Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Altruism 2

 

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior (c).  Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation.  Altruism contradicts evolution (d). 

 

c.     “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.”   Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

 

d.    Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This

hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.

 

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

 

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

 

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

 

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

 

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

 

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

 

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences14.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[SimonB]

As usual the evolutionists are desperately clutching at straws!

[Pahu]

Extraterrestrial Life?

 

No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ316.html#wp4584911] “Is There Life in Outer Space?”[/url]]

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-mars_surface.jpg[/img]

 

Figure 6:Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

 

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html#wp11253138]281[/url]. For a full understanding, see pages [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html#wp1069425]270-321[/url]] 

 

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences15.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

[Pahu]

Language 1

 

Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak.  So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability.  There is no evidence language evolved (b). 

 

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

 

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d). 

 

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

 

a.    G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

 

b.    Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

 

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

 

c.     “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

 

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

 

d.     “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

 

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.”   Chomsky, p. 60.

 

e.    “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).”   Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences16.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

[Pahu]

Language 2

 

If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g). See [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ320.html#wp5829760]Figure 208 [/url]]

 

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

 

f.    David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

 

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.”   He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

 

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

 

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

 

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

 

g.     “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

 

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.”  John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences16.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Guest]

I guess it depends on your definition of evolution.

I don't believe one species becomes another. This is Darwinism.

But, I do believe that living organisms can change and develop over time.

ev·o·lu·tion

ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

   synonyms:

   Darwinism, natural selection "his interest in evolution"

2. 2.

   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

   synonyms:

   development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding

Edited February 1, 2017 by JaniceR

[Pahu]

Speech

 

Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

 

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).

 

Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

 

a.    Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

 

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].”  Ibid., p. 164.

 

b.    Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

 

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences17.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 1

 

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information (such as language) from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again. It is hard to imagine how natural processes and long periods of time could produce even one language. Having two languages form by natural processes and be able to automatically convert one to the other is unbelievable. 

 

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex (a) and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (b). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (c). 

 

a.    In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.

 

“...synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein [that it] adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.” Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba, “New Roles for Codon Usage,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al., “Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.

 

b.     “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

 

c.    The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]

 

“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

 

“It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction, but also the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins. So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.” John Maddox, “The Genetic Code by Numbers,” Nature, Vol. 367, 13 January 1994, p. 111.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[JTC]

Every time we discover something like what Pahu just said makes me think we just found reasons to believe God is real. Not only do I believe He's real but I believe He's something that goes beyond anything we can even understand. God can do things with biology that's similar to what we do with electronics but what God does goes way beyond what we do. And I guess I've reached the age where my brain can't even hold all those ideas in place together to try and understand them. I have to doubt that anyone can understand them although I know the pride of some people makes them think they can understand them. I'm not saying we should give up, no. We should keep trying. One reason to keep trying is the advances we've made in cancer treatments. It seems we now know cancer cells are invisible to our bodies natural defense systems. That's an amazing discovery right there. And since we now know this we have succeeded in making some cancer cells become visible. Once they are visible our bodies immune system can attack them and kill them. I find all this amazing. This is why we need to keep doing research. But even every time we figure out how something works we still don't know why things work in the body. That's where I believe the only answer is God. We call it life. It's truly amazing because not only did God create us very complex biological machines, but then He made the biology come to life. I doubt we will ever understand it. And that's why we have to obey God, because He is wondrous. 

[FresnoJoe]

On 9/6/2016 at 0:48 PM, Marcelo Brüderlein said:

Evolution is a fact - living beings do evolve -, but it doesn't answer the question: "where did we come from?" It's evident that God created all living beings and gave them a limited capacity to evolve. By the words "limited capacity" I mean animals cannot become human beings.

Evolution, That Favorite Fable Of Scientism

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

Will Never Be Seen On Earth

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Psalms 8:3-4

Except In Cartoons

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 (King James Bible)

Love, Your Brother Joe

~

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 (King James Bible)

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament