Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,553 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,489,047
Pageviews Today: 1,903,080Threads Today: 257Posts Today: 5,701
01:07 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

 
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 04:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9560253
United States
09/28/2012 04:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
oh yes, evolution is against common sense.

God did it.

and he made the world too!

so we can all worship him.

shitstreamtptptp
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22771242


Your position is:

Nothing did it! And nothing made the world too!

Can't get more asinine than that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9560253
United States
09/28/2012 04:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
how can you use 1 example as "proof" of creation, when you ignore 10,000 other examples that support evolution?

why do you say scientists are ridiculous, except when you come across the few instances their science supports your superstition?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22771242


It's actually the other way around. You cling to even the most questionable evidence to support your theory. For every piece of 'evidence' that supports evolution, there are ten that negate it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9560253
United States
09/28/2012 04:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Evolution of Flight

There is nothing quite like the sight of an evolutionist squirming and tugging at his collar after being asked to explain how flight "evolved"! Like all tenets of mud-to-man evolution, you'll get plenty of "may have's", "could have's", and "uh's" but no facts or credible evidence. The reason is simple - there is no evidence of how this amazing mutational process occurred!

Presently the general consensus among evolutionists is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. This hypothesis has proven so weak, though, that it has recently come under serious scrutiny from within the secular evolutionist scientific community2. With the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis on the verge of extinction, what will our evolutionist story-tellers dream up next?

The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

The fossil record certainly doesn't help the evolutionist's position. Considering the quantity of avian (bird) and especially bat fossils that have been unearthed, if evolution were true there should be hundreds of thousands of examples of transitional forms demonstrating a gradual limb-to-wing development over time. But there are none! Instead, birds and bats appear fully formed in the fossil record, as would be expected if creation were true. Indeed, the oldest fossil bat (called Icaronycteris by long-winded evolutionists) is supposedly 50 million years old, yet is indistinguishable from a modern bat! (see Glenn Jepson, Science 154:1333-1339, 1966). Additionally, both non-flying and flying insects are found in the fossil record, without a trace of intermediate insects in the process of obtaining the ability to fly. Where are the ancestors to the flying insects, and where are the intermediate steps? The answer is simple - they don't exist because evolution is a fairy tale!

[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Isn't it obvious how flight evolved it started as jumping, which led to controlled and extended jumping and ended with flight.
Look at a flying squirrel compare the design to a bat.
You can also observe a behavior in birds where they actually use their wings for increased foreword thrust increasing their running speed, just observe and you will see clues.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1018225


Yes soooo obvious lol. Talk about just making shit up.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9560253
United States
09/28/2012 04:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
As an atheist I say evolution is a fairly decent explanation. If something better comes up I'll look into that too. In fact I'll examine any explanation...even alien's. A christian or creationist won't. It's god's work and that is that. Pathetic :-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8383606


It's funny that you are willing to consider aliens but not God. If it turns out to be aliens, who created the aliens? Your anti God bias is all too transparent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9560253
United States
09/28/2012 04:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Believing in some all mighty god that waved his hand and created everything is the real fairytale nuub.
 Quoting: AtsuiPanda


But believing it all came from nothing is somehow rational? Please explain.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24584818
United States
09/28/2012 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
As an atheist I say evolution is a fairly decent explanation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8383606


What a shock!

Please Drive Thru.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8383606


For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--
his eternal power and divine nature--
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse.


Romans 1:20
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Leviticus 16

16:18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

16:20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:

16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.

16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.



ALL HAIL THE GOD OF THE GOAT HERDERS!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24584818
United States
09/28/2012 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Believing in some all mighty god that waved his hand and created everything is the real fairytale nuub.
 Quoting: AtsuiPanda


But believing it all came from nothing is somehow rational? Please explain.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9560253


because all the evidence points to a universe that developed from, and came from, something primodial, of which we don't YET know where it came from, but there is no evidence that it was poofed into existence in one day from a bearded man in the clouds.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 07:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Believing in some all mighty god that waved his hand and created everything is the real fairytale nuub.
 Quoting: AtsuiPanda


But believing it all came from nothing is somehow rational? Please explain.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9560253


because all the evidence points to a universe that developed from, and came from, something primodial, of which we don't YET know where it came from, but there is no evidence that it was poofed into existence in one day from a bearded man in the clouds.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24584818


So the computer system of a living cell, more complex than anything we can even conceive of designing, for which we can produce not even a working hypothesis of its random natural origin.... is evidence of primordial soup? How your mind is darkened.

When you say "We don't know YET", you're really saying, "We haven't yet figured out how to explain it from a purely naturalistic perspective." You are locked into your premise, and sorry to say, the evidence is leading 180 degrees away from it.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 07:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The "Evolutionary Hypothesis of Random, Non-Intelligent, Purely Naturalistic mechanisms guiding Life" PREDICTS, the "evolution" of a living cell from non organic material.

What are the chances that the naturalists' most important prediction has turned out to be a phenomena completely inexplicable from a naturalistic standpoint. (Abiogenesis)

Of all we have learned about molecular biology and the functions of a cell, wouldn't you expect there to at least be a HINT of how the cell was formed?

PREDICTION = FAILED



The Living Cell is evidence of a system that came into being functioning and intact. It requires all of its parts to maintain and produce its parts.

The only rational explanation is intelligent design which successfully predicts this.

This is not "God of the Gaps".. Intelligent Design is falsifiable. If scientists could produce a working theory about the living cell's origin, it would shatter ID.




A helpful visual aid.


[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24594462
Germany
09/28/2012 07:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale



More and free:
[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale



More and free:
[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24594462


By God all things were created. :)
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 07:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
(taken from above video)


So then, you stiff-necked and wicked generation,
seek on by unbelief and you shall discover the truth, which is God.
Dissect life’s structures, there I am,
its Writer and Fashioner...

Look deeper and farther than before,
and there you will find Me;
calculate and count all things,
which are before your eyes,
and there you will find Me;

search the Cosmos, study it,
and you will begin to know Me...
No matter where you point your lenses,
there I am within the scope of your understanding.

