The latest evolution lie world roll out! [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : The latest evolution lie world roll out!

miracles

20-05-2009, 12:53 PM

tusme

20-05-2009, 01:02 PM

I've got to agree with you on this one, mate!! ;) http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

miracles

20-05-2009, 01:21 PM

yay, good old tsume's back. :)

uncia

20-05-2009, 02:01 PM

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:03 PM

I see Adam as the first man with moral accountability to God,and Eve as the first woman. The word "Adam" infers a complete man. All men with moral accountability are descended from Adam and Eve.

There might have been men like creatures before Adam who were imbued with no moral accountability, being only regarded by God as animals.

I don't know what you are calling the "lie" here.

No there weren't men like creatures before Adam, get up off me with that trip man. You know darm well what I'm calling the lie here pal! Beetle off.

ex_anser_ovo

20-05-2009, 02:09 PM

I hope it gets under your skin more and more each day, miracles.
Where what your mind is so certain of, conflicts with everything existence throws at it day after day.
This is your defiance's reward. For the rest of eternity.

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:10 PM

I hope it gets under your skin more and more each day miracles.
For the rest of eternity.
Where what your brain deems certain of conflicts with everything exists throws at it. This is your ego's reward.

Thank you ever so much, and God bless you richley with joy peace happiness and salvation.

ex_anser_ovo

20-05-2009, 02:12 PM

I'm not here to make you feel good.
Only a bomb shelter and a bible will do that for you now. :(

uncia

20-05-2009, 02:18 PM

No there weren't men like creatures before Adam, get up off me with that trip man. You know darm well what I'm calling the lie here pal! Beetle off.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

lovinglight

20-05-2009, 02:20 PM

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:33 PM

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Check out Genisis.

I dont need wickedpedia - your a wind up merchant aren't you, thats your kick isnt it?

uncia

20-05-2009, 02:35 PM

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:36 PM

I'm not here to make you feel good.
Only a bomb shelter and a bible will do that for you now. :(

Wow, what a lovely lady, I'm glad we've met. If it wasnt for some one like David Icke having the kindness to allow people on here free, we might never have met. I love serendipitous moments like that dont you? Im married though, but we can still be friends.:D

tusme

20-05-2009, 02:36 PM

yay, good old tsume's back. :)
:) Truth is everywhere, yet, never goes anywhere...!! ;) :p

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:40 PM

:) Truth is everywhere, yet, never goes anywhere...!! ;) :p

A bit like our discussions: :D

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:44 PM

Yeah its a firm stamp to your thinking and all of ours to keep the negative energy flowing stronger... Stay on track and keep the light held in the most darkest place on earth, other peoples minds.

Right! Shoot the messenger. Whats with this "keep the negative energy in people minds crap? Bit negative dont you think?

uncia

20-05-2009, 02:53 PM

Check out Genisis.

I dont need wickedpedia - your a wind up merchant aren't you, thats your kick isnt it?
No account of how man was created here:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

nor here

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The only thing that separates man from the animals is being in the image of God, which I presume relates to God breathing life into his nostrils. Now plainly that does not infer having two legs and two arms. What it means is having the capacity to know good and evil.

It was the six day creationists who made Christianity the laughing stick of atheists in the 19th century, and it was the Catholic church with their sun goes round the earth belief which made Christianity the laughing stick of atheists in the 17th and 18th centuries. You know its people who account themselves infallible in their beliefs who are usually wrong.

The bible never mentions evolution. Never mentions the millions of species that had already died out by the time it became to be written. To use the bible as a scientific text book is to misuse it.

miracles

20-05-2009, 02:55 PM

No account of how man was created here:

nor here

The only thing that separates man from the animals is being in the image of God, which I presume relates to God breathing life into his nostrils. Now plainly that does not infer having two legs and two arms. What it means is having the capacity to know good and evil.

It was the six day creationists who made Christianity the laughing stick of atheists in the 19th century, and it was the Catholic church with their sun goes round the earth belief which made Christianity the laughing stick of atheists in the 17th and 18th centuries. You know its people who account themselves infallible in their beliefs who are usually wrong.

The bible never mentions evolution. Never mentions the millions of species that had already died out by the time it became to be written. To use the bible as a scientific text book is to misuse it.

what ever you say fella.

zero1

20-05-2009, 03:20 PM

The science boffins are speculators, guessers @ history, seeking to mould a fictitious past out of dust and bone. Whilst evolution happens, and holds the answers to the origins of our physical forms, it says nothing about soul, spirit or consciousness. Anyone who seeks to present you with a vision of history that is not stranger than fiction is a liar and a fraudster. We did not evolve from a lower species or an ape; our physical forms came forth from the ocean 3.5 million years ago (or thereabouts) and soujourning on land, evolved the complex cognitive abilities and higher awarenesses which birthed the race of "Adams & Eves" of which we are descendent. It's really more complicated than that, but that simplified version of it is still essentially the bare fact of the matter.

I leave the Boffins to their dust and bones and relics of matter, they will find only what they seek, see what they want to see anyway; that is their way.

lhaull

20-05-2009, 03:27 PM

miracles

20-05-2009, 03:30 PM

Question, do you fine people ever go to other sections of these forums and read the research others have done and are doing?
There is a lot of talk about the idea that humans were actually genetically manipulated to become what we know as human today, made in the image of 'The Gods' Those who did the manipulation.
I was wondering if you ever venture into those realms of possibility?

who me? If so, yes I'm very interested in everything like that. What is the best thread topic on here you can recommend?

I like the crop circle forums, and all the illuminati subliminal programming stuff. This place is full of fascionating info and links to youtube videos etc. I think some people on here are physics geniuses and stuff like that. Those guys are interesting. Ive been reading up on what the raelians believe too. Thats pretty freaky stuff.

manxboz

20-05-2009, 03:34 PM

The evolution theory has to many flaws in it, it is accepted today by many as it is an argument against religion. Alot of scienctists don't beleive in evolution.

truth is your job

20-05-2009, 03:41 PM

The evolution theory has to many flaws in it, it is accepted today by many as it is an argument against religion. Alot of scienctists don't beleive in evolution.

I don't get it why it is used as an argument against religion. It's those kind of people who seem to be trigger happy when they find something that 'could' debunk religion, yet their views only go against any fundamentalist literally taken religious scripture.

No well known religious book said the earth is flat, or that the earth is 6000 years old or that humans have always looked the same since day 1.

Now they've found a skellie and sprout things as ''missing link''..
Interesting to notice, but there are NEVER missing links, where are all the half this - half that species these days? Where are the reptiles with little mammalian fur or where do we see any catdog ancestor? (No, not the cartoon)

tusme

20-05-2009, 03:46 PM

A bit like our discussions: :D
Hmm, "too deep" for your liking...? :D

uncia

20-05-2009, 03:48 PM

Where are the reptiles with little mammalian fur or where do we see any catdog ancestor? (No, not the cartoon)

It is a problem, to be sure. The thing is though, when you are dealing with time periods of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, such periods are so astronomical to anything that we know, that anything might or might not have happened. There are obviously thousands upon thousands of missing links in the evolutionary chain, but at least the evolutionists can say the time period was such that evolution was possible in it.

In the space of the last 1000 years, we know that the average height of men in the UK has increased by about six inches or so.

tusme

20-05-2009, 03:54 PM

The bible never mentions evolution. Never mentions the millions of species that had already died out by the time it became to be written. To use the bible as a scientific text book is to misuse it.
I do not speak for science, however, to equate GOD Spirit Truth energy to mere Words, imho, could also be interpreted as, "misuse"...

miracles

20-05-2009, 03:55 PM

Hmm, "too deep" for your liking...? :D

emmm - No!:D

lovinglight

20-05-2009, 04:01 PM

Right! Shoot the messenger. Whats with this "keep the negative energy in people minds crap? Bit negative dont you think?

Hi sorry i belive i did not say that quote but i feel what you were trying to say and i was only reiterating what you said in your first post. See i to think that its a lie that we came from this creature, but i ask myself why do they want you to belive its true?.

For me i know that when i read about this story its like they are telling me its the truth. So to me they do what religion does sell you something that not quite true. I learned who i am from deep relaxation and lucid dreaming. But there are a lot of people spending there life looking for answers but never find them. Its these people that i feel for and having a story like this to complicate the searching only goes to the negative energies that control the masses.

miracles

20-05-2009, 04:16 PM

Hi sorry i belive i did not say that quote but i feel what you were trying to say and i was only reiterating what you said in your first post. See i to think that its a lie that we came from this creature, but i ask myself why do they want you to belive its true?.

For me i know that when i read about this story its like they are telling me its the truth. So to me they do what religion does sell you something that not quite true. I learned who i am from deep relaxation and lucid dreaming. But there are a lot of people spending there life looking for answers but never find them. Its these people that i feel for and having a story like this to complicate the searching only goes to the negative energies that control the masses.

Cool, I see where your coming form. Sorry about that. Cheers.

zero1

20-05-2009, 06:58 PM

lizzy

20-05-2009, 07:20 PM

Yes. For genetic manipulation to have occured, a form (being) must have existed to be manipulated. Ergo, humans today in present form represent the 'product' of evolution both natural and artificial.
hi zero1
This is how I see it too......a breeding / eugentics program yes....extraterrestial intervention ....no.

zero1

20-05-2009, 08:14 PM

hi zero1
This is how I see it too......a breeding / eugentics program yes....extraterrestial intervention ....no.

Why not extraterrestrial intevention? Why do you rule that out?

lizzy

20-05-2009, 10:12 PM

Why not extraterrestrial intevention? Why do you rule that out?

b/c all the markers can be found here.. in are own prehistoric reptilian brains..

possible , just not probable, imho.;).....

zero1

20-05-2009, 11:35 PM

b/c all the markers can be found here.. in are own prehistoric reptilian brains..possible , just not probable, imho.;).....

OK, hon. That's as reasonable and informed an opinion as one can have, since the real high sciences behind science itself aren't revealed to us.

deadskinball

21-05-2009, 03:55 AM

I hope for your sake miracles you don't end up in hospital and contract one of the superbugs (aka MRSA), for you deny evolution yet, MSRA came about directly from bad human practices to eradicate the lesser strands of SA.

Now look what we have got. A bug that evolved from our weak defense which we used before. I guess you can pray to your jeezus to make you better for you are not allowed to acknowledge the MRSA is making you sick since you plainly stated (before) that evolution is a fabrication, hence, MRSA does not exist!

...but if you do accept medication, then you're a hypocrite.

