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

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.

guys, evolution is Stupid. there are tree fossils growing through geologic layers. trex soft tissue. millions of puddles (none producing lifeforms). all life comes from life. the big bang requires more faith then anything, and here u two are bickering about odd toed equines, ive had enough. im going to get some pu$$y. good luck with ur even and odd toed behemoths. The only proof you need that God exists is the female form, and He's an artist to boot.

Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.

You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??

the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.

It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.

That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.

Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?

I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?

Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.

Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?

Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......

Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?

Good point, I don't know if all birds have a common ancestor, nor do I know for certain that horse and rhinos come from different ancestors. All that I am hypothesising is that when you look at a specie, canines for example, you have a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Chihuahua vs wolf vs Aztec hairless vs bulldog vs great dane. huge variations. As far as I know though, they all come from the same ancestor......

the reason I don't think horses and rhinos share a common ancestor is because I see no resemblance other than four legs and an odd number of toes. can they interbreed??

Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.

Religion: We must destroy it. It is an anchor keeping us from becoming something much better.