EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE(3)

"© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research."

Says it all really.

Silly human...

You probably believe in the Bible as a holy book!

she believes in the guy with the magic stick .
one side vision true a man written book .

Any evidence to the contrary about the article, no, didn´t think so, so your overblown and inflated opinions are evidence of your fear of the Truth(amongst other things).

"To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml. of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level, there is no evidence that the "primeval soup" is anything but fanciful imagination."


He put INK in water and uses that as proof?

You are several beers short of a six-pack if you think this is real science!

What a fruitcake!

The evolution of life from inanimate matter is quite easy to understand.

There were atoms, inanimate. Atoms have the tendency to group with other atoms of their own and other kinds. A cluster of atom is called a molecule . The rules to which they bind or dont bind are defined by the kind of the atoms, its like magnets, but not with only north and south poles, but a rather complicated set of what can connect and what cannot. So there are loads and loads of possible molecules. And they are created only by the chance meeting of two or more atoms. So you have all these atoms floating around arranging in numerous molecules and dissolving again.

Now at a point in time something interesting happened. A molecule that had just been randomly formed and was stable had a strange property... Let´s simply call this molecule A-B-C-D (where A,B,C,D are symbolic for atoms). Now what happens when this molecule flaots through the soup of atoms is that another A-atom is connected to the molecule´s A-atom, another B-atom will be connected to the B-atom and so forth. So in the end you have two A-B-C-Ds next to each other. The thing duplicated itself.
That was when life was born the first time. This molecule is called the replicator, because it takes the garbage around it and creates a copy of itself from it.

Now in the next millions of years this molecule became mroe complicated, added more functionality only followign the same principle. Life got more complex... i could go on writing about evolution but i guess to understand the beginning of it all, this should do it.

its adapting to your surroundings . thats why you have black people ,they are the same as white people but they just developed a cure against the hot sun ,they call it evolution .
makers dont exist because its happened .

stop bumping this crap...she´s not here to discuss...she´s here to cut and paste

this is not a bump for it was already at the top

No 1 is an out right lie 7:13 there are no transitional fossils anywhere, and i will let the op and others put the light to the rest of the suppositions.

The usual crap from FLH(C).

I don´t think it´s a "he" or a "she" - it´s a bot run by the Creation Research lot which is programmed to spam huge chunks of garbage onto GLP at regular intervals.

How else do you explain the fact that "it" never posts anything that shows it can think for itself.

i dont like people who knows the so called truth just because they are a member of a certain religious cult .

Of course it´s all cut and paste. What do you expect? Fundamentalist sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves.

LOVE IS A KEY and a weapon FHL Yahshuah say Love your ENEMY.......LOVE

A SOUL

Great non-fundalmentalist article on evolution not being true.

[link to www.unlearning.org]

fair use:

THE MYTH OF CHEMICAL EVOLUTION
July 1999
by David Rosevear*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator´s existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become "user friendly," so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials. If it is as easy as just having the right conditions, one might think that life should have evolved many times before the advent of photosynthesis produced an oxygen concentration which made conditions unfavorable. Yet all life rides upon the same biomolecules, metabolic pathways, and genetic information, so life had but one origin, either created or evolved.

Modern theories of the origin of life date back to the Soviet scientist Oparin in 1924. His ideas of a Primeval Soup were promoted in the West by fellow communist J.D.S. Haldane of Cambridge. In 1953 Urey & Miller published results of some simple experiments in organic chemistry which seemed to lend credence to the soup theory. Interestingly, forty years later, Miller admitted that the question of the origin of life is much more difficult than he, or anyone else, had thought. Clutching at straws, others have suggested mid-ocean ridges (with their cocktail of hot chemicals) as the cradle of life, while others have postulated an extraterrestrial seeding of the Earth. This latter suggestion still does not offer a mechanism for abiogenesis.

With the development of molecular biology since the time of Oparin and Haldane, the cell is no longer regarded as simple. The living plasma membrane allows in or out only specific compounds. It is not simply a semi-permeable membrane. Cells contain nucleic acids that carry information about the structure and functions of the organism. They also contain ribosomes where proteins are made using a complex mechanism of nucleic acids and more than a hundred different proteins, each with a specific task. The cell also contains mitochondria where energy (ATP) is produced. The complexity of all these parts of the cell is enormous. Lynn Margulis has suggested that the first proto-cell assimilated these organelles by a process of symbiosis. However, these components cannot now exist independently, nor could the cell exist without their contributions. Moreover, one such type of organelle, known as a lysosome, contains enzymes whose function is to digest foreign bodies. With all the amazingly complex, mutually-dependent components, it seems that the cell had to be complete from the beginning, rather than being assembled piecemeal over years of evolution.

