Science Disproves Evolution

[Simon39759]

Cdesign proponentists claims about Haeckel's drawings in textbooks are greatly exaggerated.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-4-haeckels-embryos

Thanks, a very interesting read...


I particularly find ironic how Wells himself produces his own fraudulent representation of embyological development:

In the figures of embryos (Wells 2000:95, especially stage 4, "gastrulation"), Wells's illustrator resorts to a number of graphic tricks in order to make the embryos appear more different than they are. First, the embryos are not shown from the same rotational angles. The chicken is shown in a different position than the other "Haeckel's first stage" embryos. Second, they are not all scaled the same. In the figure showing the neural crest infolding, the turtle and chicken are shown at a large scale, neglecting the large yolk they sit on, while the human is shown as part of the whole developing ovum, so that the germinal disc and primitive streak formation are shown differently, even though it is shared by all amniotes (Schaunislaund 1903; Nelson 1953; Cruz 1997; Schoenwolf 1997; Figure 9). Also pictured is a frog embryo, despite its indirect development, which is very different from that of the other vertebrates pictured. Many of the general "differences" in early embryo development that Wells mentions are a result of organization due to the yolk size rather than being specific differences in the basic body-plan of the embryo (Arendt and Nübler-Jung, 1999).

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What I've also still not really seen an answer to from either pahu or johnatan quick is what either of you would like the theory of evolution replaced by.

The theory of evolution allows predictions to be made in biology, biochemistry and genetics, but only because common descent is assumed.
Pahu, ID and creationism both focus on claiming the TOE is false, they have zero predictive ability, how would you see the mentioned fields if common descent is abolished.
JQ, you have never said to be a creationist, just that you also consider the TOE to be wrong. What alternative do you propose that would give similar or better results?

 

[Pahu]

What I've also still not really seen an answer to from either pahu or johnatan quick is what either of you would like the theory of evolution replaced by.

The theory of evolution allows predictions to be made in biology, biochemistry and genetics, but only because common descent is assumed.
Pahu, ID and creationism both focus on claiming the TOE is false, they have zero predictive ability, how would you see the mentioned fields if common descent is abolished.
JQ, you have never said to be a creationist, just that you also consider the TOE to be wrong. What alternative do you propose that would give similar or better results?

I would like to see evolution replaced with the truth. When the two models of origins--evolution and creation--are examined by the known laws of physics, the evidence supports creation rather than evolution. One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

 

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 2


Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 4.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html#wp1194028]

 

[JoeB]

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated

*CoughCough* Nylonase *Cough*

Excuse me.

 

[Tubbythin]

I would like to see evolution replaced with the truth. When the two models of origins--evolution and creation--are examined by the known laws of physics, the evidence supports creation rather than evolution. One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

Trivially false since invoking a supernatural being is, by definition, contrary to the laws of physics.
It's also false because evolution is not a model of origins.

 

[Dinwar]

One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

No. It doesn't.

I assume that what you're referring to here is the Cambrian Explosion. It's only an explosion in geological terms--it happened over what, five million years? And there's healthy debate in paleontology over what it even WAS. One side says it was a rapid evolution of most of the major phyla (not all, however), while the other argues that it's merely the evolution of minderalized skeletons (the phyla arose before that, but being squishy they didn't preserve). I doubt you or your engineer reference are well enough versed in biogeochemistry to join in that debate; I've met perhaps five people who are well-enough versed, and I've gone out of my way to find them (and no, I don't include myself--biogeochemistry is general anesthetic to me).

After the Cambrian Explosion the case gets far, far worse for you. We have many examples of transitional fossils (easily found in this forum; I suggest looking into the Skeptoid subforum if you want to see specifics), and the fossil record clearly shows gradual changes over geological time, with a few periods of pure terror thrown in (mass die-off type mass extinctions).

b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

An out of context quote. The idea is that natural selection is GENERALLY conservative--meaning that most of the time, organisms are fairly well adapted to their environments. Something has to change for natural selection to promote diversity. Once that happens, the subpopulations under ecological stress will evolve relatively rapidly. This is the basic model behind punctuated equilibrium.

