Famous Intelligent Inventor Says Evolution is "Science Fiction"

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
As someone who does not believe in God or gods, I don't believe evolution is the only answer to explain anatomically modern humans. There may be more to the story than we are presently aware of.

So you think humans could had been created just not by a god so to speak right?

I think it's possible, yes.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Of course it is. It's another one of those things that was just sort of flowed out because it sounded "reasonable", but try and find in the fossil record any in-betweens like a stubby winged bat or partial pouched marsupial or a butterfly that "sorta" metamorphosed.

This is the one, glaring problem with the entire theory of evolution.

I look forward to someone providing actual, factual proof... until then it is just a theory with zero evidence in the fossil record.

originally posted by: Fatboy527
If evolution did not exist.

There is no question that small/minor changes occur in all species over great lengths of time.

It is the unsubstantiated claim that one species can evolve into an entirely new and/or different species.

The reality is, there is ZERO evidence to support such a claim in the fossil record, and if it were true, there should be an overwhelming abundance of it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

There is no question that small/minor changes occur in all species over great lengths of time.

It is the unsubstantiated claim that one species can evolve into an entirely new and/or different species.

The reality is, there is ZERO evidence to support such a claim in the fossil record, and if it were true, there should be an overwhelming abundance of it.

Exactly.

Even antibiotic resistance has been shown to be reversible, and therefore is a mere adaptation rather than an enduring evolutionary change. The mechanism was found through epigenetics, which indicated that the antibiotic resistance was due to the microbe being able to turn up production of a particular detoxification pump that allowed it to endure through a higher antibiotic load. Surely enough, once the antibiotic was removed from the population, they reverted back to being vulnerable to antibiotics. It is apparent within the literature that an organism cannot go outside of particular bounds...

antibiotic resistance requires epigenetics...

Scientists also perpetuated an E. Coli strain through over 73,000 generations and guess what? It's still E. Coli. No sign of becoming anything distinctly new. And yet they want us to believe that an ape-like creature managed to grow 100s of billions of new neurons and establish their respective synapses over the course of 250,000 generations to become human. It's laughable when you look at the details of the theory.

Like could you imagine telling a neurologist to add 100 billion neurons to a monkey's brain to make it human? He would laugh at the impossibility of such a task, yet they want us to believe that random chance managed to do such a feat? Pffff.....lol

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Fatboy527
If evolution did not exist.

There is no question that small/minor changes occur in all species over great lengths of time.

It is the unsubstantiated claim that one species can evolve into an entirely new and/or different species.

The reality is, there is ZERO evidence to support such a claim in the fossil record, and if it were true, there should be an overwhelming abundance of it.

You apparently do not understand the ideas behind evolution. Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. But the parent organisms don’t “change species”, the old species still exists. A new species occurs when each succeeding generation's small changes make them incapable of breeding with the original species.

originally posted by: dragonridr

You apparently do not understand the ideas behind evolution. Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. But the parent organisms don’t “change species”, the old species still exists. A new species occurs when each succeeding generation's small changes make them incapable of breeding with the original species.

No he does understand.. what he's saying is that it doesn't happen. As far as we have seen in lab experiments, organisms through successive generations cannot gradually evolve into a new creature.

For example, E. Coli always remains E. Coli. And don't try to say we haven't witnessed enough time to observe it... theres an E. Coli strain with over 73,000 generations and it still shows no signs of becoming something that isn't E. Coli.

originally posted by: dragonridr
in reply to: tanstaafl

You apparently do not understand the ideas behind evolution.

I understand it just fine. You, on the other hand, apparently like to equivocate just for giggles.

Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species.

I didn't say 'turns into', did I? I said 'evolves into'.

It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. But the parent organisms don’t “change species”, the old species still exists. A new species occurs when each succeeding generation's small changes make them incapable of breeding with the original species.

Exactly... and it is these slow changes that are what should be evident everywhere in the fossil record if this was true, and yet - there are none. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

There is another condition that would have to occur as well, that has never, ever been addressed...

In order for a new species to evolve from another one, the exact same changes/mutations would have to occur in thousands (millions?) of different individual members of the same species at the exact same time, and those mutated versions would then have to mate, and prefer to mate only with the new versions.

Sorry... it is absurd on its face to anyone who actually sits down and considers it.

And just to be clear, I am not saying I believe in the literal 'Creation Theory' either... I'm just pointing out the facts that expose the theory of Evolution for what it is - an unsubstantiated theory without any evidence to support it in the fossil record, the lack of which is ... well, pretty damning.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

In order for a new species to evolve from another one, the exact same changes/mutations would have to occur in thousands (millions?) of different individual members of the same species at the exact same time, and those mutated versions would then have to mate, and prefer to mate only with the new versions.

Yeah take for example a viable chromosome number change. The odds of having am organism that has either one more or one less chromosome than normal and is capable of reproduction is extremely low. Now imagine the necessity of ANOTHER organism in that same population during that same time having the exact same low probability event on the same chromosome. The alleles on the chromosome would also have to match up so the new or deleted chromosomes would have to be in the same orientation as well.

These sorts of massive hurdles arise with every aspect of biology... and they're further proving the incongruencies of evolutionary theory with reality.

originally posted by: cooperton
in reply to: tanstaafl

Yeah take for example a viable chromosome number change. The odds of having am organism that has either one more or one less chromosome than normal and is capable of reproduction is extremely low. Now imagine the necessity of ANOTHER organism in that same population during that same time having the exact same low probability event on the same chromosome. The alleles on the chromosome would also have to match up so the new or deleted chromosomes would have to be in the same orientation as well.

Then, you actually have to take this 1,000 times further. In order for a species to successfully evolve/split into another one, this scenario - thousands/millions of individual members of one species having the exact same mutation at the exact same time - would have to happen hundreds, thousands of times, to complete the process.

It is, when you look at the big picture, absurd, if not impossible - unless there was some intelligent design behind it, whether that be God, or an extremely skilled genetic technology intentionally applied by some other intelligence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was a subtle remark on the absolute lack of any actual science in a YouTube video with less than 100 views and..

That's because science is deterred from proving Creation.

And determined to deny it.