The major biochemicals in living cells are proteins and nucleic acids. No biologically significant proteins or nucleic acids have been made by any experiments such as those of Miller or those who have followed him.

Proteins are strings of amino acids whose enzymatic activities arise from active groups within a specific three-dimensional shape. These are due to a precise sequence of the amino acids. There are twenty amino acids found in proteins, although many others exist that are not used in metabolic pathways. Chemically they are NH2CH(R)COOH, where R is H in the simplest case, glycine, but can also be a variety of organic groups such as CH3 in alanine. In all amino acids except glycine, the central carbon is surrounded by a tetrahedron of four different groups, H, R, amine and carboxylic acid. Because of this asymmetry, amino acids exist in two forms, designated right- and left-handed (or d and l, or R and S). In proteins (a string of amino acids—NHCH(R)CONHCH(R¢)CO—etc. formed by condensing out of a molecule of water, HOH, between each pair), all amino acids are left-handed. This left-handedness gives the chain a spiral twist, leading to a specific 3D shape that is essential to its function. In the living cell, proteins are made by means of RNA and many specialized proteins (enzymes). Since proteins are needed to make proteins, it is not easy to speculate how a first protein could occur by chance processes.

In laboratory experiments aimed at simulating conditions on a lifeless Earth, a messy mixture of amino acids can be formed, consisting of mostly glycine and d/l-alanine. Not all amino acids found in proteins can be synthesized in this manner, while many not used by living systems do result from these experiments. A product consisting of exclusively left-handed amino acids never results, and from theoretical considerations cannot result. Only d/l racemic mixtures are formed. Peptization, the joining of the amino acids to form a protein by the elimination of water, is difficult to accomplish by non-biological means. Proteinoids are unstable in the presence of water. Since they cannot replicate themselves, natural selection cannot be a driving force in their improvement. The precise order of amino acids in proteins in cells is governed by information on the nucleic acids that code for them, so this could not be achieved by chance. Moreover, the tar-like by-products would tend to poison any enzymatic activity in proteins.

Nucleic acids are found in living cells as DNA, ribosomal-RNA, messenger-RNA and transfer-RNA, each with specific properties. They consist of strings of nucleotides, which are composed of a nitrogenous base, a sugar and a phosphate linkage. DNA carries the genetic information for the organism while RNA is used in protein synthesis. There are four different bases on the double-stranded DNA. The strands are linked by weak hydrogen bonds between bases on each strand. The structure of the bases is such that each in one strand only links with one other type of base in the other strand. One single strand of DNA therefore acts as a template for the other strand during cell replication. Three consecutive bases act as a codon to transfer information to specify a particular amino acid, or to start or stop a sequence. This information on a string of DNA (gene) is responsible for the formation of a particular protein. Since there are four bases, there are sixty-four codons (43), which pass information rather like the letters and punctuation of a written message. This is a precise mechanism. Information transfer is checked at a rapid rate by proteins for random changes, known as mutations, which lose information. No mutation could lead to an increase of information, so neo-Darwinism cannot be a mechanism for macroevolution. It is a tenet of Information Theory that information only comes from an intelligent source, so genetic information must have been created. Information not only implies meaning, but purpose. This is the opposite of chance. As a carrier of information the DNA molecule is 4.5x1013 (45 trillion) times more efficient than the silicon megachip, which was made by teams of designers. Incidentally, a stereo-chemical basis for the relationship between any particular three nucleotides and the amino acid for which they code has not yet been elucidated.

When nucleotides are joined in the laboratory, thermodynamic considerations allow one particular site for bonding phosphate to sugar to the next phosphate. However, such a pseudo-DNA strand is not biologically useful. The bonding site found in DNA, the 3¢ and 5¢ carbons of ribose, is in the best position because the proteins used to join it together act as templates to get the junction across the sugar right. The sugars, deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA, are also chiral like the amino acids, but in this case the sugars are all right-handed. Again, there is no conceivable mechanism for arranging this by chance.

Urey and Miller had to assume, contrary to the opinions of geologists, that the early Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere. This is because amino acids are destroyed by oxygen. But absence of oxygen implies absence of ozone, another form of oxygen. Ozone in our atmosphere protects us from high energy ultra-violet rays from the Sun. Nucleic acids are rapidly decomposed by UV light. A further difficulty for those who postulate abiogenic synthesis is that the molecules formed are destroyed by the very conditions (such as heat, UV light and electricity) that make them. Proteins and polynucleotides are thermodynamically unstable. They are also unstable with regard to hydrolysis and reactions with other simple reagents. Moreover, the longer the experiment is allowed to continue, the more decomposition products are made. Many processes are reversible, and in the equilibrium state simpler starting materials predominate over more complex products. Time does not help the forward reaction. The tarry messes from these experiments are in stark contrast to the neat metabolic pathways of living cells with their clean, high yields of precisely fashioned products. In their experiments to simulate abiogenic development, investigators begin each stage with pure compounds in high concentrations. This can hardly reflect natural conditions on a prebiotic Earth.