---

To deny evolution is to admit to being an indoctrinated idiot with critical thinking skills either not devoloped enough to an adult standard, or thoroughly smashed to pieces by brainwashing.

torus

21-05-2009, 04:25 AM

Wow, what a lovely lady, I'm glad we've met. If it wasnt for some one like David Icke having the kindness to allow people on here free, we might never have met. I love serendipitous moments like that dont you? Im married though, but we can still be friends.:D

Canadian women and grace....the two rarely go together.

miracles

21-05-2009, 06:11 AM

miracles

21-05-2009, 06:13 AM

Canadian women and grace....the two rarely go together.

:D Youve had those serendipitous experiences too then huh?

element

21-05-2009, 10:22 AM

To deny evolution is to admit to being an indoctrinated idiot with critical thinking skills either not devoloped enough to an adult standard, or thoroughly smashed to pieces by brainwashing.
Oh my fuck...:rolleyes:

Let me first say I do believe there is some evolution at work, but people have the right to be sceptical about it (yes, even deny it) when then are so many missing links around. As said earlier in this thread, we only find whole animals everywhere, not half reptile-mammal etc. which, with the process of slowly evolution, we should absolutely see such species.

It's a theory, and sometimes it sounds good and sometimes it sounds garbage.

It's the 'year of Darwin', and the establishment will do anything to pump it into the people. I suspect we'll see more of these stories this year.:)

miracles

21-05-2009, 11:00 AM

Oh my fuck...:rolleyes:

Let me first say I do believe there is some evolution at work, but people have the right to be sceptical about it (yes, even deny it) when then are so many missing links around. As said earlier in this thread, we only find whole animals everywhere, not half reptile-mammal etc. which, with the process of slowly evolution, we should absolutely see such species.

It's a theory, and sometimes it sounds good and sometimes it sounds garbage.

It's the 'year of Darwin', and the establishment will do anything to pump it into the people. I suspect we'll see more of these stories this year.:)

The YEAR? of Darwin. of Lordy, we'll be getting a smorgesborg of it!

tusme

21-05-2009, 11:03 AM

uncia

21-05-2009, 11:07 AM

Interesting post Deadskinball...

What I simply cannot get my head around, re, "evolution" is, the fact that all sorts primates still exist in their "original state"...!? :confused:

Yet, how is it, over all these "millions of years", they have not evolved...!? :confused:
Because not all evolve in the same way, being conditioned by environment. If one is is located in one's perfect environment for one's species, one will not evolve. One only evolves if it makes sense to do so.

Also there seems to be the issue, that if one evolves toward a point, say Point A, then once one starts out to Point A, it precludes evolution to Point B. Thus whilst it seems that chimps and Neandertals look similar, they are actually species that have taken different evolutionary paths. A chimp could never evolve into a Neandertal because its ancestors chose a different evolutionary path.

Thus a mammoth did not evolve into an elephant and wasn't ever capable of doing so. Rather they had common ancestors, millions of years ago.

... or so the theory goes, one presumes.

tusme

21-05-2009, 11:41 AM

Because not all evolve in the same way, being conditioned by environment. If one is is located in one's perfect environment for one's species, one will not evolve. One only evolves if it makes sense to do so.

Also there seems to be the issue, that if one evolves toward a point, say Point A, then once one starts out to Point A, it precludes evolution to Point B. Thus whilst it seems that chimps and Neandertals look similar, they are actually species that have taken different evolutionary paths. A chimp could never evolve into a Neandertal because its ancestors chose a different evolutionary path.

Thus a mammoth did not evolve into an elephant and wasn't ever capable of doing so. Rather they had common ancestors, millions of years ago.

... or so the theory goes, one presumes.
Hi Uncia,

Thanks for trying, but, I'm still not convinced...!?

If "evolution" is a natural phenomenon, then, Apes should have evolved from their current state...imho.

uncia

21-05-2009, 01:14 PM

Hi Uncia,

Thanks for trying, but, I'm still not convinced...!?

If "evolution" is a natural phenomenon, then, Apes should have evolved from their current state...imho.
No. In their natural environment, in Africa, where they are found, they have no need to evolve into anything. They are quite happy swinging from the trees and eating whatever is in their environment.

I think I am right in saying that, sea excepted, man is the only land based creature that has learned to overcome his environment without evolving further, though even in that, there are clearly environmentally conditioned differences between blacks and whites. Thus Genesis says man rules over the animals.

kingmonkey

21-05-2009, 01:20 PM

The evolution theory has to many flaws in it, it is accepted today by many as it is an argument against religion. Alot of scienctists don't beleive in evolution.

Any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution shouldn't call himself a scientist. They might not all believe in Darwinian evolution (although most do), but most if not all believe in evolution of some sort. Most people who don't believe in evolution don't understand it. Or just don't want to accept it.

It's already been said on here that we evolved from apes, which is not really true. That's not how it works. Same as the croco-duck thing; where are the half and halfs if we evolved? This would actually disprove darwinism, not validate it. Darwinism is based on small cumulative changes; a big change like this would prove him wrong.

tusme

21-05-2009, 03:22 PM

No. In their natural environment, in Africa, where they are found, they have no need to evolve into anything. They are quite happy swinging from the trees and eating whatever is in their environment.
:D Well, I still can't see why, "evolution" is so inconsistent, that it seemingly, "stops" right where it is at present, re, apes...!? :confused:

I think I am right in saying that, sea excepted, man is the only land based creature that has learned to overcome his environment without evolving further, though even in that, there are clearly environmentally conditioned differences between blacks and whites. Thus Genesis says man rules over the animals.
Hmm, as if "evolution" ain't a big enough problem already, now you're seeking to sub-divide and find justification for it too :confused:...those are all hypothesise, my friend...

This Physical realm is finite, thus, whatever evolutionary capabilities (mechanical or not) mankind possesses, it will always be restricted to those conditions...!!

Truth is, whatever fossilised evidence may have been unearthed (to "validate" our earliest existence), will never conclusively prove mankind's origins...thats a fact!!

Imho, mankind's origins exist within the Spirit Truth realm...I would prefer it that way too :)...if mankind is this arrogant in it's ignorance...how could it be trusted knowing such Truth...!? :eek: :)

j35p3r4d0

21-05-2009, 03:41 PM

The latest world roll out of the evolution lie. On the news tonight we find that a 47 million year old fossil has been discovered (right!) which is being touted as an ancient great great great etc aunt of man. Then I go to log on and see that google have already adopted the graphic of the fossil in the google font. Co-incidence? I dont think so. I'm freaken sick of this bullshit.

Oh and they have been keeping it hidden for 20 years. Right! Well what does 20 years matter after 47 million years anyway.

This is an extremly slick world wide roll out by the powers that be to perpetuate this evil lie.

Look, speaking as constructively as I'm contextually able:

I don't happen to think you're viewing your reality with much more than indoctrinated dogma and a wholly un-objective viewpoint if you're going to state blankly that evolution is 'a lie'.

Regardless of how you view the science, you need to separate religious theology from material based science, because the latter is entirely based upon what can be physically proven, and is just not going to coincide at all with how you view your obviously Christian reality.

Secondly, I don't seem to understand how suggesting sarcastically that the worlds foremost search engine making topical motifs ISN'T NOT a coincidence. Of course it's not coincidence, it's observable headline news. It's what they do (collect and channel information)

I'm not saying the world ISN'T run by a bunch of hierarchical socio-paths with entitlement issues, but your blind religious ideology screams unresolved personal conflicts. It's not a big task to reconcile theology with science, Step back from your own issues, for god sake. (pun intended)

Thirdly, on the facts so poorly relayed by yourself. It is described as the "great great aunt" of humanity, because it represents a possibly and probably 'parallel evolution' of a similar root species that we may also have branched from. No one ever said 'we are evolved from said monkey-cat-fossil".

Fourthly, again on the facts, it's been in a private collection, unknown largely to science for 20 years, that's coincidence, not some conspiracy.

frankly i'd call the reasoning you apply to send yourself to such disarray the conspiracy, Work to resolve your own ideological and observational conflicts and view the information objectively, and what's more, pay attention.

As far as I see it, if you can't reconcile this sort of thing with more than 'god is testing us" mentalities, you're not a very good Christian. No offence.

kingmonkey

21-05-2009, 03:48 PM

Well, I still can't see why, "evolution" is so inconsistent, that it seemingly, "stops" right where it is at present, re, apes...!?

Humans have also "stopped" at present...Humans and apes have evolved along different paths but on a similar timeline.

Apes and humans have stopped evolving for a similar reason, which is most genetic mutations are detremental to a species; so individuals/groups within a species who have negative mutations will die out, and the ones who have postive mutations, that benefit them in some way will have them improved upon (over time) via natural selection. But this only matters if it improves an organisms ability to perform a task. For example, apes could have evolved to be an inch taller than they were, but it won't particularly make any difference in their lives. For this to evolve into say, 20 foot apes, there would need to be a reason for the taller ones to breed with other taller ones, this would be natural selection breeding the smaller ones out due to a certain catalyst (trees growing bigger or less lower branches for food for ex. )

Unless something happens to make a certain trait more useful, it won't be "bred" into the wider group any more than existing traits would.

j35p3r4d0

21-05-2009, 03:53 PM

Well, I still can't see why, "evolution" is so inconsistent, that it seemingly, "stops" right where it is at present, re, apes...!?

the reason evolution appears to have 'stopped' as you put it at higher apes, is because there is only room for so many species of higher-order apes on this planet,for the same reason there are no Neanderthals alive today, we out-competed them, in the same way mass farming and global economics destroys developing nations, and the same reason gorillas are hunted almost to extinction by humans.

secondly, it would take in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years for the apes around today to evolve to a level comparable adequately to us, Time doesn't fly that fast, mister "evolution is inconsistent" man

You ability to understand and apply it is "inconsistent".

Physical realm is finite

Hah, that's a good one buddy, The space habitable on this planet is finite. Material reality is so vast that it defies measurement, friend. Also Mechanised technology is not an "evolutionary capability", it is an industrial capability.

Imho, mankind's origins exist within the Spirit Truth realm

a most humble opinion, but wait, there's more!

don't go selling out to spiritual hodgepodges friend, you might like to consider yourself "manifest particulate of the universal truth and highest energy", but i consider that one big ego-wank, especially splashing it around like that.

I would prefer it that way too

mankind is this arrogant in it's ignorance

YOU are arogant in your ignorance, perhaps you should explore the issue some more, no? Blind conclusions got us where we are today, and look how that's going.....

WISE UP ON DEM, BROTHAMAN, YEEUH! YEEUH!

element

21-05-2009, 06:53 PM

Evolution is preached like a gospel, and if you don't accept it you're happily ridiculed and harassed by some first class sewage defenders.

