Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Mutations 2

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. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid., p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid., p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008 854

[phil_ur_friend]

And you will know the truth, And the truth will set you free.


Phil, your friend

[Evanescence]

*Yawns*

A "Christian, Creation" source?

Gee..that can't be biased....

Please....

[Mr.Supervious]

evolution isn't even science...if you can't observe it...then it isn't sciene!!!

its a religion

[phil_ur_friend]

*Yawns*

A "Christian, Creation" source?

Gee..that can't be biased....

Please....

Biased only by the Truth.
Thank You...

Phil, your friend

[VerbumReale]

*Yawns*

A "Christian, Creation" source?

Gee..that can't be biased....

Please....


Yeah because the anti-creationist crowd is so open-minded.:rolleyes:

Nothing like dismissing something as out of hand simply because the source it comes from.

And you get mad when someone dismisses some of your rantings as paranoid.

[mcgreen311]

evolution isn't even science...if you can't observe it...then it isn't sciene!!!

its a religion

Although, if evolution isn't science per se, can science disprove it?

[Greyshades]

$250,000 US to the one who proves evolution.


Here, try this:

Empty your garage of everything. Close the doors, and wait. Let me know if a Mercedes appears.

[Evanescence]

Please specifically define EVOLUTION...

Any scientific source needs to be independent...truly free from bias...

Christians aren't honest enough to discuss science...or anything else that remotely challenges their beliefs...

Thats why some churches are teaching the little kiddies that Noah's ark had dinosaurs on it....or that Dinosaur fossiles were made by demons to trick people.

Gee, imagine that...

[Howlin' Wolf]

Although, if evolution isn't science per se, can science disprove it?

good point.

however, evolution exists. if it did not, we would have cures for cancer and HIV.

[Les_Is_More]

good point.

however, evolution exists. if it did not, we would have cures for cancer and HIV.

I think the word evolution is too general. Macro and micro-evolution are two different types of evolution that people believe. Macro-evolution is Darwinism, one species evolves to another. Micro-evolution is small variation in a species.

I recommend a book written by Michael J. Behe, called Darwin's Black Box (http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313). He is a biochemist and discusses the problems with Darwinism at the complex cellular level.

[Greyshades]

I think the best answer I've heard for this is:

"God created each animal according to it's kind..."

The phrase "according to it's kind", does not rule out changes within species. Example: two different breeds of dogs mate, and you have a different breed. If this happens in the wild, and one breed moves into a climate that it's not used to, but yet it has some characteristics that are suitable for the environment, then, given time, this cross-breeding leads to a more adept species for that environment.

Nothing in the Bible account rules that out. There is both macro and micro-evolution.

What I have a problem with, is the evolution theory that says I came swinging from a tree. There is no proof whatsoever for this, and the only reason it's held up, is because people don't want to believe in God.

I don't trust any man who admits he came from a monkey.

Darwin himself said that if the "missing link" could not be found, then the whole theory should be thrown out. But, stubborn man insists on spending millions and billions of dollars to chase this fairytale, and runs farther from God, wasting time that is soon to end.

[Les_Is_More]

What I have a problem with, is the evolution theory that says I came swinging from a tree. There is no proof whatsoever for this, and the only reason it's held up, is because people don't want to believe in God.

I don't trust any man who admits he came from a monkey.

I wasn't clear on my beliefs. I don't believe in Darwinism(Macro-evolution). When I made that comment about micro and macro-evolution, I was just relating the types of evolution people believe in.

[Greyshades]

Yeah, we overlapped on our posts, and you provided the correct term, so I edited to get it in there.

Thanks.

[Mr.Supervious]

Although, if evolution isn't science per se, can science disprove it?

i never said science disproves it...because evolution just simply isn't science...its a religion

[Greyshades]

Indeed, and it takes a great deal of faith to believe in something that has no grounds in any proof whatsoever.

Think of what could be done if some of those were won to Christ.

[danbos]

Thats why some churches are teaching the little kiddies that Noah's ark had dinosaurs on it....or that Dinosaur fossiles were made by demons to trick people.

Actually, there's a very good chance that dinosaurs were just giant reptiles. Reptiles do not ever stop growing. So, if man lived to be 900 years old, why wouldn't animals have extra long lifespans as well. Imagine what a komodo dragon would look like if it were 10 times as big....a dinosaur.

