Science Disproves Evolution

[Betrade]

Why do you prefer my words to the words of scientists?

Cause this is Discussanything; not copy and paste anything!!

[Pahu]

Metamorphosis 1

Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from the adult.
Evolution claims that:

Mutations slightly alter an organism’s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?

a. “Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.” Michael Pitman, “Adam and Evolution” (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.

“Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?” Taylor, p. 177.

“There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ...” Peter Farb, “The Insects,” Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.

“Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.” Douglas Dewar, “The Transformist Illusion” (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences42.html]

[Pahu]

Metamorphosis 2

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run”? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot?” (b)

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

Charles Darwin wrote:

“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” (e).

Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.


Figure 15: Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a two-week-old caterpillar, it builds a chrysalis around itself. Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause the insect’s extinction—a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities. Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.

c. Christine Merlin et al., “Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies,” Science, Vol. 325, 25 September 2009, pp. 1700–1704.

Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp2927793]

[Betrade]

Dude????

[Pahu]

Symbiotic Relationships

Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.

More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.

a. Oscar L. Brauer, “The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129–131.

Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29–32.

b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3172981]

[TopsyTurvy]

Honestly could a Mod destroy this bullshit thread?

[Pahu]

Honestly could a Mod destroy this bullshit thread?

Is it possible you can't tolerate the truth? Who is forcing you to read it?

[TopsyTurvy]

Is it possible you can't tolerate the truth? Who is forcing you to read it?

[jwreck]

Is it possible you can't tolerate the truth? Who is forcing you to read it?

Holy shit a response!!!

[Pahu]

Sexual Reproduction 1

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).

[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

[f.] This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

[From “ In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences44.html]

[megadebt]

Science proves the facts of Evolution day in and day out...I've yet to read A SINGLE arguement against the process that universally applied logic can not demolish...After a while, the logic and the overwhelming evidence in its favor proves to the rational-minded 'which particular universe' we happen to find ourselves inside of.

[Pahu]

Science proves the facts of Evolution day in and day out...I've yet to read A SINGLE arguement against the process that universally applied logic can not demolish...

What proof for evolution are you referring to? What universally applied logic demolishes the information I am sharing that disproves evolution?

After a while, the logic and the overwhelming evidence in its favor proves to the rational-minded 'which particular universe' we happen to find ourselves inside of.

Where is the logic and the overwhelming evidence in its favor?

[Pahu]

Sexual Reproduction 2

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).

e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.” Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.” George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?” Nilsson, p. 1225.

“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.” Pitman, p. 135.

[From “ In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences44.html]

[megadebt]

What proof for evolution are you referring to? What universally applied logic demolishes the information I am sharing that disproves evolution?

Where is the logic and the overwhelming evidence in its favor?

I see that you've cut and pasted a thousand different things into this thread...But, have you spent a decent amount of time really dissecting the reasoning they put behind any of these creationist arguements?...

They're mostly transparent, and certainly will not hold up against the scrutiny of actual, applied Science...It's all smoke and mirrors and diversionary tactics with the Creationists...Don't look over there, look over here...Don't consider that piece of info while we're examining something over here.

If Creationists aren't busy twisting and manipulating the scientific method, tossing it on its head and misinterpreting each piece of mounting evidence, they're usually busy pointing fingers at the very few areas (gaps) in the evolutionary puzzle which are still hazy on some of the theorectical aspects...They can't show anything in support of their own crazy idea, so they try to pick holes in the walls of a terribly sound structure.

The fact of the matter is that the natural world has handed us a majority of the puzzle pieces for our this world we inhabit...The last few pieces that we obtain will not radically alter the already discernable 'face' we see in the many, already assembled pieces of the puzzle...We are not going to find a piece of evidence which is going to overturn evolution and make creationism a distinct possibility...You can't have 99 pieces for a puzzle which depicts a lady on a lake, and the hundredth piece somehow transform the picture into a cabana boy serving martinis poolside. Just ain't happening.

The overall picture is already visible, and from every angle you look at it, it is the story of 'evolution by natural selection'...That theory, and all it implies, is cemented in such hard facts and impeccable logic/science that every single other branch of science is only understandable [/I] through the eyes of this theory. We would literally need to throw out every branch of science if evolution was somehow shown to be on shaky ground...The theory of evolution is the common foundation which everything else sits on. Each branch relys on evolution being true for itself to be true.

You go ahead and deliver up a single piece of Creationist 'evidence' which you think can dent the armor of evolution, and I'll do my darndest at refuting it...I'm not saying that I'm the greatest at this form of debate. I'm not a scientist by trade, but I've squashed numerous of these poorly constructed arguements that the Creationists rely on as stock.

Most times, it must embarass the heck out of the Creationist him or herself...How can you get so gung-ho about some piece of so-called 'evidence' if you don't really understand what it means in relation to the arguement at hand? Still, it happens all the time. Some person truly doesn't have the slightest understanding of how evolution really works, and they attempt to poke a hole.

The evidence for evolution is all around you, friend...imbedded deep within every single living cell on this planet...The evidence for creationism is nothing more than an ancient storybook.

[Pahu]

I see that you've cut and pasted a thousand different things into this thread...But, have you spent a decent amount of time really dissecting the reasoning they put behind any of these creationist arguements?...

The scientific information and logical conclusions based on it looks valid to me. What do you find wrong with it? What you call “creationist arguments” are conclusions based on known laws of physics and biology that are confirmed by the scientists being quoted, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

They're mostly transparent, and certainly will not hold up against the scrutiny of actual, applied Science...It's all smoke and mirrors and diversionary tactics with the Creationists...Don't look over there, look over here...Don't consider that piece of info while we're examining something over here.

What actual, applied scientific scrutiny are you referring to? Can you supply some examples?

If Creationists aren't busy twisting and manipulating the scientific method, tossing it on its head and misinterpreting each piece of mounting evidence, they're usually busy pointing fingers at the very few areas (gaps) in the evolutionary puzzle which are still hazy on some of the theorectical aspects...

In what way is the scientific method being twisted, manipulated and mininterpreted?

They can't show anything in support of their own crazy idea, so they try to pick holes in the walls of a terribly sound structure.

In what way is the evolution structure terribly sound?

The fact of the matter is that the natural world has handed us a majority of the puzzle pieces for our this world we inhabit...The last few pieces that we obtain will not radically alter the already discernable 'face' we see in the many, already assembled pieces of the puzzle...

What are those puzzle pieces supporting the evolution puzzle?

We are not going to find a piece of evidence which is going to overturn evolution and make creationism a distinct possibility...

What about all those pieces of evidence I have already shared, each of which does disprove evolution?

The overall picture is already visible, and from every angle you look at it, it is the story of 'evolution by natural selection'...

Where is evidence supporting that picture?

That theory, and all it implies, is cemented in such hard facts and impeccable logic/science that every single other branch of science is only understandable [/I] through the eyes of this theory.

For example?

We would literally need to throw out every branch of science if evolution was somehow shown to be on shaky ground...The theory of evolution is the common foundation which everything else sits on. Each branch relys on evolution being true for itself to be true.

For example?

You go ahead and deliver up a single piece of Creationist 'evidence' which you think can dent the armor of evolution, and I'll do my darndest at refuting it...I'm not saying that I'm the greatest at this form of debate. I'm not a scientist by trade, but I've squashed numerous of these poorly constructed arguements that the Creationists rely on as stock.

Your refutations are welcome. When are you going to start?

Most times, it must embarass the heck out of the Creationist him or herself...How can you get so gung-ho about some piece of so-called 'evidence' if you don't really understand what it means in relation to the arguement at hand? Still, it happens all the time. Some person truly doesn't have the slightest understanding of how evolution really works, and they attempt to poke a hole.

The evidence for evolution is all around you, friend...imbedded deep within every single living cell on this planet...

Where is that evidence?

The evidence for creationism is nothing more than an ancient storybook.