It's still not demonstrated in the lab that a new species comes into existence by evolution. No evidence at all, it's a hypothesis. It can't be proven nor disproven.
We see full seperate species only, not half reptile-mammal and the like.

I'm not against the idea of evolution, in fact, I'm open to the possibility, in some ways it can make sense, but the way it is being preached like a gospel tells more about the people that have faith in it, then about the quality of the hypothesis self.

.

kingmonkey

21-05-2009, 06:58 PM

We see full seperate species only, not half reptile-mammal and the like.

A half reptile - mammal would disprove Darwinism, not prove it. The differences are minute and cumulative from generation to generation over thousands/millions of years. There would be some small part that was mammalian or reptilian in the opposite creature; like we have the reptilian part of our brain. The problem is brains and organs decompose, so if the "hybrid" part is in the fleshy bit of an organism, it's more than likely lost forever.

ex_anser_ovo

21-05-2009, 07:27 PM

Evolution is about an organism's capacity to adapt to change.
An organism with a smaller frequency of generations, such as a longer gestation period, and whose environment allows it to remain the same, isn't going to change that much, because there is little demand, and little opportunity for it to become more flexible.

Capitalism, for example takes advantage of this nature, by striving to culture a competitive environment in order to promote the most rapid advancement of a society. Industries which cannot adapt to the ebb and flow of the market's demands, will die a slow death.

Even the latest experiments attempting to cultivate RNA, are using a similar environment in order to induce more flexible combinations of elements.

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

Existence simply rewards flexible entities with greater chances of survival in a dynamic environment. And flexible entities, who produce more flexible offspring, will have a greater degree of success within a dynamic environment, with each subsequent generation.

And the theory of evolution is in no way incompatible with the concept of god.
Who ever said that god has to run existence in a way that is parallel to how people simply feel and think existence should be handled. Throughout history institutions who have stubbornly thought and felt everything should be this way, or that way, even when the environmental indicators were opposing them, have suffered humiliating downfalls.

If a certainty in something, is met with adversity from the environment, then seek to become more flexible. Evolution is a theory that is open to amendment, and because of that, it is going to last a long while.

tusme

21-05-2009, 10:33 PM

Humans have also "stopped" at present...Humans and apes have evolved along different paths but on a similar timeline.

Apes and humans have stopped evolving for a similar reason, which is most genetic mutations are detremental to a species; so individuals/groups within a species who have negative mutations will die out, and the ones who have postive mutations, that benefit them in some way will have them improved upon (over time) via natural selection. But this only matters if it improves an organisms ability to perform a task. For example, apes could have evolved to be an inch taller than they were, but it won't particularly make any difference in their lives. For this to evolve into say, 20 foot apes, there would need to be a reason for the taller ones to breed with other taller ones, this would be natural selection breeding the smaller ones out due to a certain catalyst (trees growing bigger or less lower branches for food for ex. )

Unless something happens to make a certain trait more useful, it won't be "bred" into the wider group any more than existing traits would.
So what you're saying, regions such as East Asia and Africa, for example, are "positive mutations"...!? :confused: :)

kingmonkey

21-05-2009, 10:40 PM

So what you're saying, regions such as East Asia and Africa, for example, are "positive mutations"...!? :confused: :)

No. I'm not even sure how you would arrive at that from what I said.

Humans have also "stopped" at present...Humans and apes have evolved along different paths but on a similar timeline.

Apes and humans have stopped evolving for a similar reason, which is most genetic mutations are detremental to a species; so individuals/groups within a species who have negative mutations will die out, and the ones who have positive mutations, that benefit them in some way will have them improved upon (over time) via natural selection. But this only matters if it improves an organisms ability to perform a task. For example, apes could have evolved to be an inch taller than they were, but it won't particularly make any difference in their lives. For this to evolve into say, 20 foot apes, there would need to be a reason for the taller ones to breed with other taller ones, this would be natural selection breeding the smaller ones out due to a certain catalyst (trees growing bigger or less lower branches for food for ex. )

Unless something happens to make a certain trait more useful, it won't be "bred" into the wider group any more than existing traits would.

tusme

21-05-2009, 11:33 PM

the reason evolution appears to have 'stopped' as you put it at higher apes, is because there is only room for so many species of higher-order apes on this planet,for the same reason there are no Neanderthals alive today, we out-competed them, in the same way mass farming and global economics destroys developing nations, and the same reason gorillas are hunted almost to extinction by humans.
Only mankind will be so stupid to think, it can "out-competed" itself...

My friend, whether you like it or not, you're still a Neanderthal...!! :D

secondly, it would take in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years for the apes around today to evolve to a level comparable adequately to us, Time doesn't fly that fast, mister "evolution is inconsistent" man

You ability to understand and apply it is "inconsistent".
You're abit of a comedian, aren't you...!?

Could your "brilliant mind" actually understand and apply the notion that, rather than "evolving", mankind is actually de-volving..!? :eek:

Hmm, thought so...!? :)

Hah, that's a good one buddy, The space habitable on this planet is finite. Material reality is so vast that it defies measurement, friend. Also Mechanised technology is not an "evolutionary capability", it is an industrial capability.
Is that an excuse or a justification of evolution...!? :confused:

Hmm, time really does move fast, where your concerned, doesn't it...? :D Earlier, you referred to it as "out-competed" (the Neanderthals), yet now, it's called, "industrial capability"...!? :eek: :D

a most humble opinion, but wait, there's more!

don't go selling out to spiritual hodgepodges friend, you might like to consider yourself "manifest particulate of the universal truth and highest energy", but i consider that one big ego-wank, especially splashing it around like that.
Pffft..."there's more"!? Hmm, told you, you're still a Neanderthal...!! :D

YOU are arogant in your ignorance, perhaps you should explore the issue some more, no? Blind conclusions got us where we are today, and look how that's going.....

"Exploring evolution", imho, is a waste of energy...in other words, it offers me nothing...!! Truth (in the form of my Spirit Truth energy) however, serves me perfectly...!! :p

WISE UP ON DEM, BROTHAMAN, YEEUH! YEEUH!
Eh!? ...that some kind Neanderthal lingo, is it...!? :D

tusme

21-05-2009, 11:42 PM

No. I'm not even sure how you would arrive at that from what I said.
Well, I was simply using your logic, as regards, those "mutations" currently inhabiting the East Asian & African continents...or does "evolution" not include them...!? :confused: :)

kingmonkey

21-05-2009, 11:48 PM

Well, I was simply using your logic, as regards, those "mutations" currently inhabiting the East Asian & African continents...or does "evolution" not include them...!? :confused: :)

If you mean "apes", you've completely missed the point.

Of course evolution includes them; i said apes and humans both evolved along a similar timeline but on a different path. Humans are humans; chimpanzees are chimpanzees and orangutans are orangutans...They - and us humans - have evolved from a common ancestor.

tusme

21-05-2009, 11:57 PM

What are you talking about? If you mean apes, you've completely missed the point.

Of course evolution includes them; i said apes and humans both evolved along a similar timeline but on a different path. Humans are humans; chimpanzees are chimpanzees and orangutans are orangutans...
My friend, you spoke of "positive mutations", right...!?

Well then, I have applied that logic to the billions of people living on the East Asian & African continents...!!

And if we take it a step further, considering the NWO plans for those "positive mutations" (and those on all other continents), how then, can that be considered as "natural evolution"...!? :confused:

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 12:00 AM

My friend, you spoke of "positive mutations", right...!?

Well then, I have applied that logic to the billions of people living on the East Asian & African continents...!!

And if we take it a step further, considering the NWO plans for those "positive mutations" (and those on all other continents), how then, can that be considered as "natural evolution"...!? :confused:

What has the NWO got to do with natural, biological evolution of humans and apes?

miracles

22-05-2009, 12:01 AM

If man had been on earth for one million years according to scientific populations growth statistics through out history, there would not be enough room in the whole universe, let alone on earth, to hold us all.

These same scientific (IE not Christian) population growth statistics are evidence of the fact that man as been on the earth for around 6000 years.

Do not confuse this with the age of the earth or the age of the universe please, Im refering only to timelines that man has walked on the earth.

There is no proof, in fact it's not even a theory, that it would take 47 million years for an ape to evolve into a human. Statements like this are alarming and show the blind faith of a fanatical religious zealot, and yet under the guise of science, information like this is disseminated around the world by our media and education system into the minds of all mankind. It's a propsoterous lie, in fact it's the biggest lie in the history of humanity, and this is when real documented scientifc fact proves otherwise. How and why do the media and education systems get away with this?

tusme

22-05-2009, 12:04 AM

What has the NWO got to do with natural, biological evolution of humans and apes?
Mate, are you trying to be funny or what...!? :(

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 12:05 AM

If man had been on earth for one million years according to scientific populations growth statistics through out history, there would not be enough room in the whole universe, let alone on earth, to hold us all.

These same scientific (IE not Christian) population growth statistics are evidenve of the fact that man as been on the earth for around 6000 years.

Do not confuse this with the age of the earth or the age of the universe please, Im refering only to timelines that man has walked on the earth.

There is no proof, in fact it's not even a theory, that it would take 47 million years for an ape to evolve into a human. Statements like this are alarming and show the blind faith of a fanatical religious zealot, and yet under the guise of science, information like this is disseminated around the world by our media and education system into the minds of all mankind. It's a propsoterous lie, in fact it's the biggest lie in the history of humanity.

Apart from religious based, proposterous nonsense, do you have anything to contribute? Evidence? Sources? A theory showing your date for the earths age?

Underlining the words science and scientific is not good enough.

tracker

22-05-2009, 12:10 AM

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 12:16 AM

My friend, you spoke of "positive mutations", right...!?

Yes I did.

Well then, I have applied that logic to the billions of people living on the East Asian & African continents...!!

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this comment. The "logic" and what I said already includes them.

miracles

22-05-2009, 12:27 AM

YEAH I SAW THIS ADVERTISED TONIGHT .

looks like they are trying to cover their backs .

looks like some one out their has made a final link between animals of this planet , and us who are not of this planet .

this way , if those familiars ( media ) quickly show all the public that we are monkeys , when the news is made public about our alien oragins , no one will believe it .

this tv program about the link , is a tactic to get in there 1st , so that when the truth finally proves it self , no one will believe it .

its a typical covering their ass 1st tactic as usuall .

i will watch it , but that doesnt mean i have to believe it .

and besides , if it was true , if it was a missing link , there should be thousands and thousands of them , not just the odd few .

we all know

ITS BULLSHIT !

thanks for the thread .

