Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Science Disproves Evolution Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Science Disproves Evolution

    Mutations 3

    Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

    b. Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

    “Lethal mutations outnumber viaibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.” Winchester, p. 356.

    John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

    “... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

    However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

    “Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

    “The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ...” Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

    Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

    In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

    “Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.” Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1008854

  • #2
    Pahu is back with his cut and paste marathon from that website of his. My turn:

    "Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors. In 1856, a strange skull was found by some workmen in the Neander Valley in Germany. The odd appearance of the skull led some to believe that it had once belonged to a person who was afflicted with rickets. They did not believe it could have come from an ancestor of modern man. It did, however, form the notion that there could have been creatures that were half-human and half-ape. Ernst Heinrich, a German scientist, claimed that if such a creature were ever found it should be named Pithecanthropus erectus, which means upright apeman."

    "Even before the discovery of the skull, which is now known as Homo neanderthalensis, people hypothesized that there was some sort of transmutation that took place between species. This, however, was not widely accepted. On November 4, 1859, the view on evolution as a whole changed dramatically. This was the date that Charles Darwin published his work The Origin of Species. With the release of this work, the theory of human evolution became a bit more believable. The theory of natural selection was proposed by Darwin within The Origin of Species. This theory states that the physical traits of an organism are selected for according to the environment it lives in."

    "Darwin's theory piqued the interest of many scientists who went out in search of evidence which would branch the gap between apes and humans. In 1890, a Dutch physician by the name of Eugene Dubois found a low, apelike skull on the banks of a river in Java. Dubois also discovered a humanlike thigh bone near the skull. He concluded that this creature was the link between apes and humans which Heinrich hypothesized about. Other fossils began to be found which appeared to be transitional."

    "In 1925, Raymond Dart found a skull which was the first to be classified as Australopithecus. The skull looked apelike in appearance, but had humanlike teeth. Dart discovered the skull in a box of fossilized bones sent to him from Tuang. Mary and Louis Leakey also found a number of Australopithecine fossils. The Leakey's main area of focus was the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Another researcher, Donald Johanson, found similar fossils in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Johanson is credited with finding the fossil skeleton of "Lucy", an Australopithecus afarensis, which shows that ancestors of humans were walking upright at around 3.6 million years ago."

    "As the amount of finds increased, so did the number of species. Today, the family Hominidae (Bipedal Primates) has grown to include the genus': Ardipithecus, the most apelike hominids. Australopithecus, small-brained gracile hominids with mixed fruit/vegetable diet. Paranthropus, smalled-brained robust hominids with a grassland vegetable diet. Homo, large-brained hominids with an omnivorous diet. These are just brief descriptions of the genus given above. Below are some examples of the genus Australopithecus and Paranthropus that eventually led to the view of the Hominidae family we have today."

    "Even though these fossils had both human and ape characteristics, the apelike qualities outnumbered the human ones. Scientists sought to find fossils that were closer to modern man than the Australopithecines. In the early 1960's, Louis Leakey found what he thought was another P. boisei skull, however, the brain case was larger than previous finds. After collaboration with P.V. Tobias and J.R. Napier, he named the skull Homo habilis, which means "handy man". He came up with this name because of the tools found at the site of the skull. Leakey figured that the enlarged brain size made it possible for H. habilis to form tools according to how his/her mind perceived it should look like. Other species of this genus that were found include H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, and our own species, H. sapiens sapiens."

    http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...n/humevol.html

    Comment


    • #3
      they will never find an half ape half man nor hal man half demon that is follish to even think of it is all fantasy and nightmare telling.

      Comment


      • #4
        Dodge, that is an interesting article you shared. Those willing to accept any evidence for evolution will no doubt be swayed by the opinions expressed there. However, there are serious problems with those opinions.

        For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin.a Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.b

        Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.c

        It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.d

        Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakeye and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw.f Ramapithecus was just an ape.g [See Figure 13.]

        The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth. [See Figure 14.]

        Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.h

        Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.i Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.j

        The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportionsk and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).l

        The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes.m Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans.n Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.o One australopithecine fossil—a 31/2-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy—was initially presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She probably swung from the treesp and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees.q The australopithecines are probably extinct apes.r

        For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.s Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today.t Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.u

        Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

        For more details, go to the link for supporting scientific facts found in the footnotes:

        http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1418274

        Comment


        • #5
          Mutations 4

          Mutations 4

          No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

          c. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

          “It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” Ibid., p. 1186.

          “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

          “I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

          “It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

          “If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

          “Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

          http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1008854

          Comment


          • #6
            Pahu, you tend to overwhelm with massive quantities of information and highly technical scientific jargon. Why don't we talk about one thing at a time?

            For example, you, like so many creationsists, mention Java Man. Have you read Answers in Genesis' "Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use?" As they say, "Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral." If you are still using the Java Man argument, they say, you are not up-to-date.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...e.asp#java_man

            The fact is that "the skullcap definitely does not belong to any ape, and especially not to a gibbon." What is never mentioned by creationists is that this skull "is an almost complete cranium and is clearly human," although primitive. You are mislead, Pahu, by this creationist myth. "Knowledgeable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore."

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

            As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, "Java Man" (now known as Homo erectus erectus) is an extinct "member of the human lineage."

