Evolution Debunked

Please read this link, it severely challenges how evolution could be possible. It debunks evolution scientifically in laymens terms.
It wont take long for you to read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Wiggy wrote:

Please read this link, it severely challenges how evolution could be possible. It debunks evolution scientifically in laymens terms.
It wont take long for you to read.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Gee......There are so many lies and distortions of science in this creationist article.......none of it challenges evolution. Cheers!

Wiggy wrote:

Please read this link, it severely challenges how evolution could be possible. It debunks evolution scientifically in laymens terms.
It wont take long for you to read.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

That you think this twaddle is scientific speaks volumes.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
That you think this twaddle is scientific speaks volumes.

I doubt you have even read it. The fact that you say evolution is science is twaddle. Evolution is a story. Theres no proof a fish turned into a reptile. I have part of a Biology degree and know there are variations within a species. The process of natural selection results in survival of the fittest and not evolution. There are boundaries that cant be crossed and you cant prove that they can be. Its therefore not a fact but a belief. You are free to believe in what you like but dont try and teach people a theory that has long died out. A few cells did not get together in the beginning and presto now we are here as complex human beings after millions of years. How can anyone believe evolution to be true has got me beat but I think I know why. People have a problem with GOD and authority and will make up anything to avoid belief in GOD. Its called ABG anything but god ism. Spirituality is a reality, its a different realm to the material world. Just because someone is spiritually blind it doesnt mean GOD doesnt exist.

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee......There are so many lies and distortions of science in this creationist article.......none of it challenges evolution. Cheers!

What lies? Its stating facts that you are free to investigate further. I doubt you have read it as you are happy with your beliefs and knowledge. Also its not a creationists article it doesnt mention anything about creation which proves you didnt read it. It simply is stating facts.
Evolution is a distortion of science.

Wiggy wrote:

Please read this link, it severely challenges how evolution could be possible. It debunks evolution scientifically in laymens terms.
It wont take long for you to read.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

You believe a single article that preaches the same old misconceptions is going to debunk a well known fact? The article is too long to answer, but just from reading the beginning, the writer seems to misunderstand what evolution states and is. I'll try to answer just a few as examples:

"But what evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in."

First of all, evolution does not say that new creatures evolve or mutate to new different creatures. This is just a Pokemon understanding that many creationists adhere to. Evolution does not say everything is in constant change towards newer, bigger and better creatures. Almost everything that you see today has evolved through natural selection; to better fit it's environment. As you may or may not be aware of, there is micro evolution (small changes in allele frequencies), and macro evolution (larger changes in allele frequencies). Today we mostly see micro evolution taking place as there is hasn't been much of a need for natural selection to accept new mutations. There are many factors that trigger the emergence of new species; mainly climate change which can very between natural disasters or human influence. As stated formerly, the presented accusation is just simply false. Evolutionists do not preach the claimed argument, creationists do.

"Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood."

Speciation does happens, but it does take long period for new species to appear; and again, many factors have to be met in order for speciation to happen (land barriers come to mind), it doesn't just occur out of the blue, there must be some sort of influence in order for mutations to take place. Humans growing from an infant to an adult is called aging... it won't evolve to anything else. It should also be noted that 20 is not the standard age of procreation, and shouldn't necessarily be a measurement of adulthood. Most girls are able to have children at 14, but this shouldn't mean they're at their adult age. I doubt the writer of the article knows the difference between evolution an acclimatization which happens in a persons life time or he is willingly being gullible to further confuse the already confused. Just for you to note, for a mutation to be passed on, it has to happen in the sex cells (gametes),(that is, NOT "germ cells.")

"Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today."

This isn't necessarily true, there have been documented changes, as well as many well developed models to explain how speciation may occur, take for example the Allopatry model by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University. Speciation can also be difficult to recognize as sometimes scientists disagree as to when something can be classified as a new specie. Note that they don't disagree that speciation doesn't happen, just when to consider it a new specie. "William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment." - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...

Cute picture with the dog and the hammer, but sadly it illustrates another misconception creationists have about evolution. It resembles the mouse trap presented by Behe, that was easily debunked by Prof. John McDonald of the University of Delaware - http://udel.edu/%7Emcdonald/mousetrap.html

"All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made."

This has been very well answered with the following:

"...biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years."

- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...

There is just simply too much to answer, but everything can be refuted. Overall the articles tried to challenge points that have not yet been solved, and attacks them as being untrue or impossible. If you want to argue specifics let me know. If you want to read about evolution today I suggest reading this: Evolution in Action by Jonathan Weiner - http://files.meetup.com/217965/Jonathan-Weine...