Did you think I am hidden,
The Invisible God of your ancestors?
Though you do not behold My face,
I am shining all around you.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 08:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24597595
Italy
09/28/2012 08:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Cleaner Fish

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


bsflagbsflag5absflagbsflagstfucruisecruisecruisecruisecruisecruisecruisecruise
Instant Karma
I can see for miles

User ID: 1025379
United States
09/28/2012 08:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Cleaner Fish

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Another example is the cottontail on the rabbit. It helps the rabbit's predators by making the rabbit easier to see during a chase. It doesn't benefit the rabbit at all.
Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money:

[link to www.webofdebt.com]

mobius-gears
Instant Karma
I can see for miles

User ID: 1025379
United States
09/28/2012 08:43 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The "Evolutionary Hypothesis of Random, Non-Intelligent, Purely Naturalistic mechanisms guiding Life" PREDICTS, the "evolution" of a living cell from non organic material.

What are the chances that the naturalists' most important prediction has turned out to be a phenomena completely inexplicable from a naturalistic standpoint. (Abiogenesis)

Of all we have learned about molecular biology and the functions of a cell, wouldn't you expect there to at least be a HINT of how the cell was formed?

PREDICTION = FAILED



The Living Cell is evidence of a system that came into being functioning and intact. It requires all of its parts to maintain and produce its parts.

The only rational explanation is intelligent design which successfully predicts this.

This is not "God of the Gaps".. Intelligent Design is falsifiable. If scientists could produce a working theory about the living cell's origin, it would shatter ID.




A helpful visual aid.


[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


That video shows an amazingly complex process. What isn't explained (perhaps because it isn't known) is how each little protein machine knows where to be and at what time during the process. How does the newly built protein know where to go?

Everything seems to be happening like a choreographed dance, but we don't see what is directing the traffic or the timing. There is still a lot to learn about the functioning of cells. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand it.

Last Edited by Instant Karma on 09/28/2012 08:46 PM
Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money:

[link to www.webofdebt.com]

mobius-gears
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24335875
Australia
09/28/2012 08:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
15 Questions for Evolutionists
Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)

by Don Batten

seeds

How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: 15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (Summary).

How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: The genetic information code points to an intelligent source.

Thanks to “Cowboy Bob” Sorensen for this ‘YouTube’ version of the 15 questions brochure.

How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).

Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase) (includes animation).

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: Is the design explanation legitimate?

How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?

How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: Argument: Evolution of sex.

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See: ‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution, “It’s not science”.

References

Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; [link to www.forbes.com] Return to text.
E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24335875
Australia
09/28/2012 09:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1



Since we kicked off our Question Evolution campaign, responses have been pouring in from evolutionists and skeptics attempting to answer our 15 Questions for Evolutionists (by Dr Don Batten). We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received to date (paraphrased to cover as many versions of the objection we’ve received as possible), along with our refutations. Several of CMI’s staff have contributed to this response, including Jonathan Sarfati, Rob Carter, Don Batten and Lita Cosner.

Note: many of the answers published here cover far more ground than the pamphlet could, since it necessarily dealt with the topics in an abbreviated form.

General Objections: These are objections which may deal with the pamphlet in general.

The more our biological knowledge expands, the more problems evolution has.

Objection 1: These questions are only unanswerable because our science isn’t advanced enough.

Rebuttal: But if science has not yet advanced, then how could materialistic scientists possibly know what can be answered in the future? They tend to discount predictive prophecy, at least when it’s in the Bible. If more questions about evolution were answered by scientific advance, the skeptics may have a point. But exactly the opposite has been true in the past. The more our biological knowledge expands, the more problems evolution has. For example, Darwin’s friend Haeckel thought that the cell was just a blob of goo; now we know it is a miniature city with advanced nanotechnology, including machines and factories such as ATP synthase and kinesin.

Objection 2: CMI uses a misleading definition of evolution. Evolution is only the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Rebuttal: Evolution is often used to describe anything from the slight change of a species over time (for instance, changes in finch beak size) to molecules-to-man evolution. If evolution is just changes in allele frequency, then CMI would be an evolutionary organization! Our detractors are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation, also known as bait-and-switch. What is really misleading is imputing that CMI denies that allele frequencies change—but then, under an evolutionary belief system, why shouldn’t evolutionists mislead, as one bragged about?

CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!

Objection 3: Even if science cannot explain the origin of life, to say that God must have done it is an argument from ignorance.

Rebuttal: We do not argue from what we don’t know, but from what we do know about the nature of the information encoded in the DNA, the complexity of life, etc. Our argument is, to quote from a previous response:

“In objects of known origin, there are certain features—specified complex information—that occur only in those made by an intelligent designer (or an intelligently designed program). So by the normal analogical reasoning we use in science, when we see these features in an object where the origin is unknown, we can likewise conclude that this object had an intelligent designer.

“These features are those that an archaeologist would use to determine whether an object was designed by an intelligent designer, or that a SETI devotee would use to argue that a signal from space came from an intelligent alien, or whether a ballot or card game was fixed, or whether a sequence of letters was the result of intelligence or monkeys on a keyboard.

“In the first two cases above, it would be perverse to complain that the archaeologist didn’t discuss whether the object’s designer itself had a designer, or that the SETI researcher didn’t tell us who designed the alien. It would be even sillier to argue from this that we should simply drop the idea of design, and conclude that the object or hypothetical space signal had no designer.”

Saying, “We don’t know, but evolution did it somehow,” on the other hand, is an argument from ignorance aka ‘evolution of the gaps’.

Objection 4: Many of these questions involve things that are very improbable. But we know that improbable events happen all the time.

Rebuttal: In the analogies that evolutionists use, such as the lottery, a series of coin flips, etc., there will be an outcome. Someone will win the lottery, the coin flips must be some arrangement of heads or tails, etc. These evolutionists are cheating with chance. But when it comes to the origin of first life, the probability is against any outcome—see Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller—Urey, probability.

Objection 5: CMI uses quote mining, citing scientists as part of their argument against evolution even though these scientists are evolutionists. CMI quotes scientists out-of-context.

Rebuttal: Any quote that is less than the entire work of which it is a part could be smeared as ‘out of context’. We take care not to take any quote in a manner that is other than what would be intended in the context. It is acceptable to use ‘hostile witness’ quotes to show how even people who believe evolution admit its difficulties.

An example of a genuinely out-of-context quote would be Darwin’s on the eye, where Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which we obviously disagree). This is why it’s on our Don’t Use page, one of the most read on our site (and even praised by Richard Dawkins himself).