            Homo erectus erectus is of the same genus as modern man, having lived about two million years ago. "Java Man" is the first specimen of H. erectus.

            https://www.msu.edu/~robin400/erectus.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Next, the so-called "Piltdown Man." Yes, it was a hoax perpetuated by its "discoverer," Charles Dawson in 1912; but the forgery was exposed in The Times in 1953. Your suggesstion that modern textbooks continue to list Piltdown Man as a genuine artifact is false. Your sentance is misleading: "It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.d..." It was in textbooks between 1912 and 1953, yes; but has not been for more than fifty years. The great thing about the nature of science is that frauds and hoaxes always are exposed through peer-reviewed journals and accumulated research.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's very difficult to confront all your claims because there are so many of them all packed in together, Pahu; and each one is briefly stated as you go on to the next...with a link to your website and book. This is why we all know that you're not here for an exchange of ideas or a balanced debate. You are bombing these threads with bits and pieces, factoids, that is just about impossible to reply to because there are so many. Most of them are talking points that most creationists bring up, and can be responded to if you limited your subjects to one or two at a time...and wait for a response before continuing. Just a suggestion.

                As far as the subject of mutation and evolutionary theory, I would suggest you go to the excellent Berkely site where it is all explained much better than I could:

                http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Dodge, evidently, the sources you share are not the last word about Java Man. ThIs link contradicts the idea that he was human: http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dodge View Post
                    Next, the so-called "Piltdown Man." Yes, it was a hoax perpetuated by its "discoverer," Charles Dawson in 1912; but the forgery was exposed in The Times in 1953. Your suggesstion that modern textbooks continue to list Piltdown Man as a genuine artifact is false. Your sentance is misleading: "It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.d..." It was in textbooks between 1912 and 1953, yes; but has not been for more than fifty years. The great thing about the nature of science is that frauds and hoaxes always are exposed through peer-reviewed journals and accumulated research.
                    On the one hand you claim the forty years of the Piltdown Man forgery being accepted was false, and then in the next breath you say it was true between 1912 and 1953 (41 years). Who said anything about it still being in textbooks?

                    The important thing to notice, in my humble opinion, is the fact that some evolutionists will lie to convince the unsuspecting that evolution is a fact. It is true that scientific peer-reviewed journals and accumulated research do expose frauds and hoaxes, and that is what I am sharing--the scientifc expose of evolution.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dodge View Post
                      It's very difficult to confront all your claims because there are so many of them all packed in together, Pahu; and each one is briefly stated as you go on to the next...with a link to your website and book. This is why we all know that you're not here for an exchange of ideas or a balanced debate. You are bombing these threads with bits and pieces, factoids, that is just about impossible to reply to because there are so many. Most of them are talking points that most creationists bring up, and can be responded to if you limited your subjects to one or two at a time...and wait for a response before continuing. Just a suggestion.

                      As far as the subject of mutation and evolutionary theory, I would suggest you go to the excellent Berkely site where it is all explained much better than I could:

                      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
                      On the contrary, I am here precisely to share ideas from scientists who have made discoveries that disprove evolution, most of whom are not creationists, by the way. I am not a scientist myself, so I am better equipped to share their facts rather than my own uneducated opinions, which would be irrelevant and much easier to refute.

                      You may be rid of my after today since your administrator informed me he will no longer allow me to share scientific facts in this forum.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Fruit Flies

                        Fruit Flies

                        A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates

                        http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1048910

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Pahu, is lying something you do willingly? I have never said you cannot share facts, just not endless copying and pasting of opinions. You may state your own opinions and post links to sites supporting them. Those interested enough will go there and read the supporting evidence. Those that are not, will now be forced to wade through you mindless copying and pasting. Please, stop lying about my motives to end your mind numbing copying of others works.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Pahu, I get my information from reputable sources, like the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology, which is supported by the National Science Foundation.

                            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

                            You, on the other hand offer a link called the “True, Origin Archive” by the “Creation Ministries International.” This is a Christian apologetics website with a focus on “Young Earth Creationism.” It publishes “Creation Magazine” and the “Journal of Creation.”

                            Pahu, this is not where I would go to educate myself on the science of biological evolution. You are not “sharing the scientific expose of evolution.” What you are doing is defending young earth creationism with all the talking points coming from anti-evolution Bible-oriented websites such as your favorite one, the “Center for Scientific Creation,” owned and operated by the young earth creationist, Walter T. Brown, a crackpot who believes that Noah’s flood can be explained by his “hydroplate theory.” He wants people to believe that the waters came from subterranean layers in the Earth ten miles underground that were released by a rupture in the earth’s crust. This water, says Brown, shot up into the air and fell as rain.

                            And you expect us to get our science education from this guy? What are you, nuts?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Interestingly, the pseudo-science that is promoted among the non-academically trained Christian Science (CS) world has been proven to be unscientific over and again. 99.9% of those with the title "Dr." in the CS camp received their doctorate from either a CS Institute, or from an unaccredited degree mill. Thus, their web sites are filled with refuse which are neither academically sound, nor intellectually honest. I find Christian Science to be very disquieting.

                              Here is a real surprise: I am a Christian.
                              Last edited by bear; 06-13-2008, 01:35 AM. Reason: minor punctuation

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X