do you still hold that the universe has no first cause?
 
Sep 6, 2013
266
3
0
"Wait, are you asking to see a group of animals turn into a group of animals in a different clade? Because that would disprove evolution."

How so, if we all come from a common ancestor?
Members of a particular clade don't cease to be a member of that clade as they evolve; new groupings emerge as populations split and diversify.

A bird will always be a bird, a dinosaur, an amniote, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, an animal, and a eukaryote - even if further evolution also causes it to be other things. Under cladistic classification, you never leave a clade.
 
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
"Wait, are you asking to see a group of animals turn into a group of animals in a different clade? Because that would disprove evolution."

How so, if we all come from a common ancestor?
It is a game of probability. There is a great many changes between one species of animal and another and it is based on very specific differences in the genome. The chances of the genome of an offspring having mutations that all fit the set of an already existing animal that is not part of the species that its parents are in is not even worth considering. It would be like waiting for the bible to be written out on a program that just randomly puts letters together.

Now if you are talking about a species over many generations differentiating so that one group of the descendants can no longer breed with another group of descendants while also having unique characteristics (and thus making them distinctively different species), then that has been documented.

Avalon explanation of clades fits with how I am using the term.

Tell me, do you still hold that the universe has no first cause?
I never claimed that I believed that. I was just saying that it is a possibility that should not be simply dismissed. The nature of reality is a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
J

JoyofLord

Guest

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


I always remember what my pastor said about evolution - you are not just some monkey who got lucky :) that made me laugh so hard but it is so true. If evolution really existed the monkeys would be no more, we just didn't walk out of the jungle one day after hanging with the monkeys and become man or woman hilarious :)
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
There are no beneficial mutations.
None.
Not one.
I challenge you, (any of you) to show me otherwise.
Keep in mind, a mutation is not natural selection.
 
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
There are no beneficial mutations.
None.
Not one.
I challenge you, (any of you) to show me otherwise.
Keep in mind, a mutation is not natural selection.
How about the gene-duplication and frame-shift mutation that led to a a strain of flavobacterium producing a new enzyme that could digest nylon? ... I would say that was pretty beneficial.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Not a mutation.
Created. They've created oil eating bacteria also.
Through genetic manipulation.
Ever heard of GMO's? Your probably eating them.
- I know I am.....
Almost all of american soy and corn is genetically modified.
By the third generation the lab rats were sterile.
- - But the Corp. System (Beast) is always right.
The gov. is a corporation also, the law of the land is the commercial code.
- - We are worth so many widgets.......

Not all countries are the same. America is sold. - (out)
 
Last edited:
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
I know about GMOs. I've actually even done genetic modification on E. Coli. The gene that leads to the production of nylonase, however, was caused by a natural mutation.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
I know about GMOs. I've actually even done genetic modification on E. Coli. The gene that leads to the production of nylonase, however, was caused by a natural mutation.
O.K. - How many amino acids are in the E-Coli bacteria?
Also, why would you claim blasting the helix caused natural mutation?
Oh, I believe you - - - -after so many lab trials it's always natural.
Tell me Kringle, how many amino acids are in the E-Coli sequence.
- - And could you provide a map?
 
Last edited:
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Also, .........it is a virus.
- - - So it naturally mutates.
- - - - But since you're at it, please map out that one that you worked on.........
- - - - -Shouldn't take more than 250 - 1000 pages.(If your script is small and you use 10 columns)
 
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
O.K. - How many amino acids are in the E-Coli bacteria?
Are you asking how many types of amino acids are in E. coli? Or the total number of all the molecules of amino acids that are in a individual? Or the total number of codons in the genome that can potentially be translated by the cell into an animo acid?

I can sorta answer the first. Most just use 20 kinds, but there are some strains that will use up to 22.

Also, why would you claim blasting the helix caused natural mutation?
Oh, I believe you - - - -after so many lab trials it's always natural.
You don't know a thing about the history of nylonase or the experiments done concerning it, do you?

Tell me Kringle, how many amino acids are in the E-Coli sequence.
This doesn't even make sense given the context of the discussion. There needs to be more information for there to be an answer.

Also, .........it is a virus.
dave-silverman.jpg ...What is? E. coli? Where are you getting this information?
 
Last edited:
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Total number.
Just provide a map.
You call it mutation.
I call it manipulation.
You call it splicing, I call it blasting.

- - -But since you are the expert, I suppose you can call it anything you want.

- - - - You claim evidence of evolution with a mutating virus? And a highly mutating one at that?

- - - - - Oh.....Friggin'.....Kay......
(misspells intentional)
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Well....expert.....E-Coli is a virus.
You should know that......working on it and all........
- - (Stop clogging the thread.)
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
It's a virus in the sense it attacks the host.
A bacteria that attacks the host is defined as a 'viral' infection.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Just one transitional species.
Just one.
From equine or bovine to whatever.
Show me one.
Archaeopteryx anyone?
With all of the millions of fossils, not one transitional species?
 
Last edited:
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
Alright. Here we go. Like I originally stated the nylonase mutation didn't occur in E. coli. It was in a strain of Flavobacterium.

The nylonase enzyme mutation that I am similar with ends up making a 392 amino acid polypeptide. Technically it is not a amino acid anymore because certain elements are removed when it binds to become a polypeptide, so it is often referred to as amino acid residue after that point. The coding for it came from a mutation that occurred on one copy of a gene that already existed in duplicates. The original gene created a 472 amino acid residue long protein.
The sequence below is one of the copies of the genes that produce the 472 amino acid chain.

nylonase1_zps84eb2c9e.jpg
A frameshift mutation occurred, which adds a new nucleotide pair into the genetic sequence and pushes all of the other nucelotide pairs forward, which changed all of the codons following the point of the mutation. The image below has the everything starting at the mutation onward in red. All of it is about to change due to the mutation.
nylonase2_zpsf535a493.jpg
So all that red no longer exists in the gene, but that was most of the gene! In the follow picture is the gene after the mutation. It has the new portion highlighted in green.
nylonase3_zps759f4224.jpg
This new sequence added a new start codon at the insertion part, which means that the new sequence became an entire gene in and of itself. That gene is as follow;
nylonase4_zpscce6737f.jpg
The 33 codons that existed before the mutation point are no longer part of a full gene and would know be considered a psuedogene which is often called "junk DNA". That sequence is the follow;
nylonase5_zps6876e6fe.jpg

The paper describing this was published in 1984 and written by the late Susumu Ohno. Unrelated note, he is also the man who first identified the conserved nature of the X chromosomes in mammalian genetics, which is now referred as Ohno's law.
 
Dec 25, 2009
423
4
18
There are bacteriophages that are specific to E. coli, but E. coli itself is not a bacteriophage. E. coli are bacteria. A bacteriophage is not a bacterium at all.

Just one transitional species.
Runcaria heinzelinii
 
Last edited: