Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

No, it isn't.

Before trying to discuss science it might be helpful to learn some of it first.


Define "kind" in a way that would make actual sense to a biologist.

No, it isn't.

Before trying to discuss science it might be helpful to learn some of it first.


Define "kind" in a way that would make actual sense to a biologist.

A frog and a bird are different kinds of animals.

I would like to hear ur explanation of chaos theory please.

This is one of the reasons America has gone to shit. Christians and Republicans. Luckily they are both fading away. What you see now is the last gasps before they go the way of the Dodo (see what I did there haha;-).

Luckily the opposite of what u said is true. the liberal scourge has sacrificed their offspring ergo unless the government can ship in enough foreigners to replace them the liberal ideology will fade into the night, like lemmings.

No wonder you're ignorant, you don't even know how to use a search engine.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Come on OP, surely you can answer this simple yes or no question.

I seriously doubt that perisodactyla all have a common ancestor. Listen if you want to believe that ur a descendant from bonobos or chimpanzees or that you are closely related to those beasts than by all means who am I to convince you otherwise. Alright guys you win I agree, u r definitely related to bonobo chimpanzee beasts...

Exactly it is impossible that random occurrences constructed the super symmetry found in life and the universe.

Very mature. Do you not understand the question, or are you just ignoring it?

Hypothetically, *IF* equines (which have one toe) share a common ancestor with other perisodactyla (which have multiple toes, like most mammals) then would the ancestors of modern equines likely have multiple toes?

Please, this is the like the fifth time I've asked you this.



Do you know what meiosis is? Who am I kidding, of course you don't. When sperm and eggs are created, they receive a randomly shuffled sequence of half of the hosts chromosomes. Meaning your genetic code is partially the result of random genetic shuffling.

Exactly it is impossible that random occurrences constructed the super symmetry found in life and the universe.

I don't think the animals in the list of perisodactyla share a common ancestor. horses and rhinos don't share a common ancestor.

I learned about meiosis in biology class just like everyone else. throwing around biological terms does not create a substantial argument.

"When sperm and eggs are created, they receive a randomly shuffled sequence of half of the hosts chromosomes. Meaning your genetic code is partially the result of random genetic shuffling."


That being said, it is not random to the point that horses start pushing out rhinoceros's. here is a science experiment for you: take any pair of male and female animals of the same species, have them procreate. If you can get any of their offspring to be different from their parents you win. Until then my scientific theory is that each kind of animal will produce offspring that are the same kind.

I'm not asking if you think they share a common ancestor. Why won't you answer the question, it's a yes or no. To do science you must consider what would occur *IF* a hypothesis were true. It doesn't matter if you think the hypothesis is wrong, just answer the question.

No one said a horse will push out a rhinoceros. Just another one of your strawmans.

"throwing around biological terms does not create a substantial argument."

Clearly you missed the point. You, like other organisms, are partially the result of random events. Evolution doesn't say that EVERYTHING is random.

How do you get that from Chaos Theory?

And again you attack a strawman.
You are either very slow-witted or you know you are unable to attack the real thing.

Stop boring us and make an argument that AND is relevant AND makes sense.

Common designer not common ancestor.

I knew you watched Kent Hovind. I watch Kent Hovind a lot. For fun. The man is a charlatan. I feel sorry for his followers. You really shouldn't look to him as an authority on science.

Can you explain why you think the common ancestry hypothesis does not predict that the ancestors of horses had multiple toes? You said it doesn't.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:





The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been dysfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.