:cool:

Your welcome. Interesting take on things Tracker :)

tusme

22-05-2009, 12:36 AM

Yes I did.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this comment. The "logic" and what I said already includes them.
Well, my point is, "natural evolution", as far a humans are concerned, anyway, is and always has been, a fallacy...!!

Who do you think, Science & History will remember in a 1000 years from now!? ...those billions of "positive mutations" living on the East Asian & African continents, or, those who controlled, enslaved and murdered them...!?

My friend, if you ain't worked it out yet, "evolution" is a tool...of tptb!!

A tool, oneday, they will seek to use against you and I...and all of mankind...!!

cruise4

22-05-2009, 02:14 AM

http://www.thecrowhouse.com/lipton.html

coco

22-05-2009, 02:56 AM

ex_anser_ovo

22-05-2009, 03:32 AM

Evolution can't claim with absolute certainty the "why's" of what we find right now.
But it can attempt to find explainations for the "how's" of what it finds.

How is it that existing species show a vast amount of variety, but also show incredible similarities between each other. Unless those species are found in an isolated environment, in which case they almost look outrageously alien in comparison to mainland species.

How is it that remains are constantly being found, that show transitional traits between species.

Why do organisms with higher frequency of generation cycles adapt more quickly to adverse environmental factors.

Why do humans have so many different eye, skin, and hair colours and pass them on to their young in ways that show probability additives are at work.

There are lots of questions, and a desire to narrow down the methods of investigation, because a great deal of humanity is enticed by further discovery. We just can't stop asking why.

miracles

22-05-2009, 05:55 AM

ex_anser_ovo

22-05-2009, 06:28 AM

Probablity of genetics, is not evolution.

One can argue that a similar species, although markedly different, eg I think human DNA is about 97% the same as a Monkey, denotes the same maufacturer, IE creator, aka God.

I'm not going to argue with that. It is just that the ambiguity of the answer lends itself to a great deal of potential postulates that can cause disagreement, and even escalate into conflict. :(
People will never trust that the answer they are given is satisfactory, until it compliments everything else they have internalized.

miracles

22-05-2009, 06:38 AM

I'm not going to argue with that. It is just that the ambiguity of the answer lends itself to a great deal of potential postulates that can cause disagreement, and even escalate into conflict. :(
People will never trust that the answer they are given is satisfactory, until it compliments everything else they have internalized.

At least your talking to me, thats something :D

ex_anser_ovo

22-05-2009, 06:54 AM

I'm sorry for being an asshole earlier here. I had no internet or cable since last Thursday and even piggybacked a local wireless network just to post on the forums. It made me pretty surly at everyone. I believe I'm addicted.

My only real motivation in seeing science use environmental factors to help explain in greater detail the workings of things, is so that people aren't so easily drawn into conflicts over what the will of existence is when observing the nature of something. We have pretty wildly different beliefs depending on how we are brought up, and they are very hard to convince without an impartial source free from human influence.
So far I think the environment is the best mediator humanity has in resolving conflicts.

miracles

22-05-2009, 07:17 AM

deadskinball

22-05-2009, 09:50 AM

It's a theory, and sometimes it sounds good and sometimes it sounds garbage.

Oh my, you now have my undivided attention.

Please tell me what you think is garbage within the (scientific) theory of evolution.

You don't need to provide a link, I'd just like to get your take on things.

uncia

22-05-2009, 09:56 AM

Please tell me what you think is garbage within the (scientific) theory of evolution.

You don't need to provide a link, I'd just like to get your take on things.
Just that. The missing links. Hundreds and thousands of them. No continuity of evidence.

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 10:37 AM

What I simply cannot get my head around, re, "evolution" is, the fact that all sorts primates still exist in their "original state"...!? :confused:

Yet, how is it, over all these "millions of years", they have not evolved...!? :confused:

Y'know I asked that very question when I entered public school (the initial school years were in private, then went public, back to private, and finished out in public).

NO TEACHER had an answer. They were ill prepared for such a question - their answer keys simply did not provide that information for them to barf out at students.

They don't still exist on their original state; they have evolved but very, very little over millions of years. Apes have evolved to such a small extent because they already suit there environment pretty well. There are a million other things that haven't evolved for the same reason. Sharks being a good example.

tusme

22-05-2009, 11:17 AM

Y'know I asked that very question when I entered public school (the initial school years were in private, then went public, back to private, and finished out in public).

NO TEACHER had an answer. They were ill prepared for such a question - their answer keys simply did not provide that information for them to barf out at students.
Hi Coco...

Thats quite a "mutation" you've gone through, re, your schooling...:D

Just kidding...!! :D

Tbh, I can understand Teachers not being able to answer your question (re, evolution), but the fact they won't even try, is what really bothers me...!!

Co's, if they at least tried to give an honest explanation, right or wrong, then at least the learner/student can go away and do some research for themselves...imho.

Otherwise, their "supposed ignorance", to me anyway, gives me the impression of a programmed mind...hmm!! :)

tusme

22-05-2009, 11:36 AM

They don't still exist on their original state; they have evolved but very, very little over millions of years. Apes have evolved to such a small extent because they already suit there environment pretty well. There are a million other things that haven't evolved for the same reason. Sharks being a good example.
Hmm, so thats all the evidence your going by, that "Apes" (over millions of years) have evolved (very little) according to their environment...!? :confused:

Imo, the only evolution they have gone through, is their extenal adaptations of their evolutionary capabilties...

Otherwise, my question to you is, have their internal organs evolved at all...!? If so, where's your evidence...? :)

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 12:45 PM

Hmm, so thats all the evidence your going by, that "Apes" (over millions of years) have evolved (very little) according to their environment...!? :confused:

Evidence of what? Apes not evolving (or evolving in small ways)? See the point below. Things don't just evolve for the sake of it. There needs to be a catalyst. Some apes have evolved to live on grassland etc. Why do you think there are so many different kinds? There's no reason to say they should have evolved at the same rate as humans; or in the same ways.

Otherwise, my question to you is, have their internal organs evolved at all...!? If so, where's your evidence...? :)

Why should a creature's internal organs change if their habitat and diet has remained relatively constant?

tusme

22-05-2009, 01:03 PM

Evidence of what? Apes not evolving? See the point below. Things don't just evolve for the sake of it.

Why should a creature's internal organs change if their habitat and diet has remained relatively constant?
Exactly!! :)

So, how much difference is there, compared to humans...!? Is, the air we breath today, any different to that, which, the first human being on this Earth, breathed...or, the organ used (lungs), for than matter!? :confused:

Indeed, our nutrition has changed over time, but, has any other (bodily) organ evolved, to do exactly what the stomach does...!? :confused:

And ditto, the heart...!? :confused:

My friend, I don't have a problem with "evolution"...what I do, is mankind's inconsistency with this subject...!!

Imho, it's a distraction, an attempt by tptb, to keep us from knowing and being our true-selves, which is...through our "evolution", consolidated the understanding, that we're more Spirit being than Physical being...!!

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 01:28 PM

Exactly!! :)

So, how much difference is there, compared to humans...!? Is, the air we breath today, any different to that, which, the first human being on this Earth, breathed...or, the organ used (lungs), for than matter!? :confused:

No.

Indeed, our nutrition has changed over time, but, has any other (bodily) organ evolved, to do exactly what the stomach does...!? :confused:

No, why should it when the stomach already does it. Stomach acid is quite capable of breaking down a host of different food stuffs; it's evolved to do so.

[quote]
And ditto, the heart...!? :confused:

Same as above.

My friend, I don't have a problem with "evolution"...what I do, is mankind's inconsistency with this subject...!!

The inconsistencies you mention are in your head, not in the theory. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?

Imho, it's a distraction, an attempt by tptb, to keep us from knowing and being our true-selves, which is...through our "evolution", consolidated the understanding, that we're more Spirit being than Physical being...!!

Yes, they invented the whole thing. Every scientist for the last 150 years or so that has studied or questioned it and disagreed has been bought off, had his career ruined or killed. :rolleyes:

You mention tptb etc. so you probably know who the Huxley's are..? Did you know Thomas Huxley was one of Darwin's biggest critics? Darwin's theory was extremely unpopular with the "elite", for one thing it explained man as being equal with regards to colour, race etc. and undermined ideas like the slave trade which he was disgusted by. He was opposed to the views held by many members of the elite society of the time.

But you're right, it's all made up...They're all working together...

It must be nice to be able to write off anything you don't understand or don't like by blaming it on tptb; see: gay agenda, satanic agenda, new age agenda, jesuit agenda, jewish agenda, E.T agenda...

element

22-05-2009, 01:42 PM

Yes, they invented the whole thing. Every scientist for the last 150 years or so that has studied or questioned it and disagreed has been bought off, had his career ruined or killed. :rolleyes:

You mention tptb etc. so you probably know who the Huxley's are..? Did you know Thomas Huxley was one of Darwin's biggest critics? Darwin's theory was extremely unpopular with the "elite", for one thing it explained man as being equal with regards to colour, race etc. and undermined ideas like the slave trade which he was disgusted by. He was opposed to the views held by many members of the elite society of the time.

But you're right, it's all made up...They're all working together...

It must be nice to be able to write off anything you don't understand or don't like by blaming it on tptb; see: gay agenda, satanic agenda, new age agenda, jesuit agenda, jewish agenda, E.T agenda...
The past is the past.
But these days they are promoting evolution like it's fact. If you think the whole evolution dogma is beyond controlled deceitful education, you missed the plot.
No, I'm not against the possibility of this hypothesis, it ain't a big chap, but if we look around at how it is promoted and preached, some caution isn't bad.

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 02:00 PM

The past is the past.
But these days they are promoting evolution like it's fact. If you think the whole evolution dogma is beyond controlled deceitful education, you missed the plot.
No, I'm not against the possibility of this hypothesis, it ain't a big chap, but if we look around at how it is promoted and preached, some caution isn't bad.

There are holes in it, same as there is in a lot of other theories, the problem is, people who don't like it as an idea say things like "it's inconsistent, it full of holes" and most just don't understand it (this includes a lot of teachers and scientists). And then there are the creationists who use these "holes" (usually non existent ones) to try and make out the whole thing is null and void, when it isn't. Most people trot out evolution because of a lack of other theories. It's the best one we have and it's been tested, re-tested and then tested again. Which is more than can be said for creationism, which fails at every hurdle. Did someone or something set the whole evolutionary process in motion? maybe so, I don't know...But that's not the point. Darwinian evolution is the studying and theory of the process of evolution. It's been used as a tool for propaganda by all kinds of people in the past and present,but that doesn't make it invalid.