But it is not ‘out of context’, say, to quote an evolutionary bird expert against the dino-to-bird theory specifically, or to cite evolutionist Ernst Haeckel to show that he believed that the Bible opposed racism and that the Bible was wrong to do so, or to cite an evolutionist who makes a controversial admission in public or in print, even if he tries to paper over that statement later.

Some of our opponents seem to think that quoting an evolutionist who has conceded a problem with evolution (even if he actually made such a concession) is ‘quoting out of context’ simply because the evolutionist would not agree with our position in toto. But this is a quite bizarre understanding of misquoting.
1. How did life originate?

Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim).

Rebuttal: No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004). It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water (or the (non-existent) primordial soup, as the case may be). Notice also that, as we stated clearly above, creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.

See our Origin of Life Q&A for more information.

Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc.

Rebuttal: These intriguing sub-life entities have nothing to help evolutionists explain the origin of genuine life, because they can’t reproduce without the presence of genuinely living creatures. But see Did God make pathogenic viruses? And Even a tiny virus has a powerful mini-motor.

Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life.

Rebuttal: And which studies would those be? The Miller-Urey experiment which used the wrong sort of atmosphere and produced more sludge than amino acids? Or the studies which show that the early atmosphere was oxygen-rich—not friendly for the origin of life. Or the ones that show that water would impede the formation of the hypothetical earliest cell, because it would favour hydrolysis over polymerization. Or the ones that show that information is a crucial component for life—the ‘software’ is just as important as the ‘hardware’, in other words—which gives the evolutionists the burden of showing how something so mind-bogglingly complex (such that we only are beginning to unravel some of the code) came about by random chance?
2. How did the DNA code originate?

Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.

Rebuttal: But this is something evolution must assume. Leading philosopher Antony Flew lost his atheistic faith by considering (among other things):

“It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.

“Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”2

If there’s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible.

If there’s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible. A huge problem is this: the DNA information requires complex decoding machines, including the ribosome, so it can be decoded into the specifications to build the proteins required for life, including enzymes. But the information required to build ribosomes is itself encoded on the DNA. So DNA information can’t be decoded without products of its translation, forming a ‘vicious circle’. And decoding machinery requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes … ‘vicious circles’ for any materialistic origin theory.

Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.

Rebuttal: First, where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life? Second, the RNA world hypothesis is fraught with difficulties. RNA is even less stable than DNA, and that is saying something—about a million DNA ‘letters’ are damaged in a typical cell on a good day, which then requires repair mechanisms to be in place (another problem for origin-of-life scenarios). And it is extremely unlikely that the building blocks for RNA would come about by undirected chemical interactions, and even if this happened, it would be even more improbable that the building blocks would self-assemble into any RNA molecule, let alone an informational one. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. See this article for more details, which discusses the objections of a major origin-of-life researcher to the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis.

Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.

Rebuttal: This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry. But now they are claiming that the first life had a different code not possessed by any living creature! But how could we go from the hypothetical simpler coding system to the current one? It would be like switching keys on a computer keyboard—the messages would become scrambled (as anyone who is accustomed to a QWERTY keyboard who has tried to use a non-QWERTY Latin keyboard would know only too well).

Actually, it has long been known that there are exceptions to the code, as we have pointed out (see The Unity of Life) and that is a problem for evolutionists. Richard Dawkins was recently stumped when “life-creator” Craig Venter pointed out that there were different codes—Dawkins has long taught that evolution was supported by a single code and used this to argue for the single (evolutionary, of course) origin of all life.

There is a certain minimum amount of information which would have to be encoded for any living thing to survive. Currently, the self-replicating organism with the least amount of genetic information is the Mycoplasma genitalium with 580,000 ‘letters’ coding for 482 proteins. But this can only survive as a parasite, so non-parasitical life would have to encode even more information. See How simple can life be?

Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.

Rebuttal: Random deviations would randomly change the “by-product produced”, so they would disrupt all the proteins encoded. RNA is used as an intermediate because it is more labile; it’s optimal for the short time frames needed for cell communications. It is a hopeless candidate for hypothetical eons in a primordial soup.

Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.

Rebuttal: Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us. And we would agree that the workings of the code are due to chemical properties—we are not vitalists (see also Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). But this doesn’t explain the origin of the code. Similarly, we believe that the workings of computer decoders can be explained totally by the laws of semi-conductor electron levels and other electrical properties, but these laws didn’t make the computer. Should we say then that there is no difference between a 500 GB hard drive and an old 2 MB one, because it has no reality outside our mind? Also, this is a rather petty thing to dispute, since it does not address any of the arguments from the pamphlet. One wonders why we received several objections of this nature.

Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.

Rebuttal: If you could actually get all the amino acids needed for life, and the sugars for RNA, from those conditions (which you can’t, since the conditions are incompatible, so this is a baseless assertion), that would be only the very first step. You then have to polymerize the amino acids in the right sequences into proteins (don’t forget about folding the proteins into precisely the right shape with chaperonins, because even one wrongly-folded protein can wreak havoc), and assemble all those proteins into micro-compartments to prevent the wrong things from reacting, then combine these compartments together to make the first cell. That is why such experiments never go beyond these simple “building blocks”; they are too dilute, contaminated, cross-reactive, and racemic (instead of being ‘one-handed’), to build anything. See Origin of life: instability of building blocks and Origin of life: the chirality problem. We have already covered the problems for the RNA world.
3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information.

It is becoming the consensus even among evolutionist geneticists that mutations are like spelling mistakes in an instruction manual, which overwhelmingly degrade information.

Rebuttal: This assumes that those information-gaining mutations occur—which hasn’t been shown. Second, as a population grows larger, it is harder to fix new mutations in the population, because the cost of substitution is greater (this is Haldane’s Dilemma).3 Third, it assumes that the mutations that will be fixed are the sort that create new structures, such as lungs, feathers and wings. But it is becoming the consensus even among evolutionist geneticists that mutations are like spelling mistakes in an instruction manual, which overwhelmingly degrade information. These changes can be adaptive (helpful to survival or ‘beneficial’) in certain circumstances, but they are still heading in the wrong direction to make evolution tenable. This includes antibiotic resistance, wingless beetles on windswept islands, blind fish in caves, and chloroquine resistance in malarial parasites. A recent paper shows that even the “beneficial” mutations work against each other—it’s called antagonistic epistasis.

Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change.

Rebuttal: Every computer simulation of information-gaining mutations known to us stacks the deck in favour of evolution and in no way simulates what actually happens in real life. You might as well argue from the computer game Spore (although some do). See the articles on genetic algorithms and Dawkins’s Weasel program at our Natural Selection Q&A, as well as the more sophisticated Mendel’s Accountant, which does simulate (model) the real world genetics of living organisms. We know that mutations break things—and it’s far easier to break something than to make it.

Note also, that the issue is not the size of the change: dogs and cabbages both exhibit enormous variety, but they are still dogs (wolves, coyotes, German shepherds, etc.) and cabbages (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, etc.). These changes can occur within an animal or plant type (kind/baramin). Evolutionists need to find a mechanism for ‘nature’ to invent new genetic instructions for complex new features such as feathers for reptiles, if evolution did really change a reptile into a bird, for example.

Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely.

Rebuttal: Again, this sort of language is used by secular scientists, so take it up with them. But an assertion is not an argument—our opponents didn’t even defend this assertion. Carl Sagan, an ardent evolutionist, admitted: “ … mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.”4 How can random changes be anything but ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’?

Well so far our evolution defenders have not delivered the goods. Keep tuned for the next installment of attempts to answer the 15 questions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24335875
Australia
09/28/2012 09:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2
Questions 4–8

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1

Here we continue our appraisal of various attempts to answer our 15 Questions for Evolutionists. We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received to date (paraphrased to cover as many versions of the answer we’ve received as possible), along with our refutations.
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Demonstrating some example of natural selection is not demonstrating ‘evolution in action’ because no new genetic specifications are being created by natural selection.

Answer 1: It is disingenuous for creationists to claim to accept natural selection and not ‘macroevolution’, since the cumulative effect of the former leads to the latter.

Rebuttal: Actually, there is not one undisputed example of one structure arising gradually through natural selection. But if natural selection was the engine for evolution, we should have many examples of this happening. Rather, every example of natural selection that we have shows that it is a conservative force which specializes creatures to be better adapted for their environment. This involves a loss of information; for example, a population of bears in a cold climate losing information for short and medium-length fur (see How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment).

The major issue here is that natural selection does not create any genetic information, so ‘natural selection’ is not the same as evolution. Demonstrating some example of natural selection is not demonstrating ‘evolution in action’ because no new genetic specifications are being created by natural selection. So there is nothing disingenuous about creationists accepting natural selection but not molecules-to-molecular-biologists evolution. However, it is disingenuous of evolutionists to continually equate natural selection with evolution.

However, high-profile evolutionists themselves have long recognized that ‘macroevolution’ is not just a matter of more ‘microevolution’; it is qualitatively different (so CMI advises against using these terms, which tend to create confusion). In November 1980 a conference of some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, billed as ‘historic’, was held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of ‘macroevolution’. Reporting on the conference in the journal Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.), Roger Lewin wrote:

“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.”

Francisco Ayala (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California), was quoted in the same article as saying:

“… but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.”

Answer 2: There are over 100 new mutations for every child born. It is inevitable that evolution would happen with this rate of mutation. Those with the best mutations survive and reproduce.

Rebuttal: We’ve noted the mutation rate—and that it’s a huge problem for evolution. 100 mutations is actually the lowest (unrealistically low) possible number of new mutations per person, and that’s already extremely problematic for evolution. You see, in the evolutionary view, there have been 100 new mutations for every child for millions and millions of years. That’s billions of mutations.1 This also collapses a common argument for human-ape similarity: why should there be any similarity at all in the alleged five or six million years since their alleged common ancestor (but see also Evolutionists abandon the idea of 99% DNA similarity between humans and chimps).

When a person reproduces, his genes as a whole (half of them) are passed on, with both beneficial and non-beneficial mutations. It’s not as if a certain gene gets selected—it’s the group of genes that the person has. Most mutations are nearly neutral, emphasis on nearly. We don’t need to worry about the really catastrophic mutations being passed on most of the time; they often result in the death of the individual or otherwise prevent reproduction (natural selection operates here to remove the lethal ones, thus acting as a conserving force).

But most mutations aren’t like that—the person can survive. The deleterious effect may be so small that it’s imperceptible by itself. But add up thousands, hundreds of thousands, of those mutations, and you have a substantially ‘less fit’ individual than someone from the first generation. This person isn’t an example of evolution—he’s an example of devolution. He’s more likely to have problems like allergies and immune system disorders, he’s more likely to have trouble reproducing, and he’s probably got a shorter lifespan (without modern medical help), just for starters. And it gets worse for his descendants, because eventually all these mutations build up to an unsustainable level, and we get a situation that Dr John Sanford, geneticist, describes in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (see our review):

“When selection is unable to counter the loss of information due to mutations, a situation arises called ‘error catastrophe’. If not rapidly corrected, this situation leads to the eventual death of the species—extinction! In its final stages, genomic degeneration leads to declining fertility, which curtails further selection (selection always requires a surplus population, some of which can then be eliminated each generation). Inbreeding and genetic drift then take over entirely, rapidly finishing off the population. The process is an irreversible downward spiral. This advanced stage of genomic degeneration is called ‘mutational meltdown’. Mutational meltdown is recognized as an immediate threat to all of today’s endangered species. The same process appears to potentially be a theoretical threat for mankind” (p. 41).

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Answer 1: There’s no reason to think that the first life was as complex as today’s—the simplest forms would be extinct by now, out-competed by the more complex modern forms. A self-replicator can be as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides. These self-replicators set the stage for evolution to begin whether or not you call these molecules ‘life’.

Rebuttal: Documentation? Evidence? Hard science indicates that the simplest life is incredibly complex (we have already cited How simple can life be?). So your imaginary scenario is just that; far removed from what we know of life on Earth. For more on claims of self-replicating molecules, peptides and enzymes, see Self-replicating enzymes? A critique of some current evolutionary origin-of-life models.

Answer 2: Furthermore, looking at the biochemical processes in detail at a moment in time does not indicate the evolutionary history of an organism. Scaffolding is a means to develop a process. Furthermore, evolution is established on the macroscopic level through morphology as well as on the molecular level with genetics. As the understanding of biochemistry proceeds (as it is a much younger science), a better understanding will develop. Furthermore, as Michael Behe learned at the Dover trial, there is a lot known about the evolution of proteins, such as with the immune system.