[mcgreen311]

i never said science disproves it...because evolution just simply isn't science...its a religion

Oops. I was making a general statement and misinterpreted your post. So...I guess I was just agreeing with you...sort of. :)

What I have a problem with, is the evolution theory that says I came swinging from a tree. There is no proof whatsoever for this, and the only reason it's held up, is because people don't want to believe in God.

I don't trust any man who admits he came from a monkey.

Darwin himself said that if the "missing link" could not be found, then the whole theory should be thrown out. But, stubborn man insists on spending millions and billions of dollars to chase this fairytale, and runs farther from God, wasting time that is soon to end.

Admittedly I haven't studied this all that much, but I think it's more like they believe monkeys and humans have another common ancestor, not that humans came directly from monkeys.

Evolution as a theory does not satisfy me personally since it has no explanation for origins.

however, evolution exists. if it did not, we would have cures for cancer and HIV.

Right. Viruses mutate all the time, which is why you have to get a new flu vaccination every year. Actually, this makes me wonder about the statement from the article that mutations are normally deleterious and negatively affect viability. Virologically speaking mutations do enhance the viability of the virus. It only works negatively if the virus is so successful that it kills its host.

[phil_ur_friend]

Ask, and it will be given to you,
Seek and you will find,
Knock and it will be opened unto you...

Any scientist that has ever really,
Asked in truth-
Sought the real answer-
Knocked on the door of ALL possibilities-

This is the person that discovers that evolution is impossible-
And the only real possible answer to this question-
"Where did we all come from, and how did this all happen?"
Is, a Divine Creator.

Seek answers without denying all possibilities-You will find the TRUTH.

Phil, your (Creation Advocate) friend ;)

[Mr.Supervious]

Oops. I was making a general statement and misinterpreted your post. So...I guess I was just agreeing with you...sort of. :)


lol...its ok :) i do that all the time ;) lol :D

[Evanescence]

I think the best answer I've heard for this is:

"God created each animal according to it's kind..."

The phrase "according to it's kind", does not rule out changes within species. Example: two different breeds of dogs mate, and you have a different breed. If this happens in the wild, and one breed moves into a climate that it's not used to, but yet it has some characteristics that are suitable for the environment, then, given time, this cross-breeding leads to a more adept species for that environment.

Nothing in the Bible account rules that out.

What I have a problem with, is the evolution theory that says I came swinging from a tree. There is no proof whatsoever for this, and the only reason it's held up, is because people don't want to believe in God.

I don't trust any man who admits he came from a monkey.

Darwin himself said that if the "missing link" could not be found, then the whole theory should be thrown out. But, stubborn man insists on spending millions and billions of dollars to chase this fairytale, and runs farther from God, wasting time that is soon to end.


Good points and I agree...

Your last idea/point on the Missing Link is interesting. I believe this is why The Great Ape, BIGFOOT has not been disclosed by the lizards in Washington. It COULD open a Pandora's box with the timber lobby, greenies and people claiming we came from this Great Ape.

[Evanescence]

Ask, and it will be given to you,
Seek and you will find,
Knock and it will be opened unto you...

Any scientist that has ever really,
Asked in truth-
Sought the real answer-
Knocked on the door of ALL possibilities-

This is the person that discovers that evolution is impossible-
And the only real possible answer to this question-
"Where did we all come from, and how did this all happen?"
Is, a Divine Creator.

Seek answers without denying all possibilities-You will find the TRUTH.

Phil, your (Creation Advocate) friend ;)

The Bible is NOT a science book...even Bible worshippers and people who feel it is 100% accurate mostly agree with this. Its says God created...but not HOW...

[Greyshades]

It says God created...but not HOW...

Sure it does. John chapter 1, verse 3.

:D

My faith requires no more than to know that the One who redeemed me by His own blood, is the same one who only needed speak, and it was so. A faithless and perverse generation seeks a sign. Or, to put it another way, A faithless generation needs proof of everything before they'll believe it.

[Evanescence]

Sure it does. John chapter 1, verse 3.

:D

My faith requires no more than to know that the One who redeemed me by His own blood, is the same one who only needed speak, and it was so. A faithless and perverse generation seeks a sign. Or, to put it another way, A faithless generation needs proof of everything before they'll believe it.

