• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

JonathanQuick said:
Water is one such greenhouse gas. Have you seen the comparative IR spectra for CO2 and H2O? Yet global warming fraudsters present only the miniscule component of CO2. Shameful. Deceptive.
Click to expand...

There's a natural way for water vapor to quickly remove itself from the atmosphere. It's called rain. There is no similar process for CO2.
 
JonathanQuick said:
Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection.
Click to expand...

You do realize that hemoglobin is an evidence for vertebrate common ancestry right?
From here (actually just a bit up at the Lamprey's Tale.
"In human, four haemoglobin genes are known to be cousin genes of each other. An ancestor globin gene from an ancient vertebrate split into two genes, alpha and beta, which ended up in two different chromosomes and continued to evolve independently. Both alpha and beta further split into more independently evolving genes. All jawed fish show such alpha/beta split as predicated by evolution. However, lampreys and hagfish are ancient enough that they predate this gene split. In fact, jawless fishes, whenever investigated, do not possess split globin genes."

JonathanQuick said:
There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy."
Click to expand...

Example/s? If you're referring to Archaeoraptor, that was a failure of journalism (the editors didn't vet the fossil before running the story) and actually the real parts of the fraudulent chimera turned out to have some paleontological value after all.

JonathanQuick said:
And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.
They were promised, but new finds almost always create bigger gaps instead of filling them in.
Click to expand...

Only by people appealing to Zeno's paradox. Here's one example of smooth transition:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html
and a few more:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html
But the because vertebrates are more sexy people often want to see them and demand every single species have at least one individual lucky enough to have been fossilized. Of course they ignore the fact that if transitionals supposedly don't exist, the fact that we have a single one, much less quite a number of vertebrate series' is convienently ignored.

JonathanQuick said:
I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for."
Click to expand...

You must be an evangelical. The reason I conclude this is that Creationists who are evangelical tend to be overly fond of quote mining in the same way they are of proof texting.

JonathanQuick said:
What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.
Click to expand...

Why would a terrestrial mammal transitioning into a whale look like a reptile? Instead of linking to a list of transitional whale fossils, how about we do a thought exercise. If it's impossible for a terrestrial mammal to transition into a whale we should not be able to find a series of analogues in extant species... except:

Terrestrial but comfortable in the ocean - Polar Bear
Terrestrial but more comfortable in the ocean - Otter
Marine but still comfortable on the land - Sea Lion
Fully marine but lives close to the shore - Manatee
Fully marine and comfortable in the open ocean - Dolphin

If we have living analogues to the points of transition we'd expect for terrestrial mammal to whale, what makes whale evolution impossible?
 
JonathanQuick said:
How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet.

In fact, I am citing from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it's a heavily edited quote mine from a BS apologetical book, not a BS Internet rumor.

JonathanQuick said:
To calculate the number of ways 20 amino acids can be arranged in a sequence 264 amino acids long, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20.... a total of 264 times. Call it 10 to the 343rd power. And remember, there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe, to give you some perspective of large numbers.
Click to expand...

Careful folks, statistics pulled from the nether regions can have a nasty stink to them. Here's some questions I'd like you to answer before anyone wastes any time dealing with your unpossible statistical calculations.
- Did human hemoglobin form spontaneously or did the genes that control it come from something the lived before us?
- Is human hemoglobin fundamentally different from our fellow mammals?
- Is human hemoglobin fundamentally different from our fellow vertebrates?
- Is human hemoglobin fundamentally different from our fellow non-vertebrate chordates?



JonathanQuick said:
There is a splendid book titled The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Click to expand...

Did he get rid of all the crap "evidence" in the first edition or did he just add more Creationist BS and spice it up with some cdesgin proponentists arguments from incedulity?

JonathanQuick said:
Darwin's cladogram was blank. Not one tip, not the base, nothing was labelled.

Today, you can look up the most sophisticated cladogram ever produced. The branches remain blank, all the way down to the base. The promise of all those "missing links" remains quite unfulfilled.
Click to expand...

http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth
http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3
http://tolweb.org/Animals/2374
(etc. etc. you seem smart enough to click on the links between clades you claim are missing)
 
Last edited:
JonathanQuick said:
Microevolution does not remotely compare with macroevolution.

In fact, evolution is defined in terms of microevolution and that alone.
Therefore Darwinists feel very smug making this claim, and calling it "evolution" only to fall back on the infinite extrapolation when convenient.
Click to expand...

In fact you are incorrect in your summation of the ToE, it is the theory of natural selection through reproductive success. It is only through cumulative microevolution over large periods of time that macroevolution occurs.

You have created a false dichotomy along with your straw man.
 
Pahu said:
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
[/url]
Click to expand...

So what do you think Gould, who specialized in the transition of bahamian land snails is saying here, along with Niles.

That gradualism is not a good model for the ToE? the key phrase is what " Smooth intermediates between Baupläne", now what exactly are they talking about here?
especially since one of them spent his life studying exactlty those almost smooth transitions is shells of snails?
 
Didn't the sea level rise one mile during the flood? In other words anything under approx. 5280 feet above sea level was inundated.