Rebuttal: Lots of assertions here with little to back them up. Taking each sentence in turn:

In one sense, it is good to see that some evolutionists have finally abandoned the discredited “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”argument applied to biochemistry. But this also exposes the inconsistency of a major evolutionary argument: supposedly the many biochemical similarities prove evolution from a common ancestor with these features. But then it turns out that the ancestor didn’t have these features at all! E.g., all life uses DNA because of common ancestry, but then this common ancestor didn’t use DNA. Or, there is a common pentadactyl (five-digit) limb pattern in all tetrapods, because they all came from a common ancestor that walked up on the land from the sea. But the usual candidates for this common ancestor don’t have five digits—Acanthostega had eight, while Ichthyostega had seven, although all of these, including the much hyped Tiktaalik, have been trumped by more recent fossil evidence.

Scaffolding is really the “spandrel” argument by Lewontin and Gould.2 Yet there is no further evidence presented.

The morphological evidence is dealt with elsewhere, and is a change of subject.

There is yet another quasi-prophetic appeal to what we will understand in the future, but this is of course a tacit admission that evolutionists don’t have an answer now.

Lots of rubbish has been talked about the Dover Trial, where a previously unknown judge became the darling of the liberal media and evolution-pushing organizations by parroting the ACLU submission in his verdict. See our analysis.

Answer 3: It’s not a lucky accident!

Rebuttal: And if the question was, “Was the origination of new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in a sequence, a lucky accident?”, that would be an answer to our question, although still only an unsupported assertion. Either it’s a lucky accident or it’s designed. Selection can’t work before these already exist in a functional form—it’s pure chance. But the question was how did they come about, and this didn’t even attempt to answer that one.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Answer 1: They don’t, but to say they are is a mere argument from ignorance.

Rebuttal: If evolutionists admit they don’t know, isn’t that by definition an admission that they’re arguing from ignorance? Also, as stated in part 1, the argument from design is based on what we do know.

Answer 2: If there were a designer, we should see designs tending toward simplicity, not complexity. Yet that is the opposite of what we see.

Rebuttal: So life is too complex for it to be designed? This is a new one! In any case, this is only a form of argument from bad design, refuted in a number of articles under What about claims of ‘bad design’?

Actually, the critic also forgets the Fall, so we should see degeneration, as pointed out in our book By Design. We have previously noted that many parasites are genetically depleted compared to free-living equivalents—see articles under How does biblical Christianity explain the origin of poisons, and pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Thus it should be called devolution not evolution (a downhill change is consistent with the biblical Creation-Fall model). This was backed up by an interview with famous evolutionist Lynn Margulis in Discover April 2011:

“Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive.”

Answer 3: Vestigial organs provide evidence of evolution: these are structures which once had a purpose but no longer do.

Rebuttal: 100 years ago, there were dozens of organs and systems were thought to be vestigial. Today, we know of uses for every organ on those lists. In some cases, an organ serves no essential or known function in the adult, but in the developing stages it serves a critical role. See a few examples under Performing surgery upon evolutionary thinking (interview with pediatric surgeon Dr Ross Pettigrew).

Just because we don’t know of a function for a certain organ or system doesn’t mean there is none.

Furthermore, it’s ironic that this critic accused us of using an “argument from ignorance”, then did just that! Just because we don’t know of a function for a certain organ or system doesn’t mean there is none. One important and recently discovered function of the appendix—a safe house for beneficial bacteria—should have been a lesson. At least, that should have been the argument 100 years ago. Today, we know better. See also Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?.

Answer 4: There are structures that would be horrendously designed, but they’re easy to explain if they evolved. The laryngeal nerve is one example of this.

Rebuttal: See our article on the laryngeal nerve.

Answer 5: It’s very lucky that everything works out just so it looks like it were designed, but if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be around to notice it.

Rebuttal: It’s a simple explanation—except it’s not an explanation. The analogy that we have borrowed to show the inadequacy of the explanation is if I were surrounded by an execution squad comprising expert marksmen, each person with a rifle, and they all fired, but I was still alive afterwards, it’s equally true that if it hadn’t happened that way I wouldn’t be around to observe it, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be surprised by it. So that we exist doesn’t make it any less surprising that we do.
7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Answer 1: It was beneficial for cells to work together.

Rebuttal: That may be true, but while that may tell us why such a fully developed system is advantageous, it says nothing about how such a system originated, and what benefits the incomplete stages would have.

Answer 2: Colonies of cells that cooperated were the first step.

Rebuttal: There is a huge difference between a colony of single-celled organisms and a true multi-celled organism, and no known mechanism would enable an organism to make that leap. For example, there is a big jump between selection for single cell reproductive success and that for integrity of a multicellular organism. In complex creatures, great reproductive success of a single cell type is usually called cancer. See Evolution of muticellularity: what is required?
8. How did sex originate?

Answer 1: Sexual reproduction allows for evolution at a much faster pace than asexual reproduction. Organisms that exchanged DNA were thus able to evolve out of situations that might have killed their asexual counterparts.

Rebuttal: Another answer which tells why but not how. Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population, at the hand of an intelligent Creator. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. Sexual reproduction involves fine tuning on both the molecular level (so DNA from two individuals can combine into a new one) and the macroscopic level: in many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.

It’s also only partially right: yes, because of recombination, sexual reproduction allows much variability. But it also allows a successful organism to pass on only half the genes to any given offspring (and in a stable population by definition, there is only one offspring per parent). This acts as a conservative force. This is a good thing, because most mutations are harmful, and it’s a good thing they are not passed on. But for evolution, it’s a problem since any putatively beneficial mutation has a 50% chance of not being passed on. Also, sexual reproduction allows these harmful genes, if recessive, to be shielded by a backup copy.

Answer 2: Sex depends on both the male and the female. Any incompatibilities would cause sterility and would be selected against.

