Science Disproves Evolution

[Guest]

Your sources are quite old.  Have you researched to see if there are updates to the subjects you are posting?  Might help to branch out from Creationist websites also.  The more you branch out, the more you will know.

 

~

 

The More You Branch Out From The Old Knowledge

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

 

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

 

The Less You Will

 

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

 

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

 

See

 

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6

[gray wolf]

Given long enough period of time

[Guest]

Given long enough period of time

 

 

6 Days Should Do Fine

If You're The LORD God Almighty, The Christ

Otherwise One Will Be Left With No Hope On A Dying Corrupt Earth

With Only Other Sinners (And Saints) To Face One's Wrath Because One's Idols Failed To Evolve

[Pahu]

Genetic Distances 1

 

Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

 

Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution (a).

 

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions ©.

 

a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.” Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,” he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,” and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].” “Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,” Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.

 

“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...” Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.

 

“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” Ibid., p. 282.

 

“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”  Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.

 

b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31^st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p. 113.

 

Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,” Issues and Answers, December 1980, p. 3.

 

While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City B.)

 

c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.” Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

 

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes31.html#wp1057949]

[Pahu]

Genetic Distances 2

 

DNA and RNA. Comparisons can be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated genes (d). Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: (e) simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals. Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated   (f).

 

(d). Gregory J. Brewer, “The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1–4.

Field, pp. 748–753.

 

(e). Denton, p. 285.

 

(f). “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.”  Ibid. p. 289.

 

 “Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.” Ibid. pp. 289–290.

 

 “Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.”  Ibid. p. 290.

 

 “There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.” Ibid. pp. 290–291.

 

 “In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate’, ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.” Ibid., p. 293.

 

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes31.html#wp1057949]

[Guest]

....One thing that has always puzzled me is....

 

....well first let me say I don't believe in evolution....

 

....Anyway, something that has puzzled me is if evolution isn't true....

 

....why do snakes and scorpions and spiders have venom....

 

....Why do bees have stingers....

 

 

....Ideas....

 

....opinions....

 

~

 

Because

 

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 (ESV)

 

Of

 

By which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 2 Peter 1:4 (ESV)

 

Sin

 

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21 (ESV)

 

And That Liar

 

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. Genesis 3:4 (ESV)

 

~

 

Yet We Have A Sure Hope

 

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

 

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

 

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 (ESV)

[ARGOSY]

One thing that has always puzzled me is, well first let me say I dont believe in evolution. Anyway, something that has puzzled me is if evolution isnt true, why do snakes and scorpions and spiders have venom. Why do bees have stingers? Ideas, opinions?

 

Adam had eternal life, until the fall. Do you think the same applied to the plants and animals? I suspect that God planned for nature to always reach equilibrium through natural eco-systems that developed. So the cycle of life and death possibly existed among all species, including the ability of some to defend themselves. ie possibly they were created like that.

[Guest]

 

Perrrrfict~!

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

 

Once

 

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. Isaiah 65:25

 

Again~!

 

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

 

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

 

And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

 

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6-9

[Pahu]

Genetic Distances 3

 

 Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

 

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g), include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although only 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.

 

Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j). Also, humans shuffle male and female DNA to their offspring in different ways than chimpanzees (k).

 

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information.  They conflict in major ways  (l).

 

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

 

“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

 

“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

 

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

 

i. “Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement...” Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010, p. 537.

 

j. “... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.” Ibid. p. 538.

 

k. “Studying human and Western chimpanzees, we found no hotspot sharing between the two species,” Adam Auton et al., “A fine-Scale Chimpanzee Genetic Map from Population Sequencing,” Science, Vol. 336, 13 April 2012, p. 196.

 

“Chimpanzees’ shuffling pattern is similar to that seen in some previously studied organisms, while the human pattern is unusual...” Gil McVean, as quoted by Tina Hesman Saey, “Going Ape Offers Better Family Tree,” Science News, Vol. 181, 21 April 2012, p. 16.

 

l. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

 

“We are left with a conundrum. [Evolutionary trees based on bodily characteristics (morphology) differ from trees based on genetics.]” Jonathan B. Losos et al., “Who Speaks with a Forked Tongue?” Science, Vol. 338, 14 December 2012, p. 1429.

 

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes31.html#wp1057949]

[ARGOSY]

Thanks for this thread. As you point out, DNA does not confirm evolution. Then we get geology that does actually show signs of a worldwide flood. Recent evidence points to huge doubt on radiometric dating methods.  

 

Even the layering of fossils does not point to evolution, but to periods of proliferation of different taxonomic phyla as conditions favored one over the other. Just because the lower layers show obvious proliferation of certain phyla which are less numerous today, doesn't preclude enclaves of more modern phyla co-existing in rare biomes at that time.