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

Nothing new here, really. The idea of natural selection is that some trait exists in the population already (they don't magically pop up when they're undergoing ecological stress), and that those traits become dominant (or at least increase in frequency) due to the stress. Those traits arise due to mutations, durinig the long periods where nothing much is happening. Again, this is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the theory, and certainly nothing surprising to scientists. Ever hear of Daisyworld?

 

[Tubbythin]

I assume that what you're referring to here is the Cambrian Explosion. It's only an explosion in geological terms--it happened over what, five million years?

Which is some 3 orders of magnitude bigger than the age of the Earth according to most YECs.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years.

And we see exactly that.

Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

The fossil record shows exactly the opposite. Any luck with that Cambrian rabbit fossil?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Natural Selection 2


Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

This is a lie of omission. Natural selection does only select among preexisting genes (at least those genes expressed in the organisms phenotype). But random mutations provide new genes. Brown has to misrepresent evolutionary science in order to argue against it.

Are you ever going to address the problems with the arguments that you simply cut and paste?

 

[Nonpareil]

One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

No.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I assume that what you're referring to here is the Cambrian Explosion. It's only an explosion in geological terms--it happened over what, five million years?

I have a theory that one reason creationists have a problem with evolution is that they really, really don't understand big numbers. They think of the current state of the world being achieved in something like two weeks or a hundred years or whatever and argue, with complete justice, that it could never have happened that way. Of course it couldn't. But it could happen over the ± 4 billion years the earth has been here.

 

[joobz]

Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms.

No it doesn't. Creation doesn't predict anything. Creation simply asserts that what is is what was designed. It is no more predictive than tea leaves, astrology or casting runes.

Evolution, on the other hand, predicts a wealth of observations.

For instance, Evolution predicts that if Humans (which have 23 chromosome pairs) and apes(which have 24 chromosome pairs) share a common origin, than there should have been a moment in human evolution where 2 chromosomes were fused together. Afterall, the loss of an entire chromosome would be fatal.

Well, guess what the evidence of human chromosome 2 shows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

That's right. It has all of the markings of a fusion of 2 separate chromosomes.


That's a scientific prediction. That's the testable method which makes science science.

 

[154]

Darwinism is almost a religion, and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.

It is a religion in that it is a competing belief system,

and Darwinists/evolutionists/atheists are among the most faithful of believers in their own belief system,

and ever refusing to yield or make any concession, admit any error, denounce any of their own blatant falsehood, and hold none of their own so accountble, but simply move on to another avenue of attack, without any apparent hesitation, reconsideration or reflection.

It is ultimately only a question of the Will. Some refuse. Some Will Not.

 

[joobz]

It is a religion in that it is a competing belief system,

What do you hope to do by equating a scientifically verified theory to religion?

Are you attempting to raise science to the stature of religion?
Or are you attempting at lowering science to the level of your own beliefs?

In either case, you clearly recognize pure belief to be subordinate in relevance and importance to scientific thought and evidence. Otherwise, why bother labeling it as a religion?

 

[Nonpareil]

It is a religion in that it is a competing belief system,

and Darwinists/evolutionists/atheists are among the most faithful of believers in their own belief system,

and ever refusing to yield or make any concession, admit any error, denounce any of their own blatant falsehood, and hold none of their own so accountble, but simply move on to another avenue of attack, without any apparent hesitation, reconsideration or reflection.

It is ultimately only a question of the Will. Some refuse. Some Will Not.

Oh dear GOD the IRONY it BURNS

 

[154]

Oh dear GOD the IRONY it BURNS

No, that would be your conscience searing.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, that would be your conscience searing.

Sorry, conscience is clear. Lungs are a little sore from unceasing laughter, though.

 

[joobz]

No, that would be your conscience searing.

Do you not have an answer to my question?

 

[154]

Are you attempting to raise science to the stature of religion?
Or are you attempting at lowering science to the level of your own beliefs?

The truth in religion and the truth in science will point to The Truth.
True science and true religion look at the same object from different directions.
To the extent that they differ, that is the level of some deviation from a strict pursuit of Truth, or lack of a yet sufficient level of discovery to permit any certainty.

To get all religiously philosophical here in "science class"...