In the living cell, the DNA codes for proteins and the DNA is itself constructed using proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. It has been suggested that RNA possesses some of the enzymatic properties of proteins while having the information carrying ability of DNA. Could positing a first proto-cell that relied on RNA for both functions, solve the problem? No primeval soup experiment has ever produced anything resembling RNA. RNA does not replicate itself, a prime necessity for a living cell. RNA´s enzymatic properties are not sufficiently versatile for even the simplest imaginable proto-cell. The problem of the origin of information on the information carrying RNA remains unsolved. A proto-cell based solely on proteins is equally impossible, since proteins lack the ability to reproduce themselves.

Each component of a living cell is breathtakingly complex, yet in isolation it cannot survive nor replicate itself. All the parts of the cell are necessary to its functioning and replication. Nothing works until everything works. This has been called irreducible complexity. Even small parts of the components of cells can be unimaginably complex. An example of this is the enzyme adenosine triphosphate synthase, found in all living cells including animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. The elucidation of the structure of ATP synthase won a 1997 Nobel Prize. Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. The motor forges a bond between ADP and phosphate to form ATP. The ATP couples with other processes in the cell requiring energy to reform ADP and phosphate. So energy is directed to contract muscles, beat the heart and drive thought processes in the brain, while the products are recycled. At the centre of ATP synthase is a tiny wheel that turns at about 100 revolutions per second and turns out three ATP molecules per rotation. Just to keep us thinking and walking, humans must recycle their own body weight of ATP each day. Each enzyme is composed of thirty-one separate proteins that in turn are made of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Take away any one of the 31 proteins and the motor is useless. It could not have evolved. And consider this: the genetic information and RNA plus proteins needed to construct the ATP synthase are in total even more irreducibly complex than the ATP synthase itself. (A car-making factory is more complex than a car.)

The concept of abiogenesis is vital to the atheistic evolutionist. It follows in their thinking that if life can arise spontaneously under the right conditions, then there will be perhaps millions of planets in the Universe where life already exists. In some of these places intelligent life may have evolved. These ideas have spawned a large body of literature, films and video games involving imaginary extraterrestrial life. Billions of dollars have been spent by government sponsored searches for messages from out there (e.g., project SETI). The irony is that evolutionists would recognize that a nonrandom signal from space that carried information with meaning and purpose must have come from an intelligent extraterrestrial. Yet they consider nucleic acids in the living cell, a nonrandom sequence of nucleotides carrying far more information with precise meaning and exquisite purpose, and say it must have arrived by chance!

* Dr. Rosevear is Director of the Creation Science Movement in England.

As are fundamentalist scientists, who foist this silly, unproven hypotheisis as actual scientific theory.

Big Bang, my ass...

The COCKROACH is proof of evolution. They have evolved to the point that some even become president. When the light of truth is shone on them they no longer scatter, they look directly at you and repeat the lie.

fair use:


THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION: A SUMMARY* PART II
January 2001
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.**

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
We have noted from the statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.

Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn´t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Commenting on a few of the numerous anomalous results in the genetic story, Dr. Roger Lewin summarizes the situation thus, as noted in Part I of this series:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.1
Lewin mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.2
There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."3 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.4

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseu-dogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to face is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Is Impossible

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law´), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski´s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes´ ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.

References

1 Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
2 Ibid., p. 36.
3 Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA´," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
4 Ibid.
5 E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53. April 2000), p. 32.
6 Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/ June 2000), p. 274.
* This article is the second part of a two-part series.
** Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research.

So true. We were "seeded" by an alien race.

Learning science from a creation institute is like taking geography from the flat earth society.

Fair use:

BIOLOGY CONFRONTS EVOLUTION
- IMPACT No. 368 February 2004
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental documentation. Let´s see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution.

Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids were boiled and electrically sparked for a week, and sure enough, there were trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if similar, unthinking processes were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved long ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might state that the first cell and all life evolved in a similar way.

Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics, but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tales, because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tales, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.

One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen a car spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore unequivocally conclude that all cars were created by intelligent design. But what about life? Is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a representative life form.

