I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#11
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

It was never the case - anywhere - that people were just having their tonsils out.

Your honesty is as suspect as your ability to copy-paste from YEC websites.
Reply
#12
Wow. Too much info for a forum post. You might want to make your case in a couple of paragraphs and provide links if necessary.
[-] The following 1 user Likes jack89's post:
  • nolte
Reply
#13
I don’t believe in the evolution theory where humans came from apes or fish or some single celled.organism. If we did then we should be all that exists. Evolution is supposed to be something where the lesser creature evolves into something higher and that the lesser creature would become extinct. So if we came from apes why are they still around?
Say no to NO.
Reply
#14
(09-28-2018, 07:31 PM)Paradosiakos Wrote: I don’t believe in the evolution theory where humans came from apes or fish or some single celled.organism. If we did then we should be all that exists. Evolution is supposed to be something where the lesser creature evolves into something higher and that the lesser creature would become extinct. So if we came from apes why are they still around?

Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.  Evolution is simply change in a species over time.  It's not necessarily a matter of lesser or higher creatures, it has more to do with adaptation to environment over generations, or selective breeding because of a desirable trait, or because of a slew of other factors.  Even when you have groups of the same species isolated from each other over many generations, those groups will change.  Not necessarily better, but different, and often better suited to their unique environment. 

And the theory doesn't claim we came from apes or fish, but that we share the same ancestors from millions of years ago who branched and changed in different ways.  That's why there are so many different species.

The reason that I think evolutionary theory is likely correct, to a certain degree, is that I can see with my own eyes how people are different from each other, and people in isolated areas tend to share similar traits.  But if two isolated groups come together and procreate with each other for many generations their distinctions blur and you achieve a new norm. This happens with insects and animals as well.  Imagine that dynamic over thousands or even millions of years.
[-] The following 2 users Like jack89's post:
  • Jeeter, Melkite
Reply
#15
Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cassini's post:
  • Tolkien RRJ
Reply
#16
(09-29-2018, 11:12 AM)jack89 Wrote: Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.  Evolution is simply change in a species over time.  It's not necessarily a matter of lesser or higher creatures, it has more to do with adaptation to environment over generations, or selective breeding because of a desirable trait, or because of a slew of other factors.  Even when you have groups of the same species isolated from each other over many generations, those groups will change.  Not necessarily better, but different, and often better suited to their unique environment.

In that sense, yes, evolution happens and it's been observed. But that's not the same thing as one type of creature becoming another, even from a common ancestor. That requires new, additional genetic information, and the evolutionists have yet to show that that's possible. Most mutations are fatal, and the rates of the non-fatal ones are far too low even with millions of years, and this gradual change is not what we see in the fossil record.

The sort of evolution you're talking about only involves already-existing genetic information, which works with what's already there, sometimes turning on or off, or selecting for a particular version of a trait.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • nolte
Reply
#17
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.

Can you point out the "scholarship"?

Did you miss my exposure of 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's dishonesty and use of dishonest sources?

Seems that doesn't matter when you have you head in some ancient middle eastern tall tales.. Anything goes!

Hosea 13:16
Reply
#18
(09-24-2018, 03:55 PM)nolte Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 01:38 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: “Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
 




“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

This person has spammed at least 2 other forums with this coy-pasted/plagiarized wall of quotes.

I decided to check a couple - here is what I found:



Quote:“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

That is verbatim.  Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before.  So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing.  Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint.  Long story short, I finally found the source:


Quote:Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:
Quote:"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Quote:Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.

Wow - 2-4% = extensive!  Who knew?

Hmmm.... It is almost as if the creationist source of Tokien's copying hadn't read the paper (they usually don't).  It is obvious that Tolkien didn't read it - or any of the quotes he copies from other creationists.
I had only checked 2 other quotes that this fellow has presented, 1 turned out to be a creationist lie and the other was a misrepresentation like this one.


********

This quote is from a creationist engineer and, amazingly, doctor, ranting about the coccyx.  As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself.  The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

Let's go though this point by point.


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"


Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught.  In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish.  Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills.  I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.


 "The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."

They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?).  In fish, they DO develop into gills.  Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle.  The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus.  They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.).  In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.

"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "

What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.

"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."

This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").

 But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things.  Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system.  I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such.  And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place.  Fair?  The coccyx does not do anything like that.  It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass.  People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body.  Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.


Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.

*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes?  Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function?  He must!  Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact.  Which means that even professional creationists are liars.

********

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:
[/url]
[url=http://www.icr.org/article/major-blunders-haeckels-embryos-born/]"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"


In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:


Quote:I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book.  I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive).  Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:
Quote:"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"

Ok.  That is on p. 344.  But Randy only writes "550" in his citation.  Weird...  But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification.  Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

Quote:"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all.  And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)?  NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

Quote:"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'...  Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"?  Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope.  Nothing on p. 70.  It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack.  Back to 'historical highlights'...  No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter.  No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus?  You know, where the 'gill slits' are?  Nope... Here we go!  Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

Quote:1:  I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick.  Is this true?  What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

Quote:1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION!  Those CONCEPTS!  Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages.  No mention of Haeckel.  No mention of 'ontogeny'.  No mention even of evolution.

Oh the humanity!

Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.

Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.




So, I randomly pick just 2 quotes from this spam-trolling extravaganza, and one is distorted and misleading, and the other comes from a dishonest creationist hack.

