Evolution

[VideoJinx]

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible
===========================================

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 11 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 12 - Timeline and Archaeology Prove Evolution is Wrong.

Scientific Fact No. 13 - Statistical Mathematics Proves Evolution is Wrong.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the theory of evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

Evolutionists Cannot Truly Have Faith in God, the Creator

:notice:http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

 

[SailorAlea]

So it's a fact just because you say it's a fact? You're making it too easy, Jinx. You're using an unprofessional, religious based source.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

Actually, most of Darwin's research was done on birds. Birds are a great example of evolution because their mobility has spread them all over the planet, where each has adapted differently and taken a unique evolutionary route.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Nope. Humanity does have a "missing link," but there are numerous plausible explanations for this. However, most species don't have missing links.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches.

Hooray for ignorance! There are plenty of "inferior evolutionary branches." Apparently he missed the part where "nature tends to prefer the superior beast." Superior species are able to out-compete their competition for resources and are more likely to survive. Which is why you see species push each other out of existence. But there are plenty of cases where the resources were enough for both, and you see "lower" or "inferior" species sharing the same space with their "superior" ones--as is the case with the thousands of bird species, millions of species of beetles, dozens of species of monkey, and so forth.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Yay! Another ABIOGENESIS insistence, despite people having told you repeatedly that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Wrong again! As was the case with #2, a specific case (this time again with humans) doesn't disprove a theory regarding all species. And his OBJECTION is false as well: numerous factors affect birth, even the "mother's side of it." Hormone levels, vitamin levels, even body temperature all affect the genetic composition process. How the body builds the new genetic material is very much affected.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong.

DNA Error checking isn't perfect. Which is why our bodies end up creating cancerous cells.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong.]Evolution doesn't break the second life of thermodynamics, which applies only to to isolated systems. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as all organisms exchange energy and matter with their environment, and similarly the Earth receives energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. Simple calculations show that the Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the small decrease in entropy caused by the evolution of self-organizing life.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong.

This is just plain wrong. "No evidence that a species can change the number of chromosones within the DNA"? Absolute bull****. Look up DOWN SYNDROME. It's caused by an extra (partial or full) chromosone. So what happened to that magic DNA checking mentioned earlier? Oh, right! It's not perfect! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

The Big Bang has more evidence going for it than the Bible does. We know how stars are formed; we can observe the process at numerous stages in various stellar nurseries. The process of star formation is not at question, and evolution has nothing to do with it.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Um.. No? There's also no life in the void of space or on the moon. Does that mean evolution is false? No.

Scientific Fact No. 11 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.

No. Space is an unthinkably large place, and places habitable for life are obscenely rare. The chance that life would evolve close to us, faster than us and become able to emit radio signals in exactly our direction, is highly unlikely--and has nothing to do with evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 12 - Timeline and Archaeology Prove Evolution is Wrong.

Why do we not have evidence of huge cities over 20,000 years ago? Because people were nomadic, had next to no technology (and thus no capability to build them), as well as no system of writing on which to document history? But there is evidence. Help yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Homo_sapiens

Scientific Fact No. 13 - Statistical Mathematics Proves Evolution is Wrong.

This is just silly. Not only is it paranoid, in suggesting that scientists somehow are a collective group "disparate" (instead of desperate, proofreading for the lose) to prove evolution right, the discovery of life on Mars would be exciting for purposes of space exploration, not "proving Darwin right." Life on Mars would deal with abiogenesis, which evolution doesn't consider.

Don't believe your biology science text book. Modern biology is not a science ... Biology is not scientifically true. Biologists keep revising "science" that was previously taught as being fact ... . Biology has evolved, not humans. Biology is not a science. It is a joke ... Students are encouraged to avoid taking a biology class if high school and/or college if at all possible, because it is simply brainwashing.]

What's this? Hostility towards established, reputable science and implications of a conspiracy theory? From Jinx? Your source has no idea what science actually is, or why/how scientific thinking changes.

Instead of actual scientific research, what does he use? LOLspeak and Bible passages. An impressive combination. Natural Selection is a recognized component of evolution.

So what has this long post boiled down to? Two objections that people have already shot down, Jinx.

1) "The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

There are very, very few "laws" in Science--and they all almost exclusively deal with mathematics, not empirical evidence. Also: the "laws" are not "100% correct." The "laws" of motion by Newton do not always work (under small scales, high speeds, etc. See "importance and validity section," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Evolution is not "false" because it is not a "law." There is no "LAW OF GRAVITY," but you seem to be stuck to the ground, because the theory of gravitation is about as good as the theory of evolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory)

2) "Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth."

What's this? Jinx repeating an assertion that has been shot down 500 times this thread ALONE? "Evolutionists" do not assert any such thing. That's a theory of abiogenesis, which evolution makes no argument for!

 

[VideoJinx]

That's some pretty heavy ignoring.. in the last post =o

Here is another site, putting up facts to denounce evolution.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

 

[Spunky]

That's some pretty heavy ignoring.. in the last post =o

How so? She responded to all of your little "facts". Quite well as well. Jinx, I really, really have to say you're wrong. As you would say, "that's some pretty heavy ignoring"...

 

[DiebytheSword]

I stepped out of this thread because I didn't have the time to make the proper research into my arguments appear in this forum. That does not mean I can't stop in and see whats going on.

Alea and Jinx, you two had better bring the sarcasm down twelve notches, and don't forget the #1 rule on the forum: respect.

 

[VideoJinx]

How so? She responded to all of your little "facts". Quite well as well. Jinx, I really, really have to say you're wrong. As you would say, "that's some pretty heavy ignoring"...

If you'd like to know... Actually click the link I provided and read the information supporting the Titles I quoted. Then read the responses

What Is Abiogenesis?


Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth.

Technically evolution starts with the VERY first cell. Evolution's principles also suggest all species are related and only branched apart because of their environment + mutations...ect..

the explanation evolution gives to explain how a cell becomes an organism ect ect is insane >__> + unlogical

 

[MC]

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness—they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized. See also natural selection, sexual selection. See Notes at adaptation, Darwin.

2. A process of development and change from one state to another, as of the universe in its development through time.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

 

[SailorAlea]

If you'd like to know... Actually click the link I provided and read the information supporting the Titles I quoted. Then read the responses



Technically evolution starts with the VERY first cell. Evolution's principles also suggest all species are related and only branched apart because of their environment + mutations...ect..

the explanation evolution gives to explain how a cell becomes an organism ect ect is insane >__> + unlogical

I was responding to the text for each pseudo-"fact" your religious source posted.

I don't know how many times people have to tell you: evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis. You've insisted that it is about 500 times now. It's not. Read what MC just posted.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis, knock yourself out--but make a new thread for it.

 

[VideoJinx]

Notice MC's second quote says "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change ".

It's not labeling evolution to life after organisms.. but also to life before organisms. Also notice, the definiion says the proccess by which in order to give an example OF evolution.. not to say thatis what evolution is exactly

Edit---

The cell is the structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living, and is sometimes called the building block of life.[1] Some organisms, such as most bacteria, are unicellular (consist of a single cell). Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

 

[kam!]

Notice MC's second quote says "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change ".

It's not labeling evolution to life after organisms.. but also to life before organisms. Also notice, the definiion says the proccess by which in order to give an example OF evolution.. not to say thatis what evolution is exactly

Edit---


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

Evolution still doesn't have to do anything with abiogenesis. Evolution says how new species
arise from earlier life forms. So if you go back the timeline of organism, you arrive at the very first cell.
You can't go back any further (using evolution), since evolution does not try to explain the origin of life.


Edit:
That biblical defending source you posted makes many false assumptions.
e.g. it states that unicellular organisms are far too complex to arise spontaneously (which is still
abiogenesis, not evolution). It doesn't take into account that the very first life forms
were vastly simpler than today's unicellular organisms.
There isn't any similar organism alive today, since they would be outcompeted easily.


That whole bird "fact" is false too. Birds did not evolve wings out of stubs (in the source it sounds
like early birds would have only 2 limbs, namely legs). According to many
hypothesis I read about the evolution of wings, the prototypes of wings were indeed unsuit for flying,
instead they were used to glide, to stay in the air longer after a jump.
Then it assumes birds evolved back to have hands (probably assuming that mammals evolved from birds)
which is wrong.

 

[VideoJinx]

Which is exactly what I said, Kam

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth.

Technically evolution starts with the VERY first cell. Evolution's principles also suggest all species are related and only branched apart because of their environment + mutations...ect..

I also said

the explanation evolution gives to explain how a cell becomes an organism ect ect is insane >__> + unlogical

 

[SailorAlea]

Notice MC's second quote says "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change ".

It's not labeling evolution to life after organisms.. but also to life before organisms. Also notice, the definiion says the proccess by which in order to give an example OF evolution.. not to say thatis what evolution is exactly

Edit---


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

As Kam, MC, myself and numerous others have told you: it's not a theory of abiogenesis. Even one of your earlier "sources" recognized this.

"From earlier life" means just that. From earlier life. Not life from unlife, which is abiogenesis.

This is not going to turn into five MORE pages of you insisting evolution is what it isn't. Abiogenesis is something that religious people, desperate to attack evolution, insist is part of it--when it's not. Neither Darwin's work or further evolutionary theory makes an argument for abiogenesis. End of story.

 

[VideoJinx]

"From earlier life" means just that. From earlier life. Not life from unlife, which is abiogenesis.

Do you not know that a Cell is considered as "Living" ?

The cell is the structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living, and is sometimes called the building block of life.[1] Some organisms, such as most bacteria, are unicellular (consist of a single cell). Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

Maybe you missed my earlier post.


"end of story"? o_o

 

[MC]

VideoJinx, life is a general term that applies to anything that is living - this includes cells. But the point we're trying to make is that evolution doesn't deal with how those cells came into existence but rather how they evolved and eventually changed into something else.

 

[VideoJinx]

It looks like you missed my previous post(s) as well..

In a previous post I said that explanations given by evolutionists to explain the "Evolution" of a cell to an organism is crazy and unlogical.

The question I posed was how in the world does a Cell evolve into an Organism?

both are living, one is single celled, one is Multi-celled.


If you still don't get it.. How in the world does a single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism.

Edit::

I'm not asking how a either came into existance, but how one so called "evolved" into the other.

My answer: They didn't <__<

 

[MC]

A single cell can divide into two and these two new cells can divide into two, etcetera.

 

[VideoJinx]

-___-

are you serious ?

 

[MC]

-___-

are you serious ?

It's been a long time since I've studied Biology, but yes, single cells are capable of dividing.

 

[kam!]

It looks like you missed my previous post(s) as well..

In a previous post I said that explanations given by evolutionists to explain the "Evolution" of a cell to an organism is crazy and unlogical.

The question I posed was how in the world does a Cell evolve into an Organism?

both are living, one is single celled, one is Multi-celled.


If you still don't get it.. How in the world does a single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism.

Edit::

I'm not asking how a either came into existance, but how one so called "evolved" into the other.

My answer: They didn't <__<

It would help if you posted what you read what "evolutionists" said about the evolution of multicellular organisms.

Haven't quite researched it, my take would be that certain unicellular organisms stuck together after division,
and lived as a uniform (each cell works the same) colony. By chance some of these cells would specialize to perform certain tasks
more efficiently.

But apart from how it worked in detail, it seems logical if you look at the timescale.
First life appeared about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, first multicellular life 1 billion years ago.
So 3/4 of life in general were not multicellular. That's a lot of time to perform that step if you ask me.

Edit:
Read a bit about it. There is no scientific consensus yet, just many hypothesis on how it evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

 

[VideoJinx]

Lol..

You guyz are serious <__<? :laff::laff:

or·gan·ism
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

Do you know that our body is made up of multiple organs which is made up of a buncha cells?

a differentiated structure (as a heart, kidney, leaf, or stem) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism b: bodily parts performing a function or cooperating in an activity <the eyes and related structures that make up the visual organs>

Now.. if we evolved froma single celled organism with a function of self survival? HOW IN THE WORLD DO WE GET ENTIRE ORGANS with 1 SPECIFIED FUNCTION ALL WORKING TOGETHER.. its UNLOGICAL



edit;:::

keep in mind.. that all of our organs wouldn't just evolve at once, and also keep in mind that we need all these organs working at once to live..