Can you show me where the information I am sharing came from some ancient storybook, rather than from the facts of science? When there are only two models for origins, evolution or creation, and evolution has been disproved, doesn’t that leave creation? Also, there is evidence, based on facts of science, that does prove intelligent design (creation). Many scientists, like Behe, have come to that conclusion. Also:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/B...KU-000005147#]

[megadebt]

Can you show me where the information I am sharing came from some ancient storybook, rather than from the facts of science? When there are only two models for origins, evolution or creation, and evolution has been disproved, doesn’t that leave creation?

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Are these the premises you are starting from? You don't intend to offer up anything in support of Creationism, but instead claim that you're able to poke holes in the theory of Evolution, and this tactic will somehow make Creationism true for the world...You will make it the default position by process of elimination.

I can assure you that any argument you post here for any of the eknown natural processs or phenomena in the natural world can and will be made total sense of, using only the facts and theory of evolution...Also, are you really going to stick to the premise that non-living matter is unable to give rise to the living, when we already have plenty of evidence to show that there def exists a grey area in between the two.

If you are asking for me to show how Evolution can precisely explain the steps leading up to the very first, single-celled organisms...Well, of course, it can't be done yet...This is just like how the Big Bang Theory is fully capable of explaining everything after the event, but nothing before it...

Same exact thing with Evolution and its 'explanatory power'...Doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the theories themselves...The theories are reliable for explaining and predicting a huge RANGE of phenomena...We will need additional theories to explain the rest...If you are relying on 'holes' to feed your case, you're wasting time, breath and belief.

Some folks like to look at this 'GAP' in the theories' explanatory power as some sort of shortcoming...and then they go and equate the term 'shortcoming' with some form of 'failure.'..Then, they use this whole poor rationalization as an excuse to dismiss the entire theory, erroneously...This is a COP-OUT, bar none...

Folks inclined to Creationism will pass of this flimsy excuse as the reason for why they've dismissed Evolution...They try to kid themselves that the theory has some kind of tremendous 'hole' in it because it currently can not explain how LIFE initial got its start...There's no hole in Evolution...and it does not have a shortcoming because it can't explain anything prior to the advent of DNA...Just means that we need more theories to explain this other phenomena.

AND, it's not like we don't already know what the other, precursor theory will look like...at least what it will look like, somewhat...We already know many of the pieces of the puzzle...Pay attention here...Because, this is where we serve up some actual, extremely important scientific facts...My next post will contain a few simple facts about the universe and the earth which overwhelmingly proves that evolution MUST be a fact...HAS TO BE TRUE.

We already know that GASES lead to the production of AMINO ACIDS, which in turn will lead to the assembly of PROTEINS, which, of course, themselves are the building blocks of LIFE itself....We already know large chunks of the puzzle...We can already point to a chain of events that are likely to lead to life, given the right setting...

But, it's also kinda silly to think that if we just stir some elements together, and let them sit on a windowsill somewhere, for some very small timescale, while upping the temperature and electrical voltages to some random setting that this will suddenly generate 'simple life' in a controlled setting...

This is the area that the Evolution-detractors like to cite when they unjustifiably dismiss Evolution...They say, "why can't you just produce 'life' in a beeker somewhere?"...And, the answer, of course, is that we can not even remotely approximate the Earth's environment, some 3.5 billion years ago...the approximate timeframe when life arose on this planet.

We are so used to knowing and accepting that DNA is the REPLICATOR responsible for ensuring reproduction and the evolution of life on this planet...But, there could have EASILY been some form of precursor to DNA....How about some crude form of RNA? In fact, many to most scientist think that this is the link to the answer...DNA itself could have evolved out of something even much simpler than RNA....perhaps some simple photocopying mechanism.

And, these are certainly not the type of things that would have left a fossil....Yet, If we follow the biological chain above, and go from Gas to Amino to Protein to "X" with X being some very simple type of replicator, then the jump to DNA is an easy one...And, we are getting closer and closer to that unifying theory with each passing day...

Nope, there's nothing wrong with the Theory of Evolution...It is a beautiful and elaborate explanation for all of life's diversity...There ARE NO HOLES in the theory...only holes in our understanding of it...And, as for what happend prior to it...we just need additional info which will lead to an additional theory.

[Pahu]

Nope, there's nothing wrong with the Theory of Evolution...It is a beautiful and elaborate explanation for all of life's diversity...There ARE NO HOLES in the theory...only holes in our understanding of it...And, as for what happend prior to it...we just need additional info which will lead to an additional theory.

If I correctly understand you, you are saying that even though you know evolution is true, you just don't have enough factual information to confirm your belief--yet. It looks like you base your belief on faith that somehow in the future some time, all the missing information will be discovered. In the meantime, the information I have been sharing disproves evolution and supports creation. It looks like you have a preconception that intelligent design is impossible, except when we design something.

[Dodge]

Hi Pahu -- I see that you’re spreading the same young-earth creationist propaganda primarily from Walter Brown's quote-mining ministry here as you have been doing for years at FactNet; as well as at literally dozens of online forums in cyberspace.

I noticed that your last comment to “megadebt” was that even though he knows evolution is true, he doesn’t have enough factual information to confirm his belief. That’s funny, because I know you believe in demons, angels, and reincarnation. Why is it that you reject established scientific theory such as evolution and astrophysical evidence concerning the evolution of solar systems and planets yet accept that there are invisible entities that possess people, angels hovering about that nobody can see, and “souls” hopping from body to body through serial incarnation?

[megadebt]

If I correctly understand you, you are saying that even though you know evolution is true, you just don't have enough factual information to confirm your belief--yet. It looks like you base your belief on faith that somehow in the future some time, all the missing information will be discovered. In the meantime, the information I have been sharing disproves evolution and supports creation. It looks like you have a preconception that intelligent design is impossible, except when we design something.

This reply of yours is about a millions of miles removed from anything stated in my last post...After all this time, I still can not fathom why the Creationist mindset leaves its adherents so willingly and deliberately dense...The entire worldview comes from such a perversity of perception that it still leaves me confounded whenever I witness it in full action...It's based on twisting information as it's received, totally passing on the uncomfortable and incongruous bits of subject matter, and then reconfiguring a totally subjective and highly perverted picture which ultimately bears no resemblance to actual reality...

Above, what I've stated is that the theory of evolution is rock solid...Of course, I believe in it...just as I believe in everything else I can deduce with logic in the world around me...The theory's ability to explain pheno and genotypic changes throughout the millennia is unparalleld...It's an elaborate and elegant theory, who's predictive powers enables scientists to situate themselves at any juncture on the timeline, and then apply the rules of the theory to make accurate predictions about what we should see appearing at other future times...It's so unbelievably reasonable that the unreasonable folk out there can't seem to embrace it.

Biological Evolution is a process that stands on its own...It explains a specific process as applied to a specific enviroment, beginning with the smallest, most simplistic forms of life, leading up to what we see left in the present day...The theory is of a largescale scope, yet it is still 'finite' and does not explain everything..What I stated above is that we will need an additional theory to describe how 'LIFE' got its start on this planet...Just like we need different, independent, yet congrous theories in 'Physics' to explain what goes on with largescale objects, as opposed to the sub-atomic realm...

I described in my last post several of the elements which might be included in such a precursor theory...We are making more and more sense of the whole thing as the years pass...Again, 'missing knowledge' does not in any way correlate with 'holes in the theory'...* I am willing to take on any ONE specific challenge to the theory of evolution that you may post...but I am not weeding through that massive amount of text that you've already posted...

* I've thought long and hard on this subject, and I believe that there are even a few, observable and testable, sorta 'axioms' existing in our world which prove, way beyond the shadow that biological evolution is 'true'...I'll post a few of these things next...That is, if my computer stops shutting off by itself in the middle of me writing.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Saying it's either creation or evolution is a false dichotomy and is stated as only being creation or evolution because it means that if you show holes in evolution is automatically proves creation, but as I said, it's a false dichotomy.