Not even close...

And a blind bunch of religious fanatics lead the blind right off a cliff like sheep to the slaughter. Just like the ones who are still blind and lying for their wanna be canonized saint, George Bush.

Even proven lies can't sway their blind faith...

[Greyshades]

Wow...

Sorry you feel that every one is a fanatic.

My Bible says:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ~John 1:3

In Genesis, it says, He spoke, and it was so. How is that fanaticism?

Seems to me you just have a whole lotta problems, with a whole lotta things. That's not healthy man. All you talk about is what's wrong with everybody else. Are you doing anything to fix it, or just complaining?

[Evanescence]

Wow...

Sorry you feel that every one is a fanatic.

My Bible says:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ~John 1:3

In Genesis, it says, He spoke, and it was so. How is that fanaticism?

Seems to me you just have a whole lotta problems, with a whole lotta things. That's not healthy man. All you talk about is what's wrong with everybody else. Are you doing anything to fix it, or just complaining?

And you think anyone who questions is lost or decieved...

No, not everyone is a fanatic....but people who don't want to THINK...and/or use the GOD GIVEN common sense are often suseptable to radical ideas...AND religious fanatism is not alien to just Islam. Just ask the 10 million people killed by the catholic church in the 1000 yr period they ruled Europe.

Evolution and creation can go together...God may have created evolution. But, we have to define evolution first...which no one wants to do?

Complaining? No, its called informing....I turned off CNN and Fox news and started digging thru the guts of our history and Govt. Its amazing what you find when you slit the gut of a lizard and start rooting through it.

But....ohhhh boy, the smells?

[Jason]

But, we have to define evolution first...which no one wants to do?

Selective reading, E?

I think the word evolution is too general. Macro and micro-evolution are two different types of evolution that people believe. Macro-evolution is Darwinism, one species evolves to another. Micro-evolution is small variation in a species.

[Evanescence]

No just critical thinking...

How does science define evolution and how do WE define evolution?

I believe Gods creation evolves....just not like some evolutionists think they do.

I believe we've evolved as people....some bigger, some whiter, some smarter...but we didn't evolve from apes....

So, whose definition of evoltution do we go by?

[Jason]

How about just being stubborn?

[Evanescence]

How about just being stubborn?

Stubborness, denial and closemindedness can be all linked to bi-polar disorder....thats another topic.

Habits can also be broken...unless you're stubborn... :P

You sayin' some religious fanatics are stubborn?

Can't imagine that...:rolleyes:

[Jason]

You said no one gave a definition of evolution. When pointed out to you that someone did (and very good definitions too), you started on your "critical thinking" rant instead of either a) admitting you were wrong that no one gave a definition or b) responding to said definition.

[phil_ur_friend]

I believe Gods creation evolves....just not like some evolutionists think they do.

I believe we've evolved as people....some bigger, some whiter, some smarter...



The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us...

Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?


Phiiiiillllllllllaaaaaaal llllllllaaaaaaallllllllal lalalalalalalalalal:eek:

[Greyshades]

How about a more explanatory definition of how you feel about it E. That way you're not being narrowed in by narrow answers. It would help to understand what you're getting at.

I mean, you do leave a lot of room for interpretation with one sentence answers. It's hardly productive to do this, and then get uptight when someone interprets what you're saying in a way that you don't think is right.

I mean, seriously, you post a one sentence answer of your own, then when I turn around and produce a Scripture that answers the one inquisitory part of said sentence, you go off saying I think everyone who questions is lost or deceived, with comparisons to the blind leading the blind and George W. Bush.

How is that productive? If I were easily angered, I'd fall into the argument trap right away. Then, we'd be getting nowhere, in two short posts, and, if we were not stronger in spirit, we'd be beating a dead horse in four posts.

If you think you have a strong argument, let's hear it. Otherwise, what is really being accomplished here?

