Science Disproves Evolution

[funiman111]

An article called "Human Genome shows proof of recent evolution" was written in 2006. Again the evidence you have to support argument is old. Got anything recent?



Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

[Pahu78]

An article called "Human Genome shows proof of recent evolution" was written in 2006. Again the evidence you have to support argument is old. Got anything recent?



Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds [/quote]

The authors of the article have shown proof of the ability of all life forms, including human, to adapt to changes in their environment. Evolution is the change from one species to a different species. The human genes in the article did not do that, therefore evolution was not proved, but this is what the National Geographic wants the gullible to believe.

The magazine has a long track record of misinformation about evolution because the authors have a strong bias. They have been caught in the act several times. For more information, go here and here and here and here.

[funiman111]

Again you still didnt answer my question. The research your have is 30 years old. Got anything recent??

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1l
[/align]

In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

l. â??It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.â?� Nilsson, p. 1212.

â??...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.â?� Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), â??The Nature of the Fossil Record,â?� Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644â??645.

â??A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.â?� Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[funiman111]

In order for evolution to happend, species genes mutate to adapt to the environment around them (Survival of the fittest). This so called perfect transistion fossil that your are looking for will probaly not be found (because it already has). You seem to disprove evolution not science. Your opinion is based on 30 yeard old research. You should read "Origin of species" by Darwin.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Your opinion is based on 30 yeard old research. You should read "Origin of species" by Darwin.

You're criticizing Pahu for citing a source that's thirty years old, yet recommend reading a source that's over 150 years old? :wtf:

[funiman111]

You got me on that one.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Missing Trunk 1
[/align]

The â??evolutionary treeâ?� has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersedâ??worldwide (b).

a. â??There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.â?� Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.

â??The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologistsâ??for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwickâ??as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.â?� Ibid., p. 344.

â??To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.â?� Ibid., p. 350.

â??The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.â?� Ibid., p. 351.

â??The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.â?� Stephen Jay Gould, â??An Asteroid to Die For,â?� Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

â??And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.â?� Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.

Richard Monastersky, â??Mysteries of the Orient,â?� Discover, April 1993, pp. 38â??48.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk

[funiman111]

From my understanding we dont have record of anything for the first two billion years (plate tectonics). I guess the way I see it is, I dont need to see something to know that it exist. Again Im sorry but the facts you are getting are from a religous website. You cant mix science with religon.

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

[Pahu78]

From my understanding we dont have record of anything for the first two billion years (plate tectonics). I guess the way I see it is, I dont need to see something to know that it exist. Again Im sorry but the facts you are getting are from a religous website. You cant mix science with religon.

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

1. Where are there fossils showing a record of change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

2. In what way do chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms indicate a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

3. How does the geographic distribution of related species show a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

4. Where are those recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations that show a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

Why do you believe you canâ??t mix science with religion?

The website from which I get most of the information I am sharing is directed by Walt Brown.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.