Rebuttal: Sex is indeed dependent on the actions of the male and the female, but unless you’re some kind of neo-Lamarckian, that isn’t going to lead to complementary structures. The fact that natural selection will weed out sterile individuals doesn’t explain how functioning sexual reproduction came to be, since there’s a lot more ways to make something that doesn’t work than something that does. Incidentally, many responses to this question show more confidence about the origin of sex than Dawkins had. See Evolution of Sex (Refuting Evolution 2 chapter 11).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24335875
Australia
09/28/2012 09:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3
Questions 9–15


9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Answer 1: They aren’t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.

Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as ‘the ancestor’ of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks. See: Famous Living Fossil ‘Link’ Idea Fizzles Further.

There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.

Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the ‘evidence’ that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin’s day, although Darwin’s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn’t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates—87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn’t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event—such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!—Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.”

Answer 3: They aren’t missing. There are millions of transitional forms.

Rebuttal: First, there is something bizarre when excuses are basically mutually incompatible, like #2 v. #1 and #3. Which is it? Are they commonplace, or rare because of the rarity of fossilization events?

This answer would require practically every fossil to be a transitional form (actually, several transitional forms at once, given that only about 250,000 fossil species are actually known). But many fossils are practically identical to living creatures, in which case the adjective ‘transitional’ becomes meaningless.

Answer 4: Tiktaalik is a good example of a transitional link.

Rebuttal: Tiktaalik is an amazing example of a well-designed fish—see Tiktaalik roseae—a fishy missing link There is no evidence that it is the ancestor of tetrapods, especially since there are footprints in the fossil record dated before Tiktaalik—see Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolution. The descendant can’t be older than its ancestor!

Answer 5: Evolution would stand even if we didn’t have a single fossil.

Rebuttal: Not all evolutionists would agree. The foremost French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895–1985), editor of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, wrote:

“Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms … that is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution. From it we learn how to interpret present occurrences cautiously; it reveals that certain hypotheses considered certainties by their authors are in fact questionable or even illegitimate.”1

In any case, these critics would have us believe that evolution is sound with fossils or without fossils, it’s by chance and natural selection but it’s not a random accident! If your theory can explain any set of events, then it’s not scientific, according to many philosophers of science, because it’s not falsifiable in your eyes by any conceivable findings (although see also Self-serving SEC definitions of ‘science’).
10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Answer 1: When creatures find no need to adapt to changing circumstances, they don’t change.

Rebuttal: So evolution explains if creatures don’t change, and it explains if they do! How convenient. See Question 12 with a quote from one of the world’s leading organic chemists, the late Philip Skell.

But surely mutation would work at the same rate in the populations that had unchanging environments, and if eight mutations per year were being fixed in the population as argued in the above answer, this would mean that most, if not all, species would be subject to radical change over time. How could these species not change in light of the species evolving around them, some of which, including bacteria, would be trying to make a meal out of the species in stasis? Also, evolutionists believe that environments changed drastically over millions of years, while some creatures in these environments didn’t change? See also Evolutionary Stasis: Double—Speak and Propaganda.

People take an animal’s environment to mean things like the temperature, pressure, salinity (for marine and fresh water organisms), O2 concentration, etc. So it’s not inconceivable in their mind for an environment to stay roughly the same for millions of years. But once one stresses that a creature’s predators, and their prey species (if carnivores) or plant food (if herbivores), are very much part of their environment, as are their parasites and other pathogens, suddenly it gets even more ludicrous that the environment would stay constant for eons. There are species of all of these categories not only migrating in and out of the area, but also supposedly undergoing all this evolutionary change themselves.

Answer 2: Worms didn’t change into humans—we still have worms today. Rather, worms and humans have a common ancestor, if you go back far enough.

Rebuttal: Tell that to the evolutionist who wrote the article “We were once worms” (cited here).
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Answer 1: Morality and the meaning of life is a philosophical question and irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Rebuttal: Of course it’s a question for evolution. Evolution is all about how we got from the first life to the life we have today. And humans today have (at least the illusion of) mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality.

You assume that evolution only has to answer scientific questions. But evolution is as much about philosophy as science (I would argue that it’s much more about philosophy than science). There are branches of evolutionary ‘science’ called sociobiology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology, which attempt to explain human society, love, morals, religion, altruism, etc., purely in evolutionary terms.

But if you’re really serious, then you better tell many of your fellow evolutionists who pontificate about religion and morals!

Answer 2: Everyone creates his or her own meaning for life—it’s not a question science can answer.

Rebuttal: This is presented as if it’s an answer—it’s the biggest non-answer one could give. But this is really our point: if evolution were true, then there is no basis for right and wrong—see Dawkins’ admission, this article on the foundation for ethics, and how an evolutionist justified deceiving students to believe in evolution.
12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Answer 1: Because evolution’s ‘just-so’ stories are based on facts.

Rebuttal: Does the critic realize that question was based on a review by evolutionist Richard Lewontin who referred to “the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories”. That’s the whole point: if they were based on fact, then they wouldn’t be ‘just-so’ stories, as Lewontin admitted existed!

The problem is when the evolutionary scenarios are full of ‘suppose’ and ‘what if?’ scenarios, which don’t work when a little thought is applied. Here are some examples:

Just-so-stories for the punctuated evolutionist.
Pterosaur ‘missing link’ poses problems for a Dawkins’ evolutionary story in The Greatest Show on Earth
Yet another flap about dino-to-bird evolution (flight evolved from running up incline planes)
Chameleon catapult tongue
Why sex?

Answer 2: I don’t understand what this has to do with the theory of evolution being wrong.

Rebuttal: It should be obvious: the whole rationale for teaching evolution and excluding any opposition is that it’s a plausible scientific theory for the origin of living creatures. If the majority of supporting examples are really just-so stories, then this pretense of a proven scientific theory should be dropped.

But this question attacks practically every evolutionary explanation there is. “Oh, you found unfossilized blood vessels with red blood cells in them? Obviously flesh can survive in some cases for millions of years!” “This animal is no different from the fossil? Obviously it was so well-adapted that it didn’t need to evolve and stayed the same over millions of years!” Evolution can explain why men are monogamous, or why they cheat, or why they rape. It can explain how females drive sexual selection, except when it wants to argue that the males do. See: ‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Answer 1: Evolution is an extraordinary breakthrough in its own right.

Rebuttal: But other things that are extraordinary scientific breakthroughs in their own right lead to other breakthroughs.

Answer 2: Evolutionary concepts are being applied to electronics to create more efficient circuits.

Rebuttal: No, the concept of iterative algorithms, which long pre-date Darwin, have been hijacked with an “evolutionary” label. If humans were more mathematically adept, we would not need to resort to trying multiple random changes of a system to see where the best potential improvements lie. See Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?

Answer 3: Norman Borlaug’s understanding of evolution and genetics helped him to mass-produce crops to feed millions of people, winning him the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize.

Rebuttal: Yet there is nothing about Darwinian evolution that had any relevance to Borlaug’s work. One of his innovations was developing multiline varieties via crossbreeding so they would have many genes for pesticide resistance, compared to the purelines that were genetically depleted. But this shows that the artificial selection that led to purelines resulted in loss of information, while the multilines recombined some of the original information. In fact, the author of the tract is a Ph.D. plant physiologist with much experience at such things—see What! … no potatoes? We have shown the same problem with purebreds in other creatures such as dogs, compared to the superior fitness of mongrels (see “A Parade of Mutants”—Pedigree Dogs and Artificial Selection).

Another of Borlaug’s projects was breeding dwarf wheat for their shorter, stronger stalks that would support larger seed heads. But this is also an application of artificial selection of largely existing genes and possibly mutants with stunted growth, which would not be so good in the wild because they are worse at competing for sunlight.

Finally, as we have pointed out, many of the advances in agriculture predated Darwin by millennia, including breeding (artificial selection).

Answer 4: Music, theology, and philosophy don’t lead to scientific breakthroughs either but they’re still taught in schools.

Rebuttal: You’re missing a fundamental distinction—evolution claims to be science. The other subjects don’t claim to be subsets of science. What other subset of science has yielded precisely no useful discoveries, including Nobel science prizes?

In any case, aren’t you aware that there are certain philosophical assumptions one has to make for science to be possible? For example, there has to be the assumption of an orderly universe, where under normal conditions things work consistently. For instance, gravity isn’t suddenly going to change and work differently than it did 5 minutes ago, so we can do tests and replicate results. See also The biblical roots of modern science.
14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

Answer 1: There have been plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution, one of the most famous being Lenski’s experiment.

Rebuttal: What experiments demonstrate that a universal common ancestor changed into all the living things on earth? None. This is a belief about history and no experiments can be done on such an imagined history. You are referring to experiments that demonstrate mutations, adaptation, etc., in today’s world. Creationist biologists have no argument with these, except when they are held up as ‘evidence of evolution’, which they are not, because these observable variations in living things cannot be extrapolated to explain the origin of those living things. This is the old equivocation trickery, which we have written about (see It’s not science, for example). As for Lenski’s experiment, this is old news, thoroughly refuted in The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 4. Dr Batten dealt with the most dramatic “evidence” in this experiment: Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’? ‘A poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists’? We will say it once again: variation in an existing trait does not explain the origin of the trait or the origin of the bacterium.
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Answer 1: Evolution can explain the evidence, creationists such as CMI simply refuse to recognize this.

Rebuttal: Ipse dixit (“he himself said it”—an unproved and dogmatic statement designed to be accepted on faith not substance). One of the previous answers asked what was wrong with just-so stories, which really don’t explain anything. Also, many evolutionists, including our critics, explain certain things by mutations and natural selection, which are also parts of the creation model, so are powerless to choose between them. Likewise, common features are a prediction both from common ancestry and common design; but some of them thwart evolutionary explanations so favour the latter (see Argument: Common design points to common ancestry from Refuting Evolution 2)

Answer 2: Evolution has no doctrines or dogma, no rituals, traditions or holidays. It has no leaders or defenders of the faith because it does not allow faith. Evolution is not a religion, and it’s deceptive of creationists to claim that it is.

Rebuttal: Yet this charge of deception would thus need to be applied to the evolutionary philosopher of science, Michael Ruse:

In reality, evolution is a deduction from the faith position—which can’t be proven by science—that matter is all there is, so no supernatural is allowed.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

“ … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Some atheistic humanists are quite open that they are “proselytizers of a new faith”. For more, see Atheism: A religion, Atheism, and Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions.

In reality, evolution is a deduction from the faith position—which can’t be proven by science—that matter is all there is, so no supernatural is allowed. I.e. creation is streng verboten as a conclusion, regardless of whether the evidence supports it, because of self-serving ‘rules of the game’.

Conversely, biblical faith is never contrasted with reason or evidence, but with sight. See Loving God with all your mind and Using the Bible to prove the Bible? Are biblical creationists guilty of circular reasoning?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24335875
Australia
09/28/2012 09:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
A grass-roots movement to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution

by Don Batten
Question evolution

Get involved in questioning evolution!

CMI’s worldwide “Question evolution!” is off to a great start. For example in the US, the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), which is one of the largest non-denominational, grassroots church lobbies in America and speaks on behalf of over 43,000 churches, is promoting the campaign. With so many churches involved worldwide, there is going to be a whole lot of questioning of evolution going on! Get involved yourself and get your church involved as well—let us work together to spread the truth.

The campaign involves people empowering people to stand firm together against the evolutionary indoctrination so rampant in our schools, universities and media. You can encourage your friends to ‘Question evolution’—especially if you are a student who is being force-fed evolutionary dogma.

What good questions can you ask? Our exciting ‘Question evolution’ tract, 15 Questions for Evolutionists, provides 15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Share them with your friends, family and fellow students. These attractive tracts [view / order] are very affordable, or print your own from our downloadable PDF document [plain A4-size, plain letter-size]. See a summary of the 15 Questions and here is a web page of the complete 15 Questions including links to further reading and references.

Our exciting ‘Question evolution’ tract, 15 Questions for Evolutionists, provides 15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.

Students certainly should question Darwinism in their schools and encourage others to do it too—after all, don’t teachers urge students to “question everything”? Students have a right to question the evolutionary pseudoscience peddled to them.

You can also get shirts, hats and caps, bags, mugs, stickers or badges printed with “Question evolution! / Creation.com” or “Evolution—The greatest hoax on Earth? / Get the facts at Creation.com”.

Wearing Question evolution! clothing will clearly show your opposition to evolutionary dogma. Christian students can wear these shirts or caps at their high schools, colleges/universities, or when ‘hanging out’ with friends.

By simply sharing a tract or wearing a shirt, cap or badge, others will visit creation.com and find out the truth, empowering them to reject the lie that “everything made itself without God”. Christ as our Creator and Redeemer sets people free!