Creationists are trying to drag us back into the dark ages, and that's why there's been a "push" certainly recently to get darwinian evolution back into the mainstream... The idea that it's been pushed by the elite is just not true. There are people in power who loath the idea.

majorlee

22-05-2009, 02:37 PM

http://www.answersincreation.org/neanderthal.htm
The big lie I suppose is that humans evolved out of inferior species. However it is important for Christians not to claim that evolution never occurred, because evolution has been proven to occur, by altering the environment of a species and seeing it mutate in form to adapt to its new environment.

I have trouble with the evidence of evolution because although it appears reasonable, the evidence itself is most unreasonable, because what is presented is always a series of separate species, which never seem to resemble each other.

Thus it is said that humans could not have evolved from Neanderthal man; which I can believe, but then it seems very strange to have Neanderthal man at all if not accounted for by the existence of evolution.

scientific tests have provent that any mutation is bad for the species and results in death of that strain

the life that was put on this planet was designed with an allowance of adaptability, of course scenerios change and some make it through and some dont

neanderthal man was a test creation to make intelligent life in the likeness of the creators themsleves, they wanted to create a human like, free willed
and aware creation fit for this planet atmosphere - even the creators could not live and breathe on Earth since its different to there own planet

you say the creationists are trying to push back into the dark ages

INTELLIGENT DESIGN is there to take us forward and back, to understand, not believe - in the future it will be OUR role to do this task and spread our love and creations throught the universe!

we are smart enough know to realise there is no GOD and scientific enough to understand the idea of evolution is flawed. We do evolve in a way just not the way darwinism theorys predict.

you all seem to be arguing over these two issues and completly blind to the real fact that we were seeded on this planet and this is how life happens through infinity, its an intention, a gift of love, art and will :)

happy thinking!

EDIT - i did report on this yesterday after seeing on Google then the News - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65853&highlight=missing+link+found

here is what is posted.....

Scientists find the 'missing link': A 47million-year-old lemur that could revolutionise how we see human evolution

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1184556/The-missing-link-A-47million-year-old-lemur-revolutionise-human-evolution.html

IMO - more BULLSHIT from the PTB,. they dont wanna re-write the text books? or is it just simply that they think we are from Monkeys to make us submit to the higher powers???lmao

when Darwinism gets disproved u dont see it in the main media, all you get is a sacked Scientist from his job and ridicule from peers. eg Michael Behe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8W6LnWnQJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI

darwin even says it himself...

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. " - Charles Darwin

tusme

22-05-2009, 02:45 PM

No.

No, why should it when the stomach already does it. Stomach acid is quite capable of breaking down a host of different food stuffs; it's evolved to do so.

Same as above.
I rest my case on this point, then...!! :)

The inconsistencies you mention are in your head, not in the theory. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?Indeed, it is in my head...!! Because, if evolution were genuinely "conclusive", then we would all simply exist, and be expressing such Truth...!! ...is that the case now, in this present time, eh!?

Yes, they invented the whole thing. Every scientist for the last 150 years or so that has studied or questioned it and disagreed has been bought off, had his career ruined or killed.
Hmm, now it makes sense, why you cannot/will not see my point...!? :)

I'm starting to wonder, whether you're a shill or something...!?

Mind telling us, what happened to your "tel-lie-vision" signature...!? :confused: :D

You mention tptb etc. so you probably know who the Huxley's are..?
No!! But I could do a quick google, if you like...!? :)

Did you know Thomas Huxley was one of Darwin's biggest critics? Darwin's theory was extremely unpopular with the "elite", for one thing it explained man as being equal with regards to colour, race etc. and undermined ideas like the slave trade which he was disgusted by. He was opposed to the views held by many members of the elite society of the time.
Tbh my friend, I don't care who Thomas Huxley is, and even less, Darwin...!!

These people may well have been, the proverbial, 2 faces of the same coin, for the "elite"...!?

Btw, if Darwin's theory "was extremely unpopular with the elite", then why have him emblazoned across monatary notes...? :confused:

But you're right, it's all made up...They're all working together...
Well, if your argument is that they never worked side-by-side (not that I would know), then, you could be right, actually...!!

However, how would we ever know, that they and their "opposing theories" (and works), were possibly sponsored by the "elite"...!?

Would it even matter to you...if that possibility were true...!? :confused:

It must be nice to be able to write off anything you don't understand or don't like by blaming it on tptb; see: gay agenda, satanic agenda, new age agenda, jesuit agenda, jewish agenda, E.T agenda...
Hmm, again you make me wonder whether you're a "shill" :)...your theory (of evolution) no less conspiracy, than my questioning it...!? ...people in glass houses, and all that...!! ;) :D

kingmonkey

22-05-2009, 02:50 PM

Hmm, again you make me wonder whether you're a "shill" :)...your theory (of evolution) no less conspiracy, than my questioning it...!? ...people in glass houses, and all that...!! ;) :D

And it's there! I wondered how long that would take.

Hmm, now it makes sense, why you cannot/will not see my point...!? :)

Because you have no point to make. You've completely ignored everything I've replied to your questions, and reduced your argument to the illuminati did it...Which is the intellectual equivalent of running off.

tusme

22-05-2009, 02:52 PM

And it's there! I wondered how long that would take.
:confused:

coco

22-05-2009, 03:49 PM

Hi Coco...

Thats quite a "mutation" you've gone through, re, your schooling...:D

Just kidding...!! :D

Tbh, I can understand Teachers not being able to answer your question (re, evolution), but the fact they won't even try, is what really bothers me...!!

Co's, if they at least tried to give an honest explanation, right or wrong, then at least the learner/student can go away and do some research for themselves...imho.

Otherwise, their "supposed ignorance", to me anyway, gives me the impression of a programmed mind...hmm!! :)

You're telling me, friend! It all depended what funds were available as to when I went to private school.

The thing that irked, and still irks me, is when a student poses a question a teacher should be able to answer and if not - they are human - they should acquire the answer - that's their job. The student in turn has had seeds of curiosity planted and probably will go on to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Not all questions have solid answers such as this evolution thing but I don't think science should speak so concretely about something they can't answer without irrefutable proof (to borrow from miracles :D).

rhydra

22-05-2009, 04:01 PM

Evolution is not in the bible, therefore those who follow the bible reject it. It is also stated in the bible that the Earth in central to the universe, there are, of course, still some who firmly believe that.

I think that there should be a step back and see that the creationists are just fundamentalists, you get them in every religion.

They are decreasing in number but exponentially increasing in volume.

In a way the Creationist/End Times sect is (rather ironically") evolving into a religion in it's own right.

miracles

22-05-2009, 04:44 PM

miracles

22-05-2009, 04:51 PM

stfd

22-05-2009, 04:56 PM

stfd

22-05-2009, 04:59 PM

your 'evidence" is lies. Youve been duped! Try and develope some language and communictaion skills. Your mind has been opened by a satanic machetee.

Damn i think im gonna be of for a bit again lol ... those people are nuts dude!

Remember about " dont throw pearls to swine " ?
:D

Good luck to you buddy !

tusme

22-05-2009, 05:11 PM

You're telling me, friend! It all depended what funds were available as to when I went to private school.

The thing that irked, and still irks me, is when a student poses a question a teacher should be able to answer and if not - they are human - they should acquire the answer - that's their job. The student in turn has had seeds of curiosity planted and probably will go on to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Not all questions have solid answers such as this evolution thing but I don't think science should speak so concretely about something they can't answer without irrefutable proof (to borrow from miracles :D).
Absolutely!! :)

geezer661

22-05-2009, 06:26 PM

That is the biggest pile ive heard in a long time. We're called Christians mate, youve been killing us for centuries.

thats rich the fuckin vatican has killed alot more than the nazis over the centuries. They have been hidin child abuse by the priests for decades arr how sweet and very christian.

geezer661

22-05-2009, 06:28 PM

your 'evidence" is lies. Youve been duped! Try and develope some language and communictaion skills. Your mind has been opened by a satanic machetee. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, as of right now you are part of the problem.

you delusional sheep are the problem. If christians had their way over the centuries we would still be livin in the fuckin medievil times the world would still be flat, we would still be at the centre of the universe. Go back to your dwindling congregation. Bullshit fairy tales designed to control sheep and it still works a treat

miracles

22-05-2009, 06:30 PM

thats rich the fuckin vatican has killed alot more than the nazis over the centuries. They have been hidin child abuse by the priests for decades arr how sweet and very christian.

The vatican and the nazi's where in the same team. Still are. A little bit of knowledge is a pain the ass, when you get past go do not collect 200. if you ever you get out of bed, wipe the blearies out of your eyes come and talk to me. Oh and read the bible first, you might clean some insight as to whats going on. What are you another mystery school tsarionite graduate come to show us what you dont know or what?

Tsun Zu - All battles are won before they even start. Your licked before you type a letter pal.

deadskinball

22-05-2009, 09:07 PM

Let me first say I do believe there is some evolution at work, but people have the right to be sceptical about it (yes, even deny it) when then are so many missing links around.

Since i'm still waiting on your reply to my question to you on which parts are garbage, I'll just make a point about this.

Evolution is like jigsaw puzzle which some of the pieces are missing, but yet the whole thing is almost completed to show a picture of (eg) a panda bear. The overall picture id quite obvious and no one can deny that is it a picture of a panda.

The problem now appears which people cling to ideas that those missing pieces can somehow turn the picture to being something else completely. And those very same people concentrate so much effort to convincing themselves and others that those few missing pieces are so important, that they fail to see the whole picture.

... the whole picture of the panda, or if you have understood thus far, a 'picture' of evolution.

---

To everyone here:

Have you understood?

Think of it this way:

I have a car in my driveway. If I remove the steering wheel from its mounting, does "that thing" in my driveway cease to still be a car?

:p

If you say its not a car: then all I can say is that you are blinded by your own stupidity for i cannot even think of what else might be a problem in your own head.

If you say it is still a car: then thankyou for being a critical thinking individual.

tothestars

23-05-2009, 12:56 AM

http://www.awakenedhearts.com/picts/sheep.jpg

manxboz

23-05-2009, 03:15 PM

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones11). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

This surprising admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

There are two versions of evolution. The first (neo-Darwinism synthesis) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures. They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium). Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

http://www.newgeology.us/Haikouichthys.jpg

This tiny fish (a little over an inch long, or 3 cm) is Haikouichthys. Its fossils have been found in the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record. This "first fish" has a spine and spinal chord, eyes, gills, fins, scales, mouth, etc., though no jaw, like a lamprey. About 500 were found buried together.23

http://www.newgeology.us/Guiyu.jpg
This is Guiyu, a fossil fish that "represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate)."27 It measures about 15 inches long, or 37 cm. Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes." (Devonian).7 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."7

http://www.newgeology.us/coelacanth.jpg

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. Here it is today, alive and unchanged. Where is the evolution?

http://www.newgeology.us/Platypus.jpg

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.

http://www.newgeology.us/Archaeopteryx_.jpg

Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

http://www.newgeology.us/AvianTree.jpg

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...

http://www.newgeology.us/HorseSeries3.gif

Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush. Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus. It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses. So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public. Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives.

http://www.newgeology.us/HorseEvo..jpg

The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:14 "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."

"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.9 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."

"Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either." "A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer."20 "HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows." "Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis... compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed."

"The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories." " 'We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely,' says Syvanen." "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works." "Rose goes even further. 'The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,' he says. 'What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.' Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says." " 'The tree of life was useful,' says Bapteste. 'It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on.' "14

This is huge. Professional evolutionists spend most of their time adjusting their "tree of life". They have fun thinking how one type of creature "developed" into another type, how abilities "emerged" here and there, but that is just playing at science. This article shows that, while they still cling to their belief in evolution, the truth is becoming inescapable to the few evolutionists who dare to look at the facts: Darwin was wrong; microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent. There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.

Reliving evolution?
An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution. In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his "biogenitic law" (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life). His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos. The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution. Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the "biogenetic law", but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel's deceit was fully revealed. They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.22 He must have faked them.

Violating the law
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution." The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them. However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature. For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems. Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,8 You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted. The "open system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.12 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA and RNA dissolve in water26, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."21 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

Mindboggling complexity - proteins
Even a single cell is not simple. In Darwin's day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life. 150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work. The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.13 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds. Everything about the cell is stunningly complex. Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells. The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other. Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1 A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern. It folds itself into a 3D structure.

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones". Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right. After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body. Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell. "Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters. "An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. "Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices." "The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules." "Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins. "The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the fewest things necessary for a cell to function. They came up with 15 general categories (such as energy production and conversion, cell division, etc.). Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

Repairing mutations
Do evolutionists admit defeat? Never! They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population, perhaps in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist. As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen. Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could. Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes. Survival of the barely functional? We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it's variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations. These include:

A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
Photoreactivation (light repair)
Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
Base excision repair
Nucleotide excision repair
Double-strand DNA break repair
Recombination repair
Error-prone bypass25
Harmful mutations happen constantly. Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death. So even the earliest, "simple" creatures in the evolutionist's primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system. But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts. How can the evolutionist explain the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution? Clearly, natural processes cannot produce new types of creatures from existing ones.

Systems and networks
A new science, Systems Biology, began around the year 2000. At the Institute for Systems Biology website, they write: "As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these components almost never work alone. They interact with each other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly complex ways, similar to the complex interactions among the countless computers on the Internet. Systems biology seeks to understand these complex interactions, as these are the keys to understanding life."

A small section of a biological system in an organism, displayed as a 3D network

"To make sense of the genome, systems biologists think in terms of networks. If two kinds of proteins or other biological molecules interact, they are connected on the network." "These network diagrams... show how individual pathways crisscross to form a tangled web. Each protein in a pathway can interact with molecules in other pathways, sometimes dozens of them." Additionally, "systems biologists produce complex maps of how genes and proteins interact, and these maps help scientists analyze results from drug screening." "Cells 'talk' to each other by passing chemical signals back and forth. They also sense their physical surroundings through proteins on their surfaces called integrins. All these cues serve to orient the cells in the body and inform them about how to behave so that they cooperate with the rest of the cells in the tissue." "The cells are not complete by themselves. They need signals from outside," says Mina J. Bissell of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "The unit of function literally is the tissue."-- Patrick Barry. April 5, 2008. You, in a dish: cultured human cells could put lab animals out of work for chemical and drug testing. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 14, pp. 218-220.

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.

Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans). In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved. Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo16. Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence17. Other bits called Alu elements, found only in primates, can be spliced in or out during RNA processing to make different versions of the same gene.18 The "junk" label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it?

Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is. For example, the human genome is 21 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3 billion base pairs versus 140 million), yet humans have only a little more than 2 times the number of protein coding genes (40,000 versus 17,000). Tiny yeast has 6,000. The main reason for biological complexity must be in the rest of the genome, the non-coding part, which determines how those genes are used.

Today there is an explosion of knowledge going on in the study of gene regulatory networks (GRNs). But it is not led, assisted, or even inspired by the theory of evolution. In fact, evolution theory has always predicted that researchers would find simple devices that mutation-natural selection, their little one-at-a-time change mechanism, could conceivably work on. Yet each discovery has opened up higher levels of complexity in even the tiniest organisms.

Researchers are starting to learn how multi-level control and feedback gene regulatory networks operate in creatures. Some evolutionists are excited that many genes can be controlled by a few genes; they hope to use them to show how big changes can occur. But these networks really just make their task more impossible, because there is no way that mutation-natural selection could build them. And "we have little empirical knowledge on the evolutionary history of such networks."-- Dean, Antony M., Joseph W. Thornton. September 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 8, pp. 675-688.

Some of the things GRNs have been found to do:

Specialized GRNs determine which genes are active or inactive in each part of a developing creature
GRN sub-circuits, usually consisting of 3 to 8 regulatory genes plus the elements they regulate, perform specific functions
Switches permit or forbid the activity of whole sub-circuits
Gene batteries are groups of genes required for particular cell functions; they are controlled by a small set of transcriptional drivers
Segments of DNA a few hundred base pairs long, called cis-regulatory elements, control expression of the genes near them
Signals are deployed between one cell and another using cis-regulatory elements
-- Erwin, Douglas H., Eric H. Davidson. February 2009. The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 10, pp. 141-148.

DNA has special handling devices. About 200 base pairs of DNA wrap around a spool of histone protein. Histone H1 clamps it together.

Each DNA-histone unit is a nucleosome. These are folded into tangled loops that are called chromatin. When certain molecules attach to tails on the histones, they affect how tightly packed the chromatin will be. If it is loose, the DNA is more accessible and active; if it is tightly packed, the DNA is inactive.

The Bottom Line
Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

Some revealing quotes
Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: "I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." -- Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

Philip S. Skell is Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University. He is sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry" in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the "Skell Rule", which was first applied to carbenes - the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. He says that during World War II "I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced."
Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory."A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."B He wrote: "These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."B Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.A He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there. He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities. In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey. In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin.--Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. Acts&Facts, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 10-12.
A. Clark, R.W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 147.
B. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture). London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 25.

Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level." "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equlibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells." "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution." "Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete." "The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations." "It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determing how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA." "The rules... of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other." "We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level--from DNA to protein--it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling." "Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome." --Richard C. Strohman. March 1997. The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 194-200.

Sean B. Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue."-- Sean B. Carroll. 8 February 2001. Nature, Vol. 409, p. 669.

A symposium on evolution was held at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany in November 2001, organized by PhD students. The meeting report says that "the symposium ended with a panel discussion about questions of microevolution (evolution within the species) and macroevolution (evolution after speciation). The issue at stake was whether extrapolation from the selection theory operating on organisms is sufficient to explain all patterns of macroevolution. In other words, do we need an independent body of theory to explain the changes occurring above, as opposed to at, the species level? There was no general agreement among the panel members. It seems that the jury is still out on this important question."-- Gáspár Jékely. 2002. Meeting report - Evolution in a nutshell. European Molecular Biology Organization reports, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 307-311.

manxboz

23-05-2009, 03:15 PM

"Origin of Life" research
The theory of evolution says life started from raw chemicals. Evolutionists long ago handed the problem off to specialists, trusting that they would come up with something. Here are excerpts from candid reports by two scientists who have spent many years in this effort. These men support evolution, but insist that experimental evidence back up every claim.

This is "what has been called the NASA definition of life: Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution." "Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: 'At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.' When Dawkins wrote these words 30 years ago, DNA was the most likely candidate for this role." "Unfortunately... DNA replication cannot proceed without the assistance of a number of proteins". So "which came first, the chicken or the egg? DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins. Which large molecule, then, appeared first in getting life started--proteins (the chicken) or DNA (the egg).?"

"A possible solution appeared when attention shifted to a new champion--RNA." According to this view, "life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. In a... 1986 article, Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert of Harvard University wrote in the journal Nature: 'One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. The first step of evolution proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup.' In this vision, the first self-replicating RNA that emerged from non-living matter carried out the functions now executed by RNA, DNA and proteins." "Perhaps two-thirds of scientists publishing in the origin-of-life field... still support the idea that life began with the spontaneous formation of RNA or a related self-copying molecule."

"How did that first self-replicating RNA arise?" Most people know of an "experiment published in 1953 by Stanley Miller. He applied a spark discharge to a mixture of simple gases that were then thought to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth. Two amino acids of the set of 20 used to construct proteins were formed in significant quantities, with others from that set present in small amounts." "Some writers have presumed that all of life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case."

"A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus show no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life." "RNA's building blocks, nucleotides, are complex substances as organic molecules go." "Amino acids, such as those produced or found in these experiments, are far less complex than nucleotides". "No nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites."

"To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions." Finding "a specific organic chemical in any quantity... would justify its classification as 'prebiotic,' a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth. Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction. The products of such a reaction would also be considered 'prebiotic' and employed in the next step in the sequence." "Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA." "The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time."

"Many chemists, confronted with these difficulties, have fled the RNA-first hypothesis as if it were a building on fire. One group, however, still captured by the vision of the self-copying molecule, has opted for an exit that leads to similar hazards. In these revised theories, a simpler replicator arose first and governed life in a 'pre-RNA world.' Variations have been proposed in which the bases, the sugar or the entire backbone of RNA have been replaced by simpler substances, more accessible to prebiotic syntheses. Presumably, this first replicator would also have the catalytic capabilities of RNA. Because no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology, RNA must have completely taken over all of its functions at some point following its emergence."

"Further, the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of a mere nucleotide soup. Let us presume that a soup enriched in the building blocks of all of these proposed replicators has somehow been assembled, under conditions that favor their connection into chains. They would be accompanied by hordes of defective building blocks, the inclusion of which would ruin the ability of the chain to act as a replicator." "There is no reason to presume that an indifferent nature would not combine units at random".

"Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind, Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth 'would have been a near miracle.' I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above." "Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for 'a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.' DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life."

What is left? Theories that "employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive." "I estimate that about a third of the chemists involved in the study of the origin of life subscribe to theories based on this idea."

