CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS

Yes, all life-forms have the ability to adapt quickly to a limited measure of stress inducing environments, such as a forced change in diet.

The organism has a built in system of phenotypic plasticity which has been well documented. This process has nothing to do with Darwinian-style random variations that are selected for.

Not nearly as well ordered as we've been led to believe. Yes there is an apparent sequence, but it's certainly not simple to complex. Some of the earliest animals of the Cambrian have eyes and brains as advanced as we see today.

There are many "living fossils" of creatures that haven't "evolved" despite having been alive for hundreds of millions of years.

There are modern avian bird tracks found as early as the Triassic.

There are advanced tetrapod tracks found around 30 mya earlier than the supposed fish > landwalker transition.

There are many modern day animals, especially birds, like modern ducks and swans, that are found in the Cretaceous.


In any case, there is somewhat of an order to the fossil record. There are other ways of explaining this besides invoking the 'god of millions of years'.

It is interesting that, in general, fossils are sorted in the order of the vertical environment in which they lived. Lower marine forms, to fish, to amphibians, to landwalkers, to birds, etc. Not a perfect theory, but it's no more ambiguous than Evolution's creation story. And there are numerous facts to the support the idea that a great deal of these animals died suddenly, being drowned or suffocated.


All in all, though, the fossil record has MANY more problems for Evolution than it does solutions. The sudden appearance of, and stasis within major family body plans is simply irreconcilable.

No, no, that one actually did. He is a Numskull.

You must learn to face the fact that this is nothing more than a historical claim based on assumption.

Do you think human better than other creatures, OP? pathetic..

I see, yes it is strange that it seems as if some have evolve to other species while others have remained the same for almost 100 mill.years. And the sudden appearance of a species and also that many die off suddenly.

3 problems then(?):

1. Some species existing contemporary with others that eveolved for 100 millions of years.

2. Seemingly sudden appearance of species.

3. Many died off suddenly also

How is this possible if every species evolved from another species?

Concerning the -:

1st - May be it is dependent on how stable the conditions in environments were locally where they lived.

2nd - Records are missing because of restricted ditribution of species for example to near sea-shore occurrence that might be decimated by world wide flooding or it was a locally occuring species only.

3rd - Catastrophic change in local conditions where isolated occurrence of species lived

But of course it is easier to explain it by a Creation theory

ORPHAN GENES


[link to www.youtube.com]

Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes. 2013

Orphan genes are defined as genes which lack detectable similarity to genes in other species and therefore no clear signals of common descant (i.e. homology) can be inferred. Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome.

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

If we all originated from Adam and Eve, we would all have a common base genome.

We don't so go suck on that though for a while.

Believing in God has made you into a cretin.

Lame. Peer review papers are not permanent. They can always change as they find something new assuming they'd even accept them.

It will look very different in 50 years.

:Alienbitch:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how flowers/bees and a gazillion other co-dependencies evolved all in perfect synchrony for millions of years without fail.

Or how 'selection' creates new information, when to select means to take a subset of what already exists.

Or how an unguided process can ever have a net gain in any direction; statistically, it's no different from flipping a coin.

Or how learned skills can be encoded into the gametes in at least one male and one female so the next generation inherits it.

Or how mutation can account for evolution when every experiment has failed to even begin to turn one organism into another; e.g. the "fruit fly" experiment, which only ever produced mutated fruit flies rather than house flies, horse flies, or super flies.

Etc.

Hello everyone, I evolved from a piece of a bread.

Humand hand
[link to ndpbluenotedotcom.files.wordpress.com]

Chimp hand
[link to www.dgsmithphotography.com]

Fossils indicate that some creatures have not changed in 500 million years, such as the Nautilus, horseshoe crabs, or the priapulid worms.

There are many more all throughout our supposed deep geological time.


Your rebuttals are reasonable guesses, but there is no evidence to support any of them. It amounts to wishful thinking for Evolution theory.