What a complete waste.


Apologies I did not know this thread had been posted on. Yes my grammar needs work and i am in the process of editing my material thanks for noticing. You claim it is a lie to say chimps and man are not 98% identical. Allow me to ask you to be a bit more humble, it is in fact a lie you believe that man/chimp are 98% similar. As i qouted before

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16



This quote was not used to say what the % is, only that the 98% is a lie, and it is. But to show you believe a lie you suport a 98% similarity. 




Human Chimp 99% similarity



“The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.
Buggs, R. 2018. How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes? Posted on richardbuggs.com July 14, 2018, accessed August 9, 2018.


One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together


“The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies”
-Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).


“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination”
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995


They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences.

“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are 

Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010 

But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was



Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/res...romosomes/


and he concluded “therefore the total similarity should be below 70%”  Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.






Embroyo


Yes many today have fixed the lie since creationist made it well known, but it is still in many. My kid a few years ago came home with it in his book. SO yes creationist have forced evolutionist to be more honest in some areas, but the lie does continue. And Haeckel  lied on purpose, he manipulated the images to try and prove evolution, does not matter about technology. 




Because humans is where the lie is applied to. It does not matter of other organisms and he just proves what randy and creationist say, "hey are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds "



"What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection."


What is growing? not a tail that is the point. You have missed the lie. 



And yet no tail, once more you have missed the lie. 


As to his credentials

B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University.
https://store.icr.org/brands/dr-randy-guliuzza/


So in conclusion you might have some issues with Randy's  article, but nothing factual with my op. I would recommend emailing Randy [he does debates all the time on universities] 
if you have issues with his article. 

https://store.icr.org/



But as for my stuff, please by all means object to anything factual I have said.
Reply
#19
(09-24-2018, 03:56 PM)nolte Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

It was never the case - anywhere - that people were just having their tonsils out.

Your honesty is as suspect as your ability to copy-paste from YEC websites.

perhaps I imagined it. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe evolution is true and the earth is flat. Or maybe they took people tonsils out because they thought them useless and the cause of strept throat.
Reply
#20
(09-29-2018, 11:12 AM)jack89 Wrote:
(09-28-2018, 07:31 PM)Paradosiakos Wrote: I don’t believe in the evolution theory where humans came from apes or fish or some single celled.organism. If we did then we should be all that exists. Evolution is supposed to be something where the lesser creature evolves into something higher and that the lesser creature would become extinct. So if we came from apes why are they still around?

Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.  Evolution is simply change in a species over time.  It's not necessarily a matter of lesser or higher creatures, it has more to do with adaptation to environment over generations, or selective breeding because of a desirable trait, or because of a slew of other factors.  Even when you have groups of the same species isolated from each other over many generations, those groups will change.  Not necessarily better, but different, and often better suited to their unique environment. 

And the theory doesn't claim we came from apes or fish, but that we share the same ancestors from millions of years ago who branched and changed in different ways.  That's why there are so many different species.

The reason that I think evolutionary theory is likely correct, to a certain degree, is that I can see with my own eyes how people are different from each other, and people in isolated areas tend to share similar traits.  But if two isolated groups come together and procreate with each other for many generations their distinctions blur and you achieve a new norm. This happens with insects and animals as well.  Imagine that dynamic over thousands or even millions of years.


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
-Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


Evolutionist will often point to adaptation, natural selection , survival of the fittest, change in gene frequency and other similar biological changes in organisms as evidence for evolution. However not one of these is evidence for Darwinian evolution that is rejected by creationist and the bible. Creationist accept and agree with all of the above. If evolutionist maintain evolution is nothing but “change” or natural selection, than me and all other creationist are evolutionist.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated
  -The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


But we argue those changes dont have anything to do with evolution properly defined. Evolutionist are able to pull a bait and switch by defining evolution two separate ways. Because they control public education and almost all media, they can then give the kids evidence for natural selection, or adaptation, and sell that as “evolution.” they can than on a separate page, define evolution in a completely different way, yet use natural selection as evidence for the second definition of witch there is no evidence.


“… starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin points out, ‘the origins of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.’ Gilbert, Scott et al., Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology, Developmental Biology 173:357’372, 1996


Properly Defining Evolution

"If evolution is to occur . .living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information." 
—George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

“natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.” 
--Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts. Evolutionist claim to exspalin origins, so origins is what they must be able to show through an evolutionary mechanism.


From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life—as everyone knows—has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows…is that there is no evidence it’s true
-Onward and Upward? By Lori Oliwenstein|Tuesday, June 01, 1993 Discover Magazine


"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme, system, or organ.
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68

Train Analogy



The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction) 
http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin


"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.

“I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence”.
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She was married to the well-known atheist and astronomer, Carl Sagan
Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.)

One analogy given was of a train. If you start on a train in Atlanta and you must go to Boston than a train heading only west no matter how long your on, will never get you to wear you need to be. The biological changes we observe always take existing information and reduce it, never do they create it.

“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.”
-[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883

"A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale." 
—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958), p. 87


“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.”
 -Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

"Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information."
Cornell University geneticist John Sanford
-Sanford, J. C. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 24.


"If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change…. Is that what actually happens?
-Bennet, K. 2010. The chaos theory of evolution. New Scientist. 2782: 28-31.

“The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”” “Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations [emphasis added, ellipsis in original]”
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
-North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
 —*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)