"Thus science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligence whose exitance, in scientific terms, is unproved."

Wiggy wrote:

Please read this link, it severely challenges how evolution could be possible. It debunks evolution scientifically in laymens terms.
It wont take long for you to read.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I am an atheist and I fully agree with the scientific case this article presents. It is not only Creationists/Theists who challenge Darwinian Theory of Evolution....it is people who seriously challenge the viability of this Theory.

Tina wrote:

<quoted text>
I am an atheist and I fully agree with the scientific case this article presents. It is not only Creationists/Theists who challenge Darwinian Theory of Evolution....it is people who seriously challenge the viability of this Theory.

While you might be an atheist, you're clearly no scientist...

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
What lies? Its stating facts that you are free to investigate further. I doubt you have read it as you are happy with your beliefs and knowledge. Also its not a creationists article it doesnt mention anything about creation which proves you didnt read it. It simply is stating facts.
Evolution is a distortion of science.

If you had a single bit of scientific education you would know that the article in question is a gross manipulation and distortion of the concept of evolution. It borders on ludicrous, the way he describes some of these ideas.

If he truly believes everything that he wrote, someone needs to slap his science teacher (and probably remove his Penn State credentials as well).

Tina wrote:

<quoted text>
I am an atheist and I fully agree with the scientific case this article presents. It is not only Creationists/Theists who challenge Darwinian Theory of Evolution....it is people who seriously challenge the viability of this Theory.

Hate to burst your bubble but you are not challenging the viability of evolution.....evolution keeps getting stronger by the minute.

Real wrote:

But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made."

You call your self real and most likely say you dont believe anything and most evolutionists will also say that they dont believe anything. Yet you have used the word believe here. That is my main point against evolution is that it is a belief. You are free to believe in what you want but dont preach this crap to me its a complete dead end and is not at all "eternally optimistic". As for the non functional limbs. How does this explain that evolution is true. These sound like deformities to me. Anything that is deformed is less likely to survive natural selection. That might explain why the fruit flies refuse to breed. Maybe, the flies have become too ugly. Its all speculation and guess work anyway. If this is the best evidence that you can provide I am very confident in saying that evolution is a fairytale. Much smarter persons than you and me who work in the field of science can debunk evolution with facts and not stories.

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
What lies? Its stating facts that you are free to investigate further. I doubt you have read it as you are happy with your beliefs and knowledge. Also its not a creationists article it doesnt mention anything about creation which proves you didnt read it. It simply is stating facts.
Evolution is a distortion of science.

Wiggly, John Michael Fischer is a Creationist Geologist who believes in a 10,000 year old earth http://www.newgeology.us/ . He is listed with the 1994 International Conference on Creationism T-27 A Giant Meteorite Impact and Rapid Continental Drift-J. Michael Fischer, B.S.
http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc94.html

It is a creationist article with no scientific research behind it, only a written article about a creationist bias opinion.

First off that stupid article was written by a Chemist not a Biologist and his expertise is not about evolution. If he did really worked with bacteria he certainly did not comprehend that evolution was taking place underneath his very nose. Another point, if he was a Chemist, I just don't understand how he got the second law of Thermodynamics so wrong too. I know what I am talking about and I am a chemist too........those other scientist also are not qualified in the field of evolution. Evolutiuon is both a theory and a fact and you are in denial.

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt you have even read it. The fact that you say evolution is science is twaddle. Evolution is a story. Theres no proof a fish turned into a reptile. I have part of a Biology degree and know there are variations within a species. The process of natural selection results in survival of the fittest and not evolution. There are boundaries that cant be crossed and you cant prove that they can be. Its therefore not a fact but a belief. You are free to believe in what you like but dont try and teach people a theory that has long died out. A few cells did not get together in the beginning and presto now we are here as complex human beings after millions of years. How can anyone believe evolution to be true has got me beat but I think I know why. People have a problem with GOD and authority and will make up anything to avoid belief in GOD. Its called ABG anything but god ism. Spirituality is a reality, its a different realm to the material world. Just because someone is spiritually blind it doesnt mean GOD doesnt exist.

Wiggly, what is a part Biology degree?

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
..... There are boundaries that cant be crossed and you cant prove that they can be....

This is YOUR 'fantastic claim', Wiggy, so - in keeping with good scientific practice, it's up to you to substantiate it. Just what is it that constitutes a boundary, and how is it maintained? You see, I don't know of any boundary, so I'm in no position to prove that it can't be crossed - can I?