… grass-roots revolt against the force-feeding of everyone with evolutionary ‘there-is-no-need-for-God’ thinking.

Get involved in this grass-roots revolt against the force-feeding of everyone with evolutionary ‘there-is-no-need-for-God’ thinking.

Visit the CMI webstore to order very affordable Question Evolution! resources available in your country. You can make your own shirts, caps, etc., or arrange your own supplier (e.g. VistaPrint is easy and affordable), using our free downloadable artwork, pdf and jpg versions available.

For students who have to wear a uniform, you can put a sticker on your bag or books, or wear a badge. Others can use the special Question evolution! coffee mug or badge at their work place.

Get your church involved in this exciting campaign! Organize a bulk order to save money. The rejection of the Creator’s authority via evolutionary indoctrination is a core issue in the erosion of traditional Christian values. Please get involved in this exciting campaign!

CMI is promoting this campaign through creation.com, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and through other avenues as well. Help spread the word!

Contact us if you want to discuss other ways of getting involved.
Endorsements

The following people outside of CMI have endorsed the Question Evolution! Campaign: Dr Duane Gish, Dr John Sanford, Michael Oard and Ian Juby (would you like to add your name?).

Dr Gish: “As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way. The 15 Questions for Evolutionists brochure hits all the major questions on origins that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers for. The questions should be propagated widely. I commend the campaign.”

Dr Sanford: “I enthusiastically endorse the campaign to encourage all thinking people to question evolution. The era must come to an end where all things with the single exception of evolution are subject to critical examination. How sad that so much evidence has been suppressed, such that most people who consider themselves to be ‘well informed’ have in fact only heard one side of the question. Indoctrination, intimidation, censorship—this is not how science is supposed to operate. Let us return to the true spirit of science, which is critical thinking, dialog and open inquiry.”

Ian Juby: “The Question Evolution! Campaign is an innovative, grassroots anti-evolution campaign which I believe will have a lasting and far reaching impact. The campaign is worldwide in scope and I hope to see it serve as a uniting force within the biblical creation community. I heartily recommend getting involved in this grassroots anti-evolution movement.”
15 Questions summary

Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows. Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done.

How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
How did the DNA code originate?
How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
How did multi-cellular life originate?
How did sex originate?
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Return
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 09:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
How did the DNA code originate?
How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
How did multi-cellular life originate?
How did sex originate?
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24335875


clappa
Conservative Conspirator

User ID: 1573749
United States
09/28/2012 09:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Here's a thought to chew on.

What if DNA can sometimes, for whatever reason, make a subtle change, call it a random fluke. Many animals DNA are very similar. A very subtle change in DNA makes a big difference. So over time all of these changes created all animals from only a few.

No Darwin theory, might I say I think is bogus, makes any sense. If there is any proof it would be in fossils, and nothing.

Conclusion to this random rambling.

I think only a few animals were created for humans. Many DNA changes over the years created all of these other variations. That's why so many animals look close and others dramatic. However all animals DNA are almost the same. The intelligent designer could of put a random glitch in the DNA string.

Maybe?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 10:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Here's a thought to chew on.

What if DNA can sometimes, for whatever reason, make a subtle change, call it a random fluke. Many animals DNA are very similar. A very subtle change in DNA makes a big difference. So over time all of these changes created all animals from only a few.

No Darwin theory, might I say I think is bogus, makes any sense. If there is any proof it would be in fossils, and nothing.

Conclusion to this random rambling.

I think only a few animals were created for humans. Many DNA changes over the years created all of these other variations. That's why so many animals look close and others dramatic. However all animals DNA are almost the same. The intelligent designer could of put a random glitch in the DNA string.

Maybe?
 Quoting: Conservative Conspirator


Yes, Creation predicts there will be many diverse variations of animals following their originally created kinds. They were designed for adaptation.
Conservative Conspirator

User ID: 1573749
United States
09/28/2012 10:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Here's a thought to chew on.

What if DNA can sometimes, for whatever reason, make a subtle change, call it a random fluke. Many animals DNA are very similar. A very subtle change in DNA makes a big difference. So over time all of these changes created all animals from only a few.

No Darwin theory, might I say I think is bogus, makes any sense. If there is any proof it would be in fossils, and nothing.

Conclusion to this random rambling.

I think only a few animals were created for humans. Many DNA changes over the years created all of these other variations. That's why so many animals look close and others dramatic. However all animals DNA are almost the same. The intelligent designer could of put a random glitch in the DNA string.

Maybe?
 Quoting: Conservative Conspirator


Yes, Creation predicts there will be many diverse variations of animals following their originally created kinds. They were designed for adaptation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I think the changes in DNA are random though, not for adaptation. Like a random glitch.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22247563
United States
09/28/2012 10:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
OP I think you have your terms a little mixed up. Evolution is a theory and religion is the fairytale.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 10:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Here's a thought to chew on.

What if DNA can sometimes, for whatever reason, make a subtle change, call it a random fluke. Many animals DNA are very similar. A very subtle change in DNA makes a big difference. So over time all of these changes created all animals from only a few.

No Darwin theory, might I say I think is bogus, makes any sense. If there is any proof it would be in fossils, and nothing.

Conclusion to this random rambling.

I think only a few animals were created for humans. Many DNA changes over the years created all of these other variations. That's why so many animals look close and others dramatic. However all animals DNA are almost the same. The intelligent designer could of put a random glitch in the DNA string.

Maybe?
 Quoting: Conservative Conspirator


Yes, Creation predicts there will be many diverse variations of animals following their originally created kinds. They were designed for adaptation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I think the changes in DNA are random though, not for adaptation. Like a random glitch.
 Quoting: Conservative Conspirator


They may have a 'random' quality within a fixed set of limitations. I wouldn't really call it random, more like a variation potential.
Conservative Conspirator

User ID: 1573749
United States
09/28/2012 10:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
OP I think you have your terms a little mixed up. Evolution is a theory and religion is the fairytale.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22247563


Evolution can be proven wrong, religion can't.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/28/2012 10:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
OP I think you have your terms a little mixed up. Evolution is a theory and religion is the fairytale.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22247563


Which is why I am arguing against the fairytale religion of Darwinian Evolution.

News