[in hiding]

science can't disprove or prove evolution as how all species were created. The only thing science can prove about it is the MECHANISM for how changes occur and that mechanism is applied on a continuum. The mechanism for change isn't up for debate or that changes occur isn't up for debate...the question, which can't be answered scientifically, is did all of those changes happen for millions of years and yield new animals, plants etc...?.
If someone holds to the belief of evolving organisms they do have solid ground for that belief b/c there is ample proof that things change and pass on the hereditary changes to the next generation. They just don't have proof of what changed when (which in my mind is a huge limitation). Evolution does make logical sense and it is a very well put together theory and won't be dismissed by a claim of "almost all changes that occur are negative and aren't good for said organism".
That being said, I find it very hard to believe that given enough time (millions of years) evolution could yield everything we have today...all the species, all the plant life, the designs of Earth. The bottom line for either side is faith. One side believes that if given enough time nature will do it's thing and develop species and the other side believes that God is powerful enough to create everything (I like that latter much better). But often times christians do themselves and other Christians a disservice by simply brushing evolutionary biology aside as incoherent.
*steps down off soapbox.

[Evanescence]

How about a more explanatory definition of how you feel about it E. That way you're not being narrowed in by narrow answers. It would help to understand what you're getting at.

I mean, you do leave a lot of room for interpretation with one sentence answers. It's hardly productive to do this, and then get uptight when someone interprets what you're saying in a way that you don't think is right.

I mean, seriously, you post a one sentence answer of your own, then when I turn around and produce a Scripture that answers the one inquisitory part of said sentence, you go off saying I think everyone who questions is lost or deceived, with comparisons to the blind leading the blind and George W. Bush.

How is that productive? If I were easily angered, I'd fall into the argument trap right away. Then, we'd be getting nowhere, in two short posts, and, if we were not stronger in spirit, we'd be beating a dead horse in four posts.

If you think you have a strong argument, let's hear it. Otherwise, what is really being accomplished here?

Its really simple.

If we're gonna talk about religion meets science, you CANNOT use a RELIGIOUS source to prove anything. Its a conflict of interest....but of course, people stare at it with starry eyes and ohhhsss and ahhhs...

The Bible cannot prove God created anything...nor can science prove evolution. If anything, science could prove creation...

But if we're gonna debate it, it needs to be with non-biased sources....thats just common sense. Me, I think science and creation go hand in hand. How much? I do not know. I guess we'll know it all when we die and stand before God....

[Evanescence]

science can't disprove or prove evolution as how all species were created. The only thing science can prove about it is the MECHANISM for how changes occur and that mechanism is applied on a continuum. The mechanism for change isn't up for debate or that changes occur isn't up for debate...the question, which can't be answered scientifically, is did all of those changes happen for millions of years and yield new animals, plants etc...?.
If someone holds to the belief of evolving organisms they do have solid ground for that belief b/c there is ample proof that things change and pass on the hereditary changes to the next generation. They just don't have proof of what changed when (which in my mind is a huge limitation). Evolution does make logical sense and it is a very well put together theory and won't be dismissed by a claim of "almost all changes that occur are negative and aren't good for said organism".
That being said, I find it very hard to believe that given enough time (millions of years) evolution could yield everything we have today...all the species, all the plant life, the designs of Earth. The bottom line for either side is faith. One side believes that if given enough time nature will do it's thing and develop species and the other side believes that God is powerful enough to create everything (I like that latter much better). But often times christians do themselves and other Christians a disservice by simply brushing evolutionary biology aside as incoherent.
*steps down off soapbox.

A great post, thanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr.Supervious]

Its really simple.

If we're gonna talk about religion meets science, you CANNOT use a RELIGIOUS source to prove anything. Its a conflict of interest....but of course, people stare at it with starry eyes and ohhhsss and ahhhs...

The Bible cannot prove God created anything...nor can science prove evolution. If anything, science could prove creation...

But if we're gonna debate it, it needs to be with non-biased sources....thats just common sense. Me, I think science and creation go hand in hand. How much? I do not know. I guess we'll know it all when we die and stand before God....

i don't see how you can need proof...the only proof we need is that God said He created everything...so that should be the best proof that we could ever have

[Evanescence]

i don't see how you can need proof...the only proof we need is that God said He created everything...so that should be the best proof that we could ever have


Its not proof.....the bible doesn't prove antyhing...

I believe....but that doesn't prove or disprove anything....

I DO NOT believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old though....

[Greyshades]

I think I'm getting seasick.

In the beginning God created... that's all I need to know. Since all Scripture is inspired of God, I can take His word for it. It stands the test of time, every time. You cannot say the same for science.