Survival by Means of Genetic Reserves
The monarch butterfly is a good example of biology because all observations can be verified. Its whole life cycle is sequenced from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly´s egg is oval and about one millimeter long. It hatches in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly. Then it has the ability to fly, migrate, eat, mate, and procreate. Shortly after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and die.

Unique Sequential Genetic Reserves
The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that within the seemingly inert egg are all of the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a six-legged butterfly. There was no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical manifestation of the butterfly when it was a caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology while there were unmanifested in the organism´s genetic reserves meticulously planned transitional structures and different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex transformations, which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable. Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned, organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such mega-engineering could not have been done brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.

Punctual and Precise Cyclical Genetic Reserves
When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox´s white fur in winter blends with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer. Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to display feathers of mottled reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism´s cyclical DNA genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a week or a month later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like random processes might propose. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and punctuality, it could not survive one season.

Punctual and Precise Arousal Genetic Reserves
Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for muscle actin and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration of red blood cells and 2,3-diphospho-glycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost by a return to sea level. New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures, and new scar tissue from abrasions, cuts, or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by evolution because the organism cannot experience what is needed until the event, and it will not survive unless the need is immediately satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control change because it is brainless. What is brainless is simple (to the extreme) and cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to the extreme: life and survival.

All Genetic Reserves Function At Once
From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available, as needed, all genetic reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready, the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time. They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral mechanisms to meet punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or blind iteration over alleged millions of years, as the inverted evolutionist superstition would have us believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first snowfall by chance, it would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and punctuality of all its genetic reserves from conception or it would never have survived even to being born.

Are Response, Adaptation, Acclimation, and Acclimatization, Evolution or Design?
If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current. Those reserves will synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment. By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything. Evolution has nothing to do and that is why biology has eliminated it.

Are There Speciation, Micro- and Macroevolution in Reality Biology?
Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a different species. "Speciation" and "microevolution" are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too "macroevolution" as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.

Life Described Scientifically
As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science.

The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves that vitality until death. Just as no individual can live forever, so no population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.

From environmental pollutants that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multi-inverted fantasy because it not only teaches that life can spring up like the volcano car, but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever like fictional perpetual motion machines.

Conclusion
As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.

Reference

Mastropaolo, Joseph. The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination. 2003, pp. 115-123. Manuscript in revision.

*Dr. Mastropaolo is an adjunct professor of physiology for the ICR Graduate School.

[link to www.icr.org]

www.talkorigins.org

EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

middle-eastern monotheistic cult BS

oh yes... I see it all now.

all those numbers and facts and inconvenient crap like that is just silly...

the only one true way to know anything is from a book which was written by God! Honest Pete! Written by God!

you fuckers slay me....written by God?

I would sooner believe that a semi-sentient turd in a blender invented Haiku.

Scalia: Faithful live for Christ

Supreme Court justice urges Christians to live fearlessly


By PENNY BROWN ROBERTS
[email protected]
Advocate staff writer

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that people of faith should not fear being viewed by "educated circles" as "fools for Christ."

The justice -- in Baton Rouge to address the Knights of Columbus Council 969 centennial celebration without charging a fee -- told a largely Roman Catholic crowd of 350 at the Holiday Inn Select that there´s nothing wrong with "traditional Christianity."

"To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Scalia said. "For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?

"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools ... and he has not been disappointed."

Read the whole article here:

[link to www.theadvocate.com]

isnt the Ganesh Particle the key to evolution?

Personally, as a Christian, I believe in an aspect of evolution. In fact, I believe that God evolved and is evolving. One could view Jesus as an evolved aspect of God, the ability to manifest an aspect of himself in a human form. You could also view the tranfiguration of Jesus as an abrupt evolution. Metamorphasis of a butterfly is a slightly longer form of evolution. And the ´miracle´ of life from the joining of a cell and a sperm is a 9 month evolution in itself.

I don´t think we, as human babes in the universe, know enough about the laws of nature (aka: Gods laws manifest), to say what is possible or not possible in all circumstances, simply because we do not know of or are not aware of all possible circumstances. Nor do we understand the nature of how or when God dispenses ´supernatural´ occurances.
Nature (Gods works) show us that we have much to learn and many more mysteries to solve before any of our ´theories´ can resemble the true and whole story.
In the meantime it doesn´t hurt to ´debate´ the theories to establish a common benchmark of the information we have gathered thus far.

Carry on

The answer is so obvious yet many have their eyes and ears closed...

Evolution is simply one of Gods toys/tools.

No conflict except in the minds of those who would have one.

In LVX,

EC

"So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility."

I agree, however Evolutionism best explains the origin of the species and is the simplest, thus more probable, explanation.

Besides, the fossil records, although not a proof, strongly support Evolutionism.