I have done some basic math, I didn't break out the calculus, and have figured that in order to cover the earth with 1 mile of water, the total water needed to accomplish this would be 200,000,000 cubic miles.

This source; http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm says the Greenland and the Antarctic icecaps, if melted would add 220' to the sea levels, leaving approx. 5060' to achieve the one mile inundation.

The water vapor in the atomsphere at any given time would cover the earth to the tune of 1" (25mm) approx. so that is negligible.

Am I missing any other significant sources of water?

watergy.jpg
 
Last edited:
JonathanQuick said:
Einstein had ample time to evaluate LeMaitre's work and agree, but he refused to do so on dogmatic grounds. He didn't WANT a Big Bang.
Click to expand...

And when observable evidence was supported, he acknowledged the science despite of the dogma or whatever caused him to allegedly say that. It's something we all could learn to understand a bit better.

When, pray tell, is Al Gore ever derided as not being scientific by anyone on your side?
Click to expand...

You're jesting?

Discussing the Primordial Atom in context with the Theory of Relativity, and showing how the scientific community rejected new-found science for its own dogma is NOT "science"?

I am truly speechless.

I really don't wish to read any more of such stuff from you, but I will give you one more chance.
Click to expand...

I think you are reading too much into it. Science and theoretical physics in particular have seen many 'periods' of ventured headings, which perhaps at times came to be myopic and therefor at expense of discoveries and theories that hypothetically could've been reached sooner. But this isn't dogma per se, but inability to be perfect visionaries that recognize and accept theories which we in hindsight come to accept.
When Einstein succesfully removed the aether, e.g the idea of a preferred frame of reference, it was actually viewed as controversial a manuveour as it was simple, too simple for some. One could say Poincaíre as well as Lorentz had over complicated things, and therefor had problems with accepting the beautiful simplicity of Einstein's initial work.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
You do realize that hemoglobin is an evidence for vertebrate common ancestry right?
From here (actually just a bit up at the Lamprey's Tale.
"In human, four haemoglobin genes are known to be cousin genes of each other. An ancestor globin gene from an ancient vertebrate split into two genes, alpha and beta, which ended up in two different chromosomes and continued to evolve independently. Both alpha and beta further split into more independently evolving genes. All jawed fish show such alpha/beta split as predicated by evolution. However, lampreys and hagfish are ancient enough that they predate this gene split. In fact, jawless fishes, whenever investigated, do not possess split globin genes."
Click to expand...


Aaaaaawesome!
I will need to look into this, this is a nice addition to my collection of cool evolutionary widgets, plus, it is a nice introduction to the ideas of gene duplication as well as paralalogy and homology.


Example/s? If you're referring to Archaeoraptor, that was a failure of journalism (the editors didn't vet the fossil before running the story) and actually the real parts of the fraudulent chimera turned out to have some paleontological value after all.
Click to expand...

Yep, national geographic is not a scientific journal, but they decided to run with the flashy headline without waiting for the scientists to actually do the work (this things do take time).
In fact, the fake was very immediately identified as such and never accepted in any scientific journal.
By the way, who do creationist think identified the fraud? Who but scientists... I guess it kinda put to rest the idea of a vast conspiracy, no?



Why would a terrestrial mammal transitioning into a whale look like a reptile? Instead of linking to a list of transitional whale fossils, how about we do a thought exercise. If it's impossible for a terrestrial mammal to transition into a whale we should not be able to find a series of analogues in extant species... except:

Terrestrial but comfortable in the ocean - Polar Bear
Terrestrial but more comfortable in the ocean - Otter
Marine but still comfortable on the land - Sea Lion
Fully marine but lives close to the shore - Manatee
Fully marine and comfortable in the open ocean - Dolphin

If we have living analogues to the points of transition we'd expect for terrestrial mammal to whale, what makes whale evolution impossible?
Click to expand...

Not bad, although, I'd use hippopotamus rather than polar bear as your first example, even if its not in the ocean per se... Especially considering that the hippopotamus are actually pretty closely related to whales...
 
Okay, so we're all Young Earth Creationists now except for Sideroxylon, who has evolvde.
 
JonathanQuick said:
There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover.
Click to expand...
I don't know what post this was supposed to be a reply to. How does whatever article you're talking about prove the existence of a "controversy", and what controversy are you talking about?

UnrepentantSinner said:
If you're referring to Archaeoraptor, that was a failure of journalism (the editors didn't vet the fossil before running the story) and actually the real parts of the fraudulent chimera turned out to have some paleontological value after all.
Click to expand...
That was 11 years (November 1999) ago and not the cover feature. (An Incan human corpse/mummy was.) Are there any other options that fit the description better?

Simon39759 said:
By the way, who do creationist think identified the fraud? Who but scientists... I guess it kinda put to rest the idea of a vast conspiracy, no?
Click to expand...
Just like with the Piltdown Man: sensationalists ran with it, scientists didn't buy it and knew something was wrong from the start, and Creationists would later claim that scientists fell for it.
 
Delvo said:
I don't know what post this was supposed to be a reply to. How does whatever article you're talking about prove the existence of a "controversy", and what controversy are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I told him there was no controversy among scientists about evolution happening. I guess this shows the paradigm is in deep crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom