Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 1

 

Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.

 

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. (a).

 

a.    In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

 

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

 

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

 

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See    pages [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html] 108-339[/url]]

 

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.”   Eiseley, p. 76.

 

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

 

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

 

[Marcelo Brüderlein]

On 06/09/2016 at 4:26 PM, Ezra said:

In what way did living beings "evolve"?  And where is the evidence? Evolution is an either/or proposition.  It is either completely true or totally false.  And since there is no genuine evidence, it is clearly false.

I said LIMITED capacity to evolve. Some species have to evolve so that they don't become extint.

[Guest Teditis]

I think the terms "evolve" and "evolution" are loaded down with a bunch of meanings

that many of us stumble over. So I would encourage clarifying your meaning/definition

of each word when discussing the subject in an open forum.

[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).

 

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead, 

 

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

 

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

 

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

 

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or

 

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 (e). 

 

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.

 

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

 

c.    G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

 

d.    Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.

 

e.    Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

 

“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.

 

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

[Pahu]

'ANGEL' IN BEAMS OF LIGHT AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9/11 MEMORIAL

 

 

Photographer: 'Almost looked like a vision of the Lord'

 

 

 

Image being called the Angel of the World Trade Center. This image was captured by Richard McCormack. He is a photographer at the New Jersey Journal.

Copyright: Richard McCormack

 

A startling image has emerged from the recent memorial light display in New York City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America by Islamic terrorists: an image that is being described as an angel.

“I did a double-take not knowing really what it was, but as I zoomed in it almost looked like a vision of the Lord with his arms crossed,” photographer Rich McCormack told a New Jersey station. “I got very emotional, and I got tears in my eyes.”

He’s posted his images on social media.

Yvette Cid, who lost two sons in the 9/11 terror attacks, told him, “Rich I know you don’t photo shop that’s an awesome pic wow I lost my two boys and I believe this is a sign to all that have lost a loved one.”

Here’s a zoomed-in view:

 

 

 

Copyright: Rich McCormack

 

And another even closer:

 

 

 

Copyright: Rich McCormack

 

THelena Padget added, “The Lord is with us and this is just another reminder. It’s beautiful.”

McCormack, of Jersey City, reported he’d taken multiple images of the light, but the figure appeared only in one.

What do we know about heaven? See the resources available at the WND Superstore, including “Heaven Vision: Glimpses Into Glory,” “Heaven Is Beyond Your Wildest Expectations: Ten Ture Stories of Experiencing Heaven,” and “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey Into The Afterlife.”

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/angel-in-beams-of-light-at-world-trade-center-memorial/

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 3

 

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

 

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g). It deletes information; it cannot create information. 

 

f.     “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

 

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

 

g.    In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:

 

          

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under

 

 Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

 

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.

 

“But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones.” Ibid., p. 883.

 

Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. If so, how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead.

 

As stated earlier, micro + time  ≠  macro.

 

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

 

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

[Pahu]

Mutations 1

 

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

 

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b). 

 

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

 

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,...” Ayala, p. 63.

 

b.    “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

 

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

 

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

 

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.”   Ibid. p. 103.

 

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid. p. 100.

 

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.”   W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008857]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

[Pahu]

Mutations 2

 

Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

 

“Lethal mutations outnumber viables by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.” Winchester, p. 356.

 

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

 

“...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

 

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

 

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

 

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration...” [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

 

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

 

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

 

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.”   Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008857]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Flsnookman]

On 9/11/2016 at 11:21 AM, Out of the Shadows said:

It seems that dust did change to become man.  

Dust is not a creature and it did not evolve it was changed. 

[Pahu]

Mutations 3

 

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

 

Dr. John Sanford has shown that mutations occur at such a rapid rate that “mutational meltdown” would have occurred if humans were only 100,000 years old. In other words, “genetic entropy” is pushing mankind toward extinction.(c). 

 

c.    “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

 

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

 

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”   Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

 

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

 

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

 

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

 

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”   Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

 

For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html#wp1008857]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]