Science Disproves Evolution

[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 to any others (d). Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals (e). 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.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes31.html#wp1057949]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Dennis1209]

So, do you think they will go through the trouble and expense of rewriting the history books and change public school criteria from evolution to creation? Or come up with another false theory that explains and fits their evolutionary nonsense?

[Pahu]

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

So, do you think they will go through the trouble and expense of rewriting the history books and change public school criteria from evolution to creation? Or come up with another false theory that explains and fits their evolutionary nonsense?

Not until they accept the facts.