It requires: "1) A boundary... to separate life from non-life." "2) An energy source". "3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life. The release of energy does not necessarily produce a useful result. Chemical energy is released when gasoline is burned within the cylinders of my automobile, but the vehicle will not move unless that energy is used to turn the wheels. A mechanical connection, or coupling, is required." "4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution" "on a path that leads to increased organization." "5) The network must grow and reproduce." "We can imagine, on the early Earth, a situation where many startups of this type occur, involving many alternative driver reactions and external energy sources. Finally, a particularly hardy one would take root and sustain itself." "A system of reproduction must eventually develop." "Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution." "Many further steps in evolution would be needed to 'invent' the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today." They "would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today."

"Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading 'metabolism first', which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity. In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants." "Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them." "They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A 'smoking gun' experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach."
Shapiro, Robert. June 2007. A Simpler Origin for Life. Scientific American, Vol. 296, pp. 24-31.
Robert Shapiro, Ph.D. Harvard, is professor emeritus of chemistry and senior research scientist at New York University. He is author or co-author of over 125 publications, primarily in the area of DNA chemistry. In 2004 he was awarded the Trotter Prize in Information, Complexity and Inference. Shapiro has been involved in the search for origin of life mechanisms, and has written four books on the subject for the general public.

"The feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility." The metabolic cycles that have been identified by biochemists are of two kinds: simple cycles and autocatalytic cycles. The citric acid cycle" is an example of a simple cycle. "The reverse citric acid cycle" is an example of an autocatalytic cycle. "Each molecule of citric acid introduced into the cycle results... in the generation of two molecules of citric acid." "That is why the cycle is described as autocatalytic." "The proposal that the reverse citric acid cycle operated... on the primitive Earth has been a prominent feature of some scenarios for the origin of life."

"A different kind of autocatalytic cycle, which has no analog in biochemistry, has been hypothesized by Stuart Kauffman to self-organize spontaneously whenever amino acids condense together to form peptides." "Could prebiotic molecules and catalysts plausibly have the attributes... to make the self-organization of the cycles possible?"

"The identification of a cycle of plausible prebiotic reactions is a necessary but not a sufficient step toward the formulation of a plausible self-organizing prebiotic cycle. The next, and more difficult step, is justifying the exclusion of side reactions that would disrupt the cycle." "It is not completely impossible that sufficiently specific mineral catalysts exist for each of the reactions of the reverse citric acid cycle, but the chance of a full set of such catalysts occurring at a single locality on the primitive Earth in the absence of catalysts for disruptive side reactions seems remote in the extreme."

"It has sometimes been implied or claimed that [autocatalytic] cycles are not only stable, but also are capable of evolving to form nonenzymatic networks of great complexity. Genetic materials are then seen as late additions to already fairly complex evolved life forms. According to this view, a genetic material merely adds stability to systems that already have a substantial 'information content'. "

"One way of achieving something useful might be to use one of the constituents of the core cycle as the starting point of a second independent autocatalytic cycle." "Another suggestion that might be explored is the possibility of a side reaction generating a catalyst for one of the reactions of the core cycle." "However, neither of these possibilities, nor any others with which I am familiar explains how a complex, interconnected family of cycles capable of evolution could arise or why it should be stable." "What is essential, therefore, is a reasonably detailed description, hopefully supported by experimental evidence, of how an evolvable family of cycles might operate." "Without such a description, acceptance of the possibility of complex nonenzymatic cyclic organizations that are capable of evolution can only be based on faith, a notoriously dangerous route to scientific progress."

"Kauffman takes it for granted that if it is possible to write down on paper a closed peptide cycle and a set of catalyzed ligations leading from monomeric amino acids to the peptides of the cycle, then that cycle would self-organize spontaneously and come to dominate the chemistry of a reaction system. This... is unlikely because peptide molecules do not have the properties that Kauffman assigns to them." "I have also explored a number of alternative systems with different numbers of amino acids or with inputs of random families of short peptides, and I find that they all encounter similar or more severe difficulties."

"Kauffman assumes that, in sufficiently concentrated solution, the naturally occurring amino acids or some subset of them would condense spontaneously to form a mixture of long peptides in substantial yield. In practice, this would not happen." "The catalytic properties of enzymes are remarkable. They not only accelerate reaction rates by many orders of magnitude, but they also discriminate between potential substrates that differ very slightly in structure. Would one expect similar discrimination in the catalytic potential of peptides of length ten or less? The answer is clearly 'no', and it is this conclusion that ultimately undermines the peptide cycle theory."

"Protein catalysis is dependent on the stable three-dimensional structures of enzymes and enzyme-substrate complexes. Highly specific catalytic activity could only be expected from short peptides if they, too, adopted stable structures." "In fact, short peptides rarely form stable structures, and when they do, the structures are only marginally stable. The synthesis of a decapeptide that would catalyze the ligation in the correct order of two particular pentapeptides out of a mixture of ten pentapeptides that are required to form the five cycle components, while failing to bring about any of the other possible ligations, would present an extremely difficult challenge to peptide chemistry. It seems certain that the additional requirement that this peptide should also catalyze specifically many of the reactions leading from amino acids to the pentamer precursors of the decamers of the cycle could never be met. Of course, the decamers need not be formed only from pairs of pentamers, but the difficulties are no less severe for more complex synthetic networks. There are a number of possible ways in which this difficulty might be circumvented, but none seems relevant to the origin of life." "It is unlikely, therefore, that Kauffman's theory describes any system relevant to the origin of life."

"It is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories." "Because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility." "The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to 'life-like' complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories--the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts--has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored.

Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own." "Experimental proof that such cycles are stable against the challenge of side reactions is even more important." "The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed." "Solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on 'if pigs could fly' hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel, Leslie E. January 2008. The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology, Vol. 6, No. 1, e18, pp. 5-13.
Leslie E. Orgel, Ph.D. Oxford, was a biochemist who studied life on primitive Earth. He conducted research at Cambridge, the University of Chicago, the California Institute of Technology, and later joined the Chemical Evolution Laboratory of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California. He died at age 80 in October 2007. The above article was published posthumously.

After the "tree of life"
In a paper about bacteria, two evolutionary biologists write, "we cannot rely exclusively on traditional genealogical relationships." "A single taxonomy will be likely to provide an overly coarse picture". It should be replaced by "more taxonomies based on real biological processes". "Discarding all but one of these process-based taxonomies would be comparable to reducing a person's identity to a single aspect of his or her life, even though he or she might have an effective role in many organizations: professional, artistic, sports, family and so on. To avoid overlooking any of the natural groups, it seems legitimate to propose - rather than a single taxonomy of microbial species - many taxonomies". "We suggest giving up the unique hierarchy as the reference classification system and instead encourage the production of a comprehensive interactive database in which an individual could possibly belong to overlapping taxonomical groups." "Any organism can then be characterized by many names because it can belong to more than one group at once."
Bapteste, Eric, Yan Boucher. 2008. Lateral gene transfer challenges principles of microbial systematics. Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 200-207.

Epigenetics (meaning "above" genetics, as in controlling elements)
Evolutionists are starting to turn to epigenetics to explain macroevolutionary changes. However, most of them do not know much about molecular biology, and they are scrambling to catch up. "During the twentieth century, evolutionary and molecular biology diverged". "Few scientists were trained in both fields, and many biology departments were split up." "Most evolutionary biologists emphasize... variation". "Inferences about the historical mechanisms that generate variation are usually drawn from patterns of association". "The weakness is that statistical associations are not reliable indicators of causality." "Claims that are based solely on associations remain standard in the field." "Evolutionary biologists will need to be trained in molecular biology".-- Dean, Antony M., Joseph W. Thornton. September 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 8, pp. 675-688.

Here is some of what real molecular biologists have learned, beginning with a March 2008 report in Science News magazine: "Many people regard ribonucleic acid, as RNA is formally known, as 'just a middleman between DNA and protein,' says Claes Wahlestedt, a neuroscientist and genome researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla. Shuttling genetic information from DNA to a cell's protein factories has long been recognized as RNA's day job, summarized" as "DNA makes RNA makes protein." "Some researchers estimate that as much as 98 percent of the human genome is copied into RNA, says Sofie Salama of the University of California, Santa Cruz." "Initial observations of the genome showed islands of protein-coding genes separated by vast oceans of DNA--sometimes called junk DNA--where nothing happened. That would mean that only about 2 percent of the human genome is transcribed into RNA. But recent efforts to map all of the RNA transcripts show that virtually every base pair of DNA in the human genome is copied into at least one RNA molecule."

"More than 20 classes of noncoding RNA have been discovered in the past decade. Many of these RNAs are much smaller than their protein-coding cousins, the messenger RNAs. Some noncoding RNAs contain a mere 20 nucleotides, the chemical units corresponding to letters in the genetic alphabet. Scientists used to throw away such short bits of RNA, thinking the tiny pieces were nothing more than breakdown products of larger molecules--basically garbage, Wahlestedt says."

"Researchers now know that noncoding RNAs get involved in virtually everything that happens in or to a cell, says Georges St. Laurent III, a computational and molecular biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C." "They monitor temperature, chemical conditions, electrical currents, and other signals from the environment and then tell the cell how to respond."

"One class of noncoding RNAs, known as microRNAs, modulates production of proteins. MicroRNAs get their name from their minuscule size--most are only about 22 nucleotides long. These short pieces of RNA find and bind to complementary sequences in messenger RNAs. Usually that binding causes the ribosome, the protein-building machinery in a cell, to grind to a halt. The ribosome remains paused until other signals allow it to resume making protein or until the RNA message is destroyed." " 'It's not only important that you make a particular protein, but when and where you make it,' Salama says."-- Tina Hesman Saey. March 1, 2008. Micromanagers: New classes of RNAs emerge as key players in the brain. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 9, pp. 136-137.