That's not to say I won't listen. But, faith is, after all, hope in things not yet seen. Call me crazy, but you're right, God will sort it out. I think it'll work right out just like He said it did, and would, and will.

[Evanescence]

I think I'm getting seasick.

In the beginning God created... that's all I need to know. Since all Scripture is inspired of God, I can take His word for it. It stands the test of time, every time. You cannot say the same for science.

That's not to say I won't listen. But, faith is, after all, hope in things not yet seen. Call me crazy, but you're right, God will sort it out. I think it'll work right out just like He said it did, and would, and will.

Your not crazy....I believe that you believe and we all believe that we believe, but we can believe what we want. Believe me?

Do you believe that the thousands of eyewitness accounts over the past 100 years, of a giant ape in North America? He is known by some as Bigfoot or the Great Ape.

[Greyshades]

Do you believe that the thousands of eyewitness accounts over the past 100 years, of a giant ape in North America? He is known by some as Bigfoot or the Great Ape.

Gigantopithicus, or however you spell that...

Yeah... um... no, I don't. I don't believe there's a Loch Ness Monster, or a Orang Pendek, or a "Champ", or an Abominable Snowman, or a tooth fairy, or a Santa Claus who still lives and fits his fat butt down my chimney.

What I do believe, is that certain scientists have wasted waaaay too much money chasing fairy tales.

Pointless searches. Besides, who cares if there is one of any of those. It has nothing to do with my salvation, or the work I've been called to do by God.

And no, if they found one tomorrow, it would not change the way I feel about what I read in the Bible.

[Evanescence]

Gigantopithicus, or however you spell that...

Yeah... um... no, I don't. I don't believe there's a Loch Ness Monster, or a Orang Pendek, or a "Champ", or an Abominable Snowman, or a tooth fairy, or a Santa Claus who still lives and fits his fat butt down my chimney.

What I do believe, is that certain scientists have wasted waaaay too much money chasing fairy tales.

Pointless searches. Besides, who cares if there is one of any of those. It has nothing to do with my salvation, or the work I've been called to do by God.

And no, if they found one tomorrow, it would not change the way I feel about what I read in the Bible.

I don't believe in fairy tales but I do respect and believe in my fellow man...esp when they have no agenda.

There's about 20,000 reported sightings of the Great Ape over the past 100-125 yrs. Most in the past 50. Could be the Ginatisarusiiss guy...I don't know.

I do know that overwhelming eyewitness accounts have to lead to soemthing...it aint always drunks or hoaxes.

It won't change what I believe in God..or the spirit world. We can virtually PROVE the spirit world through science...and thats pretty cool. But, its extra credit....

[Greyshades]

I can respect that.

Not to argue, but even the no agenda side has a side, if it's against what God has taught us.

Did we shoot the evolution horse here?

[Evanescence]

No...I don't think about it much....evolution that is.

I think God set up earth like a fish tank or terrarium. Get junk growing and set the place up for some cool critters...when she's ready, we'll add to it. We were some of the last. Had to get rid of the Dinosaurs so they don't eat us up...

I DO believe the world is millions of yrs old...perhaps billions, i dunno. Man? I do not know....not very long. If we were here for millions of yrs, we would have destroyed ourseleves already...

The earth was VERY different during the Dino period.....thats easily proven. very wet, humid and tropical for them critters to thrive. They long since died off.

Ever wonder why we never find MODERN critters among the Dinos? Thats cause they weren't around...it was a different time period.

Critical thinking.

[Greyshades]

Critical thinking, tied with Scriptural knowledge says that it didn't rain before the time of Noah. Basically, the earth was what you say, a terrarium. Couple that with how long men were living, and you could reason that animals were also growing at rates we simply don't see now.

Ever do the "nuclear family" math from the time of Noah to now? If eight got off the boat, and reproduced at that rate, 2.5 kids (gotta love that .5), the earth's population today would be 6.6 billion.

At any rate, I do know this: That no matter how old this earth is, it will be destroyed, and He'll give us a new one. Along with a new heavens. And I'm gonna ask for a pet dinosaur, 'cause they probably ate leaves before the time of Noah. At least, that's what God commanded all the creepy crawly things to do.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

The Supernatural by its very definition can't be scientifically proven. You demean it, more than anything.