Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Fruit Flies

 

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a). 

 

a.    “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

 

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory...” Nilsson, p. 1186.

 

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

 

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

 

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.

 

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences10.html#wp3680548]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Leon C. Essex]

I’ve enjoyed reading through this thread, and am grateful for the insights and information it contains. It’s an interesting subject. I don’t feel qualified to add much, but would just like to share a few thoughts on origins.

The odds against spontaneous generation would seem to be astronomical – probably of a similar order to the chances of me winning the Kentucky Derby, whilst carrying the horse.  These odds would then have to be multiplied by the chances of this ( presumably )single-celled life-form finding itself in an environment which can sustain its existence. The resultant figure would then be multiplied by the odds against it just happening to have reproductive ability, and again by whatever enormous odds against it (a) containing all the genetic information necessary to produce all extant or extinct life-forms, or (b) having the capacity to produce an almost infinite number of benign mutations. Unless, of course, there is some mechanism (as yet undiscovered) whereby additional information can be introduced to the gene pool….but I won’t be holding my breath on that one.  When I come across those who actually believe these things happened, I am ashamed at the comparative paucity of my own faith. If I had but the smallest percentage of their faith, I’m sure I could move mountains while having my morning shave, and even shuffle around the continents over breakfast.

While I cannot claim any detailed knowledge of matters biological, I certainly see some parallels in the world of physics, in which I take a somewhat closer interest. There is that same belief in an impossible series of events, the same desperation to attribute existence to anything – be it ever so absurd – rather than face the obvious conclusion that what we have could only be the result of a creative, intelligent and external power. And there is that same inability to address true origins: that infinitely small, infinitely dense point of matter which is said to have instigated the big bang must have had prior cause, just as the first single-celled life-form must have come from somewhere - and spontaneous generation can never be a viable proposition.

In astro-physics, it appears that every time discoveries contradict previous understandings, someone will come up with an exotic new theory just to maintain the illusion that it all makes sense. The truth is, however, that the large majority of recent speculations – often portrayed as ‘fact’ – have little or no evidential base. Their only purpose seems to be to plug the holes which keep appearing in the accepted ‘truths’ of this discipline. And maybe to sell a few books!  But wild speculation by scientists is nothing new , nor is it confined to physicists – one only has to pick up a copy of Walton’s “The Compleat Angler” to see that. Eminent men of the day claimed such things as whirlpools were caused by flatfish – more than acre in area – turning over. There were reports of killer frogs, and tench being born from the morning mist. Perhaps, as someone once said, “there is nothing new under the sun”.

[enoob57]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 10:11 AM, Out of the Shadows said:

While the basic math is correct, the logic is fatally flawed.   Population growth is never linear, nor exponential.   We have records going back 1000's of year that help us to understand population growth.  The current rate of growth we see today is possible only because of technology that has added to both life expectancy and to agricultural production.   In order for population to increase as this piece puts forth it would have to be coupled with a concurrent migration, which we do not see in history.   A study of population growth based of historical records show a growth rate of 2% between 1930-1994, a .9% between 1850-193, .3% between 1650-1850, .07% between 650-1650.   Using these historical rates and starting with 8 people after the flood the population of the earth would be 1740 people today.

This is highly suspect to documentation... 1692 we were unaware of a whole continent existence  

[Running Gator]

7 hours ago, enoob57 said:

This is highly suspect to documentation... 1692 we were unaware of a whole continent existence  

While it is certainly possible that the unknown continents experienced population growth different than the "known" world, but there is no evidence to suggest such, so that really makes no difference at all. 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 1

 

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a). 

 

a.    “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

 

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”   Behe, pp. 186–187.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[JTC]

To the best of my knowledge evolution was never proven. I went to school a long time ago, but I was taught if a theory can't be proven in about 100 yrs it should be abandoned and other theories should be considered. That was considered just basic science. It seems the ungodly world just wants to try and prove God isn't real and now evolution is taught as a fact. Now they have us thinking we have to disprove evolution. But it was never proven in the first place. I was also taught it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it's only possible to prove something does exist. Now they teach you can disprove a thing. If I said 6 legged dogs exist in nature no one would believe me unless I could produce proof. This is science as I learned it. Evolution was never proven. If there were fossils that indicated 1 kind of organism slowly became another organism that would be proof. But it doesn't exist. 

It's unfortunate for us that God doesn't want hard core proof of his existence. Those of us who know God knows He's real. In our day God seems to be hiding. But when I look at our world I'm not surprised.

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 2

 

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye (b), the ear, or the brain (c). 

 

b.    “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”   John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

 

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

 

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

 

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? ” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

 

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Running Gator]

On 11/2/2016 at 8:57 PM, JTC said:

To the best of my knowledge evolution was never proven. I went to school a long time ago, but I was taught if a theory can't be proven in about 100 yrs it should be abandoned and other theories should be considered. That was considered just basic science. It seems the ungodly world just wants to try and prove God isn't real and now evolution is taught as a fact. Now they have us thinking we have to disprove evolution. But it was never proven in the first place. I was also taught it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it's only possible to prove something does exist. Now they teach you can disprove a thing. If I said 6 legged dogs exist in nature no one would believe me unless I could produce proof. This is science as I learned it. Evolution was never proven. If there were fossils that indicated 1 kind of organism slowly became another organism that would be proof. But it doesn't exist. 

It's unfortunate for us that God doesn't want hard core proof of his existence. Those of us who know God knows He's real. In our day God seems to be hiding. But when I look at our world I'm not surprised.

 

A theory is never proven, so I am not sure why you were taught that.   Proof only exist in mathematics and logic, it is not within the realm of science.  Or as a professor used like to says "Proofs are not the currency of science."

[Guest shiloh357]

And yet most scientists that subscribe to Evolution scientists treat Evolution as proven fact. 

[enoob57]

That is the force of the spirit that drives the lie....