Non-coding RNAs have risen from "junk" to "drivers of complexity".24 "Sequencing the genomes of 85 species has revealed that in any given organism, increasing biological complexity is correlated with an increasing number of non-protein-coding DNA sequences and not, as previously assumed, with an increasing number of protein-coding genes."24 "The sheer number of non-coding RNAs is estimated in the 100s of thousands."7 "It is clear that tens of thousands may operate within a cell".24

"Interference and activation can be caused by the same transcript".3 "A large part of the transcriptional activity in the human genome is derived from repeat sequences".24 "Repeat elements... occupy 40-45% of a typical mammalian genome".3 "Alu repetitive elements constitute 10% of the human genome".24 "Repeat elements, such as the Alu family in humans and B2 in mice have provided regulatory signals for RNA PolII transcription."5 "Some of the Alu elements... may have functions in stress response, chromatin organization or signaling events in the early embryo. Alu transcripts are... activated by heat shock and DNA damaging agents".24

There are levels of non-coding RNA regulation that have yet to be discovered.24 Studying the old "junk" transcripts can lead to understanding hidden layers of cell regulation and how deregulation can lead to the understanding of human disease.24 "The scientific community is getting more aware of the importance of the formerly abandoned 'junk' DNA. What we have learned so far is likely just the tip of the iceberg."24

It is clear that biological complexity depends less on gene number and more on how those genes are used. Researchers are realizing that regulation is on multiple levels19; there are intricate feedback loops.4 Stretches of DNA can be inactivated by attaching methyl groups. Tiny embryos need to grow according to a body plan organized in steps that have to happen at the right time in the right sequence. Their cells use timers and spatial signals to guide their growth. For example, a signal chemical is made at one end of an embryo and spreads out. Cells act according to how much signal chemical reaches them. Signal chemicals spreading from opposite ends of an embryo can interact to coordinate construction.15

In small genomes, such as yeast, the parts of DNA that regulate a gene are next to the gene. In more complex genomes, such as human and mouse, they can be far apart. Cells have ways, still unknown, of moving sections of chromosomes next to each other to get the right parts together to control gene expression.6 This happens constantly.

To respond to a rapidly changing environment, a creature's genes have to be turned on and off in a highly coordinated way. The genetic network must be stable under a broad range of conditions, but flexible enough to recognize and respond to important signals when things around it change. This operating at the brink of order and chaos is well known to systems scientists. They call such systems critical. This property has now been recognized in plants, animals, and microbes. It allows them to quickly detect and respond to external stimuli, small or large.3

Zombie science
"Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status."

To say "that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication. And anyway, there are... the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart."

"Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down." "Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science."
Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

miracles

23-05-2009, 03:33 PM

[quote=manxboz;1006445]
http://www.newgeology.us/Platypus.jpg

I cant help thinking God made the duck billed platypus A for a laugh and B to thwart evolution.

element

23-05-2009, 03:39 PM

Evolution is Biologically Impossible
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Download Evolution is Biologically Impossible PDF

Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize "in some warm little pond," with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living cell.1 Darwin's dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his grandfather. Mary Shelley wrote of him in 1831 in her introduction to Frankenstein. "They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion." She goes on to speculate that galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.2All theories need testing, so I bought some vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month, and never saw any motion, voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct "galvanism" through it to a fluorescent bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

"Darwin's bulldog," Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early earth as "a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter."3 In Huxley's day, the cell was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary Shelley's subtitle to Frankenstein, "The Modern Prometheus."2 Prometheus was the Greek mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay, then animated it. This myth may be the earliest reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla-coil spark over it to light the bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the "primeval soup" to expand the "warm little pond" into a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes, polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits, and nucleotides, all poised to self-combine into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic acids.4Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide, and cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the "once upon a pond" story to obtain a blob of protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml. of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level, there is no evidence that the "primeval soup" is anything but fanciful imagination.

In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily, they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is feebleminded, deranged, or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."6 Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task.

.

deadskinball

24-05-2009, 02:02 AM

"Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible."

Another argument using incredulty.

Fail.

Which really means:

"I'm too stupid to understand it, so it must be fake"

---

I just don't understand you jeebus-freaks on how freakin pathetic arguements for intelligent design or "god did it" even make sense in your own head. Trying to shoe-horn your version of events into mainstream science. yet, you clowns don't even know how science works or how its processed and you IDiots come to the table and claim "god did it".

GTFO.

miracles

24-05-2009, 06:48 AM

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

miracles

24-05-2009, 07:08 AM

element

24-05-2009, 10:15 AM

I just don't understand you jeebus-freaks on how freakin pathetic arguements for intelligent design or "god did it" even make sense in your own head. Trying to shoe-horn your version of events into mainstream science. yet, you clowns don't even know how science works or how its processed and you IDiots come to the table and claim "god did it".

GTFO.
Well, I can only speak for myself but I'm not a jeebus-freak and I don't think everyone who is sceptical about evolution is one. Really good to see someone with your job (if we have to believe you that is..) showing the typical pretentious attitude, putting us all in the same box. :rolleyes:
You can't prove evolution in the lab, so be happy with your hypothesis but don't call someone who questions it an idiot.

ex_anser_ovo

24-05-2009, 02:05 PM

I have a hard time being skeptical of evolution.

I can't think of anything complex that doesn't develop in logical successive stages.
Because DNA is such a specialized form, the intricacies of how it deals with information storage, development, approval, rejection and repair is a lot to investigate. There's no way evolution can connect all the dots right now, but that's no reason to give up on it.

I haven't a clue what purpose it all serves.
I highly doubt it is random too. That would imply there is no deterministic quality to it.
But to me it is exciting to understand that existence is hard at work...building something special.

deadskinball

25-05-2009, 10:33 AM

typical pretentious attitude

Ooh, now your starting to piss me off.

---

Am I pretentious for asking for physical evidence of a deity?

Am I pretentious for wanting so-called miracles to be reproducable?

---

Outside of your little world there are people who just don't give a shit about religion, spirituality, quantum 'worlds' or any other thing because it falls under the umbrella called "supernatual".

Until such that these supernatural things are known in our world, then you can yap yap yap all day long like a mangy dog looking for attention for people are not going to waste their time on such trival things.

You want to be taken seriously?

You'd be best to get something tangilble which someone can study otherwise is all just an whole lot of hot air and a faint yap yap yap.

element

25-05-2009, 10:37 AM

Ooh, now your starting to piss me off.
That easily...:rolleyes: :D
Am I pretentious for asking for physical evidence of a deity?
Am I pretentious for wanting so-called miracles to be reproducable?
Oh boy, you can't prove evolution and now you're changing the subject to creationism. We are having our doubts here about evolution. This isn't a fancy creationism/evolution YouTube feast.
Outside of your little world there are people who just don't give a shit about religion, spirituality, quantum 'worlds' or any other thing because it falls under the umbrella called "supernatual".
Fine, see above. We aren't talking about it. This doesn't prove your evolution hypothesis, now does it?

Your a good laugh mate.

thelucifer

25-05-2009, 01:05 PM

deadskinball

25-05-2009, 02:17 PM

you can't prove evolution

yap yap yap....

---

Funny that. I don't need to prove evolution because it already has been. My work revolves using such knowledge and yet you say its not real.

Could you tell me why my work exists if it wasn't for such a concept?

If it isn't for such knowledge then what is changing the bacteria within the dish? Is it some sort of quantum interaction? Maybe its jeebus? Oooh, it could be the great one with its noodly appendages?...

or maybe the bugs have evolved to be more resistant to <something> which we have introduced to such colonies automatically PROVING evolution is real, it happens. I'm not going to say if we have made a whole new bug species since I'm going too far and hitting the NDA as it is, but i can't stop you guessing correctly.

Evolution is real if you like it or not but I know you are just going to shrug it off like others with their tainted minds because you sound like you need a comfort of some sort just like religion types need their dogmas.

I don't know else to write since micro and macro have proven true and there ain't a damn thing you can say or do that will change known science.

majorlee

25-05-2009, 02:40 PM

yap yap yap....

---

Funny that. I don't need to prove evolution because it already has been.

lol - u call yourself a scientist??? sorry but bullshit statement

DNA is programmed to adapt, it was designed this way otherwise there would be no life!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method - u need this for further replies methinks :)

I am trying to promote Intelligent Design to help out the scientists and the creationists - you are very close with you studies and findings but there are too many flaws in the process

I.D. can be the next answer and way forward is u wish to explore it, but some of you are in such a state of denial you wont even look, read or consider there may be alternative just because it shakes up and overhauls your system on belief and understanding

FFS - start questioning everything you have been taught and everything you know - u have been conditioned since you were born!!!!!

thelucifer

25-05-2009, 03:09 PM

yap yap yap....

---

Funny that. I don't need to prove evolution because it already has been. My work revolves using such knowledge and yet you say its not real.

Could you tell me why my work exists if it wasn't for such a concept?

If it isn't for such knowledge then what is changing the bacteria within the dish? Is it some sort of quantum interaction? Maybe its jeebus? Oooh, it could be the great one with its noodly appendages?...

or maybe the bugs have evolved to be more resistant to <something> which we have introduced to such colonies automatically PROVING evolution is real, it happens. I'm not going to say if we have made a whole new bug species since I'm going too far and hitting the NDA as it is, but i can't stop you guessing correctly.

Evolution is real if you like it or not but I know you are just going to shrug it off like others with their tainted minds because you sound like you need a comfort of some sort just like religion types need their dogmas.

I don't know else to write since micro and macro have proven true and there ain't a damn thing you can say or do that will change known science.

Resistance and mutation is micro, micro does not prove macro.

No anaerobic microbe can change/mutate and become aerobic.
No anaerobic microbe has ever changed/became resistant to oxidation.

element

25-05-2009, 05:54 PM

Could you tell me why my work exists if it wasn't for such a concept?
More irrefutable proof of evolution! Hahah so many jobs exist, do they all teach and tell the truth? Teachers often don't have a clue what they're talking about..
Evolution is real if you like it or not but I know you are just going to shrug it off like others with their tainted minds because you sound like you need a comfort of some sort just like religion types need their dogmas.
Yeah mate, no matter how hard you will shout it on the street, it isn't fact.
You don't know me, I'm not the 'religious type' , you are just (as in your previous post) creating more dualism between evolution/materialism VS the rest which are religious etc. I'm not interested in such nonsense, it's YouTube behaviour. Another thing, I'm open to evolution. The point is, I accept it as a hypothesis and not as some sort of religious dogma. It's clear evolution is your belief, but everyone who disagrees with the belief is an ''idiot'' of course.:rolleyes:
I don't know else to write since micro and macro have proven true and there ain't a damn thing you can say or do that will change known science.
No macro has not been proven. You even said it yourself a while ago.

deadskinball

26-05-2009, 04:03 AM

DNA is programmed to adapt

What?

Wrong.

Is it that you think that its true so you can make the connection that the programming has to be done by something/one. hence, you'll give support to the ID movement. Evolution is the opposite end of what you are claiming.

i have just started my lunch break (exactly 12pm right now) and I have got 1 hour to laugh my ass off about this.

majorlee

26-05-2009, 04:17 AM

What?

Wrong.

Is it that you think that its true so you can make the connection that the programming has to be done by something/one. hence, you'll give support to the ID movement. Evolution is the opposite end of what you are claiming.

i have just started my lunch break (exactly 12pm right now) and I have got 1 hour to laugh my ass off about this.

glad i could make you laugh too, thought i would return the favour after your previous post :p