DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2014, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In regard to GAPS in the Theory of Evolution, even Chopra says
that the Purpose preceded the Process
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
instead of the
other way around
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
like
the Darwin true believers claim.
I dislike the way Chopra puts molecular machines in quotes as if
the AREN'T real machines. They ARE machines and they are FAR
MORE EFFICIENT thermodynamically than anything Homo SAP has
invented. It is an established scientific mathematical factorial
statistical fact that cell machinery has NOT HAD ENOUGH TIME
through random mutations to get all these molecular machines to
evolve AND work in concert for maintaining and reproducing life.
12 billion years is not enough for the cell machinery. I've
brought that here various times with scholarly references and I
get studiously ignored. ;D Good luck getting people here to
question evolution or agree there are ANY gaps in that fairy
tale.
You know that fruit fly with the TWO PAIRS of wings celebrated
as "proof" of evolution? Did you know the extra pair of
perfectly formed wings (allegedly a "positive" mutation like
those necessary to establish some credibility to the Darwinian
claim that natural selection produces SUPERIOR species rather
than winnow OUT constantly degrading DNA) HAVE NO FLIGHT
MUSCLES? That's right. They don't work. All the energy used to
make them was WASTED and they represent an evolutionary DEAD
END.
HTML http://www.harunyahya.com/image/national_academy_of_sciences/fruit_fly.jpg
Behold, the evolutionary DEAD END paraded as "proof" of
"evolution".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
In molecular biology, that four winged fruit fly is an ICON of
EVOLUTION! It's SO PURTY that they paraded it all over the
place! ;)
[quote]
The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been
observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations
required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the
molecular level have added any information. The question I
address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind
the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!
[sup]16[/sup][/quote]
[quote] Experiments on fruit flies:
As long as a mutation does not change the morphology—that is,
the shape—of an organism, it cannot be the raw material of
evolution. One of the living things in which morphological
mutations have been most intensively studied is the fruit fly
(Drosophila melanogaster). In one of the many mutations
Drosophila was subjected to, the two-winged fruit fly developed
a second pair of wings. Ever since 1978 this four-winged fruit
fly has gained great popularity in textbooks and other
evolutionist publications.
However, one point that evolutionist publications hardly ever
mention is that the extra wings possess no flight muscles. ;)
These fruit flies are therefore deformed, since these wings
represent a serious obstacle to flight.
They also have difficulties in mating. :emthdown: They are
unable to survive in the wild. :emthdown: In his important book
Icons of Evolution, the American biologist Jonathan Wells
studies the four-winged fruit fly, together with other classic
Darwinist propaganda tools, and explains in great detail why
this example does not constitute evidence for evolution.[/quote]
[quote]
The NAS's Errors Regarding Mutations
The National Academy of Sciences suggests that mutations
provide the necessary genetic variation for evolution, and
refers to them as follows: "They may or may not equip the
organism with better means for surviving in its environment."
(Science and Creationism, p. 10). In fact, however, contrary to
what the NAS authors claim, mutations do not lead to beneficial
characteristics, and all experiments and observations on this
subject have confirmed this fact[/quote].
HTML http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/973/The-Errors-The-American-National-Academy-Of-Sciences/chapter/3216/The-nass-errors-regarding-mutations
#Post#: 1892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 17, 2014, 9:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE,
Rationalization of genocide as an order from God versus
rationalization of genocide as a scientifically beneficial
application of the Theory of Evolution (i.e. eugenics) are
TOTALLY different RATIONALIZATIONS. Word substitution?
Baloney! That's fallacious logic! Given that BOTH ARE INCORRECT
rationalizations as a correct premise, THEN (and ONLY then) you
could claim that word substitution applies.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/129fs238648.gif
But, YOU believe
that the application of the Theory of Evolution by Eugenics is
NOT a rationalization based on an "invented" deity that looks
after his favored Homo SAPS. YOU believe that there are Homo
SAPS that are more fit than others BECAUSE of the Theory of
Evolution, do you not? ;D
You rightly believe that the NAZIs "perverted" the concept of
Eugenics to justify scapegoating the Jews. At THAT POINT you
ASSUMED that the "invented" deity followers who were "just
following orders" to commit holy genocide are in exactly the
same cheap, cruel and merciless "rationalization" boat.
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>And that IS fallacious logic!
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
WHY? Because, among other amoral "science" based
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
(immoral
in my view) aspects of the Theory of Evolution, you probably
would have agreed with Alexander Graham Bell (when it was
thought incorrectly that deaf people pass on deafness to their
offspring 100% of the time) to sterilize deaf people. :whip:
YOU have no problems at all with the Theory of Evolution. Every
"application" of science that involves cruelty to animals to
"knock out genetically modified mice" is NOT a rationalization
to YOU; it's "justified" scientifically! THAT is what Ashvin and
I are trying to get through to you.
You want to draw the line when NAZIs waste Hereros first
followed by German half wits, the diseased the unemployed, the
low I.Q, the vagrants and then the Jews? WHY? Because HUMANS are
DIFFERENT? Not according to the Theory of Evolution!
You want say, well, Homo SAPs have always been wasting each
other and using lousy excuses like God or whatever. Fine! Do
you, or do you NOT agree that the Theory of Evolution is the
CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE of the Hereros, low class,
diseased and handicapped Germans and the Jews? Because if you
STILL BELIEVE that the Theory of Evolution is a VALID theory,
you are claiming it is NOT a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for Genocide.
Your constant mockery of "invented deity" followers is clear. We
get it. ;D Well, my constant mockery of evolutionary theory
TRUE BELIEVERS is clear too. I can PROVE the link to human
genocides as I have in the past few posts form Darwin on down.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
In the light of the FACT that the CHOSEN PEOPLE were NOT exempt
from the same standard of judgement (according to the O.T. they
were and are NOT UBERMENSCH!), the O.T. God ordered butchery is
to be looked at (by those who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD ;D)
PRECISELY as the NATURAL tendency of people to waste those that
are in the way, so to speak, not some supernatural vindictive
God out to show his sadistic nature.
The same with the Crusades and the inquisition. For a Christian,
they were NOT a "come to Jesus, or else" moment. They WERE a
PERVERSION of the Gospel. You have one hell of a difficulty
seeing the difference. What do you want, a scientific experiment
with this universe as the control group and two other "knock
out" GMO universes where
1) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY science based empirical everything with
no tendency whatsoever to "invent" deities and the REALLY FUN
;) universe where
2) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY "invented" deity motivated?
Of course we can only speculate on which one will produce Homo
SAP EXTINCTION first (or at all). :icon_mrgreen: But it seems
to me that you really do believe that "1)" is the better
alternative. 8)
But thought experiments aside, let's get real here, RE. YOU do
NOT believe the Hebrews were "obeying Jehovah God" when they
went about the genocidal activity so common to Homo SAP tribal
warfare. YOU think their top dogs just used that as an authority
fig leaf to get the people to kill the injuns.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
When you DO start believing that God isn't on vacation, is here
now and just didn't wind up the pantheistic clock and set this
universe going before He moved on to the next jolly super being
voyeuristic sado/masochistic exercise :evil4:, THEN we can talk
about the O.T. God of Vengeance.
And you cannot claim "word substitution" (i.e. equal cheap
rationalization for genocide) applies to EUGENICS because you
firmly believe that we live in an EVOLUTION BASED RANDOM
UNIVERSE. It's a HUGE cop out to claim Evolution Theