Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by chocise

We can't even string together 50,000 years of human evolution coherently, let alone account for the spontaneous creation of life itself.

Actually, we have a pretty clear picture all the way back to Homo Habilis 2mil years ago Just because you didn't know that, doesn't mean we don't know about it

As for your other claims, you really wanna read up before making hogwash statements that make you look silly: LINK

reply to post by chocise

We can't even string together 50,000 years of human evolution coherently

Fossil Hominids

let alone account for the spontaneous creation of life itself.

This argument again.. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the first life. Or do you also dismiss plate tectonics theory on the grounds (pun intended ) that it cannot explain accetion of primordial earth from solar nebula?

www.talkorigins.org...

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

At the single cell level, it was interesting to note in earlier threads on this topic how the irreducible complexity of flagella were dismissed because a single element of the 'motor' could be demonstrated to be a pre-existing component, yet astonishingly you were all willing to dismiss all the other specialised 'parts': parts which simply couldn't have evolved independently [& something Darwin himself would confess to having issues with]. Selectivity with the truth isn't restricted to one side of the argument, John.

The argument was not dismissed because of a preexisting component. It was dismissed because ALL irreducible complexity says about a system is that it has not evolved by simple addition of parts. If you include deletion of parts (and mutations also remove parts) and change of function, evolution has NO problem with irreducible complexity, as defined by Behe.

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Maslo

The argument was not dismissed because of a preexisting component. It was dismissed because ALL irreducible complexity says about a system is that it has not evolved by simple addition of parts.

So evolution is a process of gradual change only when it fits your cause. How convenient.

And you could pull quotes all day long from pro-evolutionist sites but it wont make your case any clearer, or any truer.

reply to post by chocise


The source doesn't matter as long as it's backed up by objective evidence. Sources like the Institute of Creation Research don't bother backing up their sources, but many university sites do, and Wikileaks requires sources too and lists them bellow the text.

Fact is, we've observed speciation, and the fossil record for human evolution is complete.

So the fossil record is complete yet there are no intermediaries. Reason itself would dictate there should be thousands of them, yet there isn't a single example.

You still haven't supplied a single objective fact in support of your belief system.

EDIT: I see you're referring to humans in the fossil record and my reply was aimed at the record in its entirety. I believe you're in error when asserting it's complete for humans, perhaps you could substantiate that claim or publish your findings. On the contrary, the record is fragmented and incomplete, and any conjecture based on it is likely to be completely speculative. Reconstructions based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data".

Double post. Apologies.

reply to post by chocise

So evolution is a process of gradual change only when it fits your cause. How convenient.

How is addition of parts gradual, but addition and deletion and change of function of parts suddenly not? You dont make any sense.

And you could pull quotes all day long from pro-evolutionist sites but it wont make your case any clearer, or any truer.

Dont attack the messenger, attack the message. Are you unable to refute what has been posted? You are free to use even creationist websites if you think they are relevant to the problem. So far, I have refuted all your claims, and you have refuted none of mine.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by chocise
How is addition of parts gradual, but addition and deletion and change of function of parts suddenly not? You dont make any sense.

It is you who don't make any sense. Are you now disputing one of evolution's main premises – that the evolutionary process is an incremental gradual one? What is this 'addition and deletion and change of function of parts suddenly not' about? Where did you invoke that from?

Dont attack the messenger, attack the message. Are you unable to refute what has been posted? You are free to use even creationist websites if you think they are relevant to the problem. So far, I have refuted all your claims, and you have refuted none of mine.

You've successfully failed to refute my claim: that your belief system is based on conjecture and is void of objectivity. – that it is just that: a theory. A theory which remains open to debate and continued research. And with that I will leave you, as this thread, like countless others before it, will rotate endlessly without any resolution.

From years of observation it is impossible to debate with a creationist who is too closed minded to accept any evidence for evolution so, here is a question for creationists: where is your hard evidence for god? Note: the bible does not count as it was written by man.

To accept god you must have faith and without faith there is little to support an existence of an all powerful creator as per your religious views. Also, why are there so many differing religions? Take Christianity for example, how many different branches of the same faith are there and why is this? If there is only one god, then surely there should be only one religion? Muslims acknowledge Jesus, Mary, and even Adam and Eve yet, why is there such conflict between Christianity and Muslims? I'm pretty sure that if god did exist *it* (calling god a "he" by definition implies that there is also a female counter part) would be utterly disappointed in the fact that you guys can't get a long!

Also, why is it that the Vatican can accept evolution but American creationists cannot?

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

Note: I was raised as an Atheist but being a curious individual have searched for answers to many of lifes questions, in all of my 30 years I have never once been convinced by any religious person nor text that there is an all powerful creator god. Religious people cannot answer the most basic of questions and usually expect us to have blind faith that their *opinion* is fact and warrants no further discussion nor evidence.

The simple fact is, as human beings we all share different opinions that suit our understanding of life and where it came from, which is all well and good but objectively and scientifically our opinions mean little without testable verifiable observation and evidence (which is what is classed as science). Show me god, and I will concede that god exists

[edit to add] verifiable


[additional edit] keeping in line with the thread i shall add this:

Snakes with reminas of limbs

Vestigial limbs

No living snake shows any remains of the pectoral arch, but remains of the pelvis are found in:

* Boas and Pythons: a long ilium, attached to the lower branch of the first bifurcate transverse process of the lumbar vertebrae, bearing three short bones, the longest of which, regarded as the femur, terminates in a claw-like spur which, in males at least, usually appears externally on each side of the cloaca.
* Leptotyphlopidae: ilium, pubis, and ischium, and rudimentary femur, the ischium forming a ventral symphysis.
* Aniliidae
* Typhlopidae: a single bone on each side.
Source wiki

Further reading:
New Fossil Snake With Legs, Reported In Science
Studying how snakes got legless
Ancient serpent shows its leg

Also, why do humans have tailbones and why do men have nipples?

I strongly recommend watching this series Inside natures giants

reply to post by chocise
Another example of a poster creatiing his own theory of evolution in order to refute it. Change is gradual. Not purely addition. The accumulation of changes over time does not in any way imply addition and only addition.

Intermediates is a word used by the uninformed and under-educated. With each new intermediate there are 2x intermediates waiting to be found, suggesting a continuum of change. Thus evolution is proven true.

If you go to any science museum you'll see a smooth gradient from our earlier ancestors 5 million years ago to modern humans. Why deny this? Why assume there are no "intermediates" when there is an abundance of such fossils? In what form should your "intermediates" be uncovered? Doesn't make sense.

reply to post by chocise

It is you who don't make any sense. Are you now disputing one of evolution's main premises – that the evolutionary process is an incremental gradual one? What is this 'addition and deletion and change of function of parts suddenly not' about? Where did you invoke that from?

You are such intellectually dishonest.. Look back into the thread:

You have posted claim that irreducible complexity contradicts evolution. I have shown that since there are mutations that delete parts, your claim is false. YOU have then claimed that mutations which delete parts somehow imply evolution is not "gradual" (whatever you mean by it), without any proof or explanation why you think such absurd thing. And when I counter you that I dont think your implication is valid, you accuse ME of implying it? Strawman fallacy. Learn to discuss things without logical fallacies and constantly shifting goal posts.

You've successfully failed to refute my claim: that your belief system is based on conjecture and is void of objectivity. – that it is just that: a theory. A theory which remains open to debate and continued research. And with that I will leave you, as this thread, like countless others before it, will rotate endlessly without any resolution.

I think the objective evidence posted systematically after every at least a little bit concrete claim of yours begs to differ.

reply to post by chocise


If you consider the theory of evolution a "belief", you have some reading to do

Here's a video in case you're lazy...



We also have the genetic record backing up human evolution, so we know we had a common ancestor with today's apes...and that the fossils we found match the theory.

Originally posted by vasaga
Isn't the nucleus a component of a cell?

In simple biology yes. In practise nucleus membranes often fuse with other internal membranes like the smooth and rough ER. Also it's not the nucleus what really matters, but the stuff that is inside it, especially the genomic DNA. You take that away and the cell can no longer regulate 99.9% its activities. This is why enucleated cells don't continue a normal existence but instead fall victim to relatively quick death.

Yes.. Lol.. If they remove your arm and leave you bleeding, and you die, it does not mean that you can't live without your arm. It means you can't live without blood. Same as the cell. It doesn't mean it can't live without genes. It means it can't live without proteins.

Reconsider the gene-protein divide. What are proteins? Are they not translated genes? Proteins are genes existing in an alternative chemical form. You take the original form (nucleotide sequence) away, and after that you'll have no more of the amino acid form.

The gene monitors its end product? O.o Not sure I follow.

It's ok. These concepts are often difficult to understand to even biologists.The most studied genetic regulatory system is the Lac operon. Feel free to ask if you don't understand something.

No they don't. All you've described is what genes produce under certain circumstances.. It doesn't mean they control anything..

Yes they do. What I've described is how genes control their own expression (look the above lac operon stuff). As for your article, it's a philosophical pondering about some concepts in developmental biology. Not so much related to our discussion at hand..

That's that, so, back to my question, what is life?

Life as we know it, or more like philosophical question, what is life?

For biological definition go here. As for the other.. I once had to write an essay about this for an astrobiology class. It was a long one. Also not at all relevant to our discussion here..

reply to post by rhinoceros


Ok, so basically, they don't know what life is, they know what life does. Is that correct?

reply to post by vasaga

So you agree with everything I said and admit that what you stated before (enucleated cells are happy as larry) is ridiculous?

As for not knowing what life is/does. I'm not so sure I follow you. We know what life is (atoms organized in a special way) and does (definition was already provided).

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by vasaga

 

So you agree with everything I said and admit that what you stated before (enucleated cells are happy as larry) is ridiculous?

I don't agree with it nor does the evidence support it, but, there's no point in arguing.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
As for not knowing what life is/does. I'm not so sure I follow you. We know what life is (atoms organized in a special way) and does (definition was already provided).

Oh but if you define life as atoms organized in a special way, you need to go way back than just the first cell. Also, something is not what it does.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Sorry it hit you where it hurts. And look it up, not an off hand reference.

Maybe you should add this to the top 10 facts.The brilliant biologist Craig Venter famous for his role in being one of the first to sequence the human genome and for his role in creating the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010 has now recently indicated he does NOT accept common ancestry.

Craig Venter denies common descent — Dawkins incredulous

Interesting story at Evolution News & Views about an exchange between Craig Venter (of human genome fame) and Richard Dawkins (of neo-atheist fame). Venter denies common descent, Dawkins can’t believe that he would even question it. For the exchange, which also includes Paul Davies, go here (start at the 9 minute mark). Origin-of-life researchers such as Ford Doolittle and Carl Woese have questioned for some time whether there even is a tree of life. Venter is now following in their train.

www.uncommondescent.com...

It seems the Darwinist creation myth is being unraveled by modern science.

reply to post by Bigwhammy
Well we've known about minor variants for 25 years or so. Many sexually reproducing organisms have alternate genetic codes associated with mitochondrial DNA, which perhaps suggest some early cell 3 billion years ago ingested a primitive form of mitochondria that at the time was its own organism. This might actually be sound evidence of the evolution of multi-cellular organisms through one cell ingesting another, that happened to have a slightly different genetic code.

These are all arguments concerning the various mechanisms resolving the theory of evolution, and only makes the theory stronger. More than one genetic code does not disprove evolution in anyway. It just demonstrates that LUCA may in fact be M-LUCAs (Many) or F-LUCAs (Few) that in some way fused over time. 30 years ago we had the graduated vs punctuated equilibrium argument, today its one genetic code vs one primary genetic code with a handful of small, albeit significant variants.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

He doesn't deny common descent (that would be a very irrational stance). He just calls the tree of life a bush of life which is correct because of the extensive horizontal gene transfer that probably went on some 4 billion years ago. The bush of life concept does not exclude common descent. It's just that the writer of the blog you're quoting clearly doesn't understand biology (probably the reason s/he is writing for a fundie website).