As far as gaps and missing fossils, it could just as easily be the case that the fossil record is mostly complete (as far as body plan types) That is probably most likely as we continue to find many fossils within already known family types, but none outside those families where these phantom evolutionary gaps of body plans are proposed.

Whatever we can infer from the fossil record, it certainly does not explicitly support Evolution in any substantial way. Evos are basically bluffing when they tell you it does.

Nothing you can say can challenge a scientific fact, All you can come up with is ramblings on thousand year old literature that was most likely a childrens bed time story... Please stop trying to convince yourselves of your own beleifs if you beleive them beleive them people really dont give a fuck, But honestly stop looking to other people to validate your beleifs for you by agreeing with you, It's sad and pathetic it really really is.

dang...someone gets it

You believe in ET?

= god

The current genetic bottleneck of extant humans goes back about 5,000 years.



Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome 2012

...in the genomes of 6,500 African and European Americans. The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years. Researchers also saw the genetic stamp of the diverging migratory history of the two groups.

Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report.

[link to www.nature.com]

Evolution = Storytelling, nothing more.

The experimental evidence we do have, shows us that no lifeforms anywhere are evolving increasingly complex and functional structures. They are merely shuffling, deleting, activating-deactivating expression in information they already possess, in response to stressful environments.

To think any of the magnificent life systems we see around us are the result of some blind darwinian trajectory is absurd. What's really funny is some of the most complex features are said to have evolved independently upwards of 50 times! LOL

Evolution is a flop-theory, mandated in a time when scientists believed mice spawned from dirty rags.

What a load of bollocks. The tree of life as a concept emerging from the idea of common ancestry has no problems with molecular genetics processes such as duplication or fusion, and what about "unknown mechanisms"? How the fuck could the tree of life have a problem with an "unknown mechanism"? The two are simply not in conflict and seem to me entirely unrelated.

The problem is horizontal gene-transfer, but this doesn't require a fucking rewrite or rejection of the entire theory of evolution(the modern one, the one proposed by Darwin has been replaced a long time ago). Life still evolved, largely through processes like natural selection and genetic drift, and the tree concept is still largely valid for large multicellular eucaryotes (such as animals). There are a few rare cases of horizontal gene transfer between distantly related lineages through viral infections, but these are extremely rare exceptions. The phenomenon is rampant in procaryotes and other single-celled organisms though. This destroyes the idea of a true tree and replaces it with a more net-like structure.

Instead of watching that load of hyped snot you should start here if you want competent insights on challenges to the tree of life: [link to www.biology-direct.com]

non-Evolution of Sex


[link to www.youtube.com]

Ian Juby

Funny entertaining guy, but his rationale and information is right on.

You sound very confident in the theory.

Certainly it is no problem for you to post these "scientific facts" and explain why they are evidence Evolution?

LOL

That's just it, the phylogenetic tree of life is NON-FALSIFIABLE. You could find any anomalies in this thing and an ad-hoc explanation will be created to support evolution.

We have up to a third of even closely related species' genes that appear suddenly with no trace of common ancestry.

Whenever any genes appear in completely contradictory places, they can be chalked up to horizontal or lateral gene transfer.


And how about micro-RNA ? Very developmentally important genes that completely screw up the existing 'most parsimonious' trees.


[link to www.youtube.com]


Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution 2012

“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. We don't know yet.”

[link to www.nature.com]


All of this shows very clearly that molecular phylogeny is NON-FALSIFIABLE. An AD-HOC explanation can be created for ANY discordance.

I have asked biologists how it could be falsified and none could give me an answer. So I'll pose the same question to you. How can evolutionary molecular phylogenetics be falsified?

Not to mention that ToE is unfalsifiable. Its followers have blind faith that science, given a gazillion years, will discover the elusive proof that their unguided magical nothingness will be found. No matter what evidence is ever presented, no matter how many sub-theories fail, the grand ToE is not to be questioned, not to be doubted, upon pain of excommunication from the fellowship of "free thinkers" who are nothing of the sort.