Ossuary wrote:

<quoted text>
This is YOUR 'fantastic claim', Wiggy, so - in keeping with good scientific practice, it's up to you to substantiate it. Just what is it that constitutes a boundary, and how is it maintained? You see, I don't know of any boundary, so I'm in no position to prove that it can't be crossed - can I?

You know, Oss, I keep hearing this claim, "There are boundaries that cant be crossed...", from creationists, but they NEVER, EVER are able to give a mechanism which would cause it to be so. If fact, they never seem able to even state what the boundary is...just claim that one is there.

Saif wrote:

<quoted text>
If you had a single bit of scientific education you would know that the article in question is a gross manipulation and distortion of the concept of evolution. It borders on ludicrous, the way he describes some of these ideas.
If he truly believes everything that he wrote, someone needs to slap his science teacher (and probably remove his Penn State credentials as well).

The article is not talking about beliefs but scientific facts that debunks evolution. They are not ideas at all but scientific facts. Do you want me to say it again scientific facts.

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
You call your self real and most likely say you dont believe anything and most evolutionists will also say that they dont believe anything. Yet you have used the word believe here. That is my main point against evolution is that it is a belief. You are free to believe in what you want but dont preach this crap to me its a complete dead end and is not at all "eternally optimistic". As for the non functional limbs. How does this explain that evolution is true. These sound like deformities to me. Anything that is deformed is less likely to survive natural selection. That might explain why the fruit flies refuse to breed. Maybe, the flies have become too ugly. Its all speculation and guess work anyway. If this is the best evidence that you can provide I am very confident in saying that evolution is a fairytale. Much smarter persons than you and me who work in the field of science can debunk evolution with facts and not stories.

I don't like to be rude, but you're quite a dunce to believe that those words come from me or any scientist. I took that directly from your so called "debunking" article. If you had actually read everything I wrote, you would have noticed that I was merely quoting the bickering dolt who wrote the article you cling to, and responded with an educated answer. I never said and will never say I don't believe anything (where are the statistics for the evolutionists who believe in nothing?), but I can be more inclined to not believe in a myth that the creation belief is. It lacks a scientific method, it lacks empirical evidence, period. I don't want to dwell on the ethical implications of believing something that "one finds true," as it brings a plethora of problems. Now tell me, do you have any empirical evidence other than faith for your one of many thousands of creation myths to be the one?

You obviously don't understand the importance of mutations and probably lack the basic concepts of evolutionary terms such as gene flow, genetic drift, etc. Hell, I doubt you even know what the scientific method is or the scientific definition of primitive. Quite honestly you are not even worth my time, your understanding of evolution has been corrupted by vanity, and there is nothing I or anyone can say to change your mind. It just boggles my mind how you can call empiricism a fairytale, and find a mythical book to be true. If you had any education in mythology, you would notice the parallels between your myth and Sumerian myths. You would know the implication of myth.

If you're going to be quoting me again, please quote something that I have actually said. It makes you look stupid when you argue your own quotation.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
You know, Oss, I keep hearing this claim, "There are boundaries that cant be crossed...", from creationists, but they NEVER, EVER are able to give a mechanism which would cause it to be so. If fact, they never seem able to even state what the boundary is...just claim that one is there.

0+0=0. This formulae shows there is a boundary. You cant create nothing from nothing and there had to be a beginning. Did you read the article above? There is more than just one scientific law (boundary) that debunks evolution.

Wiggy wrote:

<quoted text>
0+0=0. This formulae shows there is a boundary. You cant create nothing from nothing and there had to be a beginning. Did you read the article above? There is more than just one scientific law (boundary) that debunks evolution.

I believe he was referring to the alleged boundary between "micro" and "macro" evolution creationists keep alluding to with no evidence said boundary exists. But to address your "point", perhaps you haven't heard, the ToE and abiogenesis are two distinct areas of research. Absence of direct evidence for the latter has no impact on the evidence for the former though research directed towards elucidating the potential mechanisms is underway and surprising fruitful. As you've made it very clear you have an in depth knowledge of biology, you should find this researcher's work very interesting as in addition to pointing out RNA's ability for both catalysis and coding (the necessary components for primitive life), the spinoff technology (aptamers) are currently moving through clinical trials as therapeutics for various diseases. There aren't any cute cartoon doggies but don't let that dissuade you from taking a peek:
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
You've probably been directed to this site before, but you can spare yourself alot of ridicule by these heathen "evilutionists" by cross-referencing your limited scientific knowledge against the information available here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Cheers!