A case in point is cosmology. The Big Bang theory is coming under increasing doubt even from its supporters, who have finally come to realize that purely hypothetical entities such as dark matter are so removed from the scientific principle of observation that no thinking person can still believe in them. The plasma/electric universe model is finally gaining ground. See also [link to cosmologystatement.org]

This, of course, proves that even modern science is driven more by politics, career protection, and peer pressure than observation, competence, or peer review. And few, if any, branches of science are exempt. But evos have turned lab coats into priestly vestments, classrooms into religious sanctuaries, and Darwin into a prophet. They even resort to the courts to keep data contradictory to ToE from being taught in science classes, because even non-theists who doubt Darwin are seen as heretics.

The whole thing is a farce.

Wow, this sounds like the same exact argument people use to disprove religion...

One simple reasoning for the number of species who have avoided any major evolutionary changes over the ages, such as ones that you have mentioned, is that they have not had any major changes in their habitat and direct environment. There has not been a major environmental trigger to set the cells into action to accomodate the new situations.

Example. You mentioned a horseshoe crab. The underwater environment on this earth has not undergone any major changes. There has been no need for it to evolve because its natural habitat has for the most part remained the same. The same can be said for almost all aquatic animals. Other than the slight change in temperature, there has been no need for them to adapt to a new climate, or food source, or weather patterns.

Birds have had minimal evolutionary changes compared to other species because of their ability to quickly migrate to an area more condusive to their lifestyle. If the weather changes drastically in one area they simply fly to another area where its more suitable for them.

Almost all land based animals have undergone major evolutionary changes over the eons. Take the polar bear for example. What started out as a group of another species of bear, that migrated to colder weather, took only a short period of time relatively(in the grand scheme of earthly time) to adapt to its new climate. Its feet became webbed, it evolved to be able to hold its breath for long periods,its skin and coat evolved(adapted) to the extreme cold.

How about instead of starting a thread asking people to disprove your idea, you instead prove YOUR idea on the situation.I could just as easily start a thread with the same position on creation, and call anyone who failed to 'back up their belief' ignorant..but unless I was to back up MY belief, my point would be moot. Same thing with this thread...Moot point...

There is a lot more evidence to support evolution than to support creation...sorry about your luck. Your grasping at straws to prove your imaginary friend simply opened his hand and created all that we see.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with science, it has a lot more substantial backing than religion. You have a book, word of mouth, and hearsay...evolution has millions of years of written records within the rocks, mountains, and oceans...

One of the better sites out there: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info]

You just contradicted everything youve said.. Even science has said that we are all started with the same genetic codes, just predispositions in our environment and our parental genetics cause us to form a certain way. We as humans have the same genetic coding as any other species, just different genetic and environmental triggers over the eons have caused each subsequent species to travel a different genetic pathway. Leading to different species, and different families within the species. Not all the codes are 'activated' so to speak in every species, some remain dormant or recessive until a certain environmental or genetic trigger causes an evolution of that species.

Again I ask you..instead of trying to disprove evolution, how about you prove creation...??

Hmmm, im not sure you can..

Well said!



I like Cornelius Hunter's blog. He writes frequently about the religion driving current science.

[link to darwins-god.blogspot.com]

Yes it wishful and adhoc theories which would have had to be proved in each case of course.

The problem with proving that Creation occured is that it is impossible to do it. It would be similar to proving that God exists.

Is it: God exists because Creation is real, or is it: Creation occured because God exists.

For many it is much less probable that God exists than the possibility for Life originating by itself and then evolving.

And in addition; if a perfect God created life as we see it, why did he not create it perfect at once without all suffering and death all around us. The fossil record for 600 million years at least shows that animals have died always it seems.

LMFAO!!! The OP is sooo full of shit. Learn what evolution is, and it's definition before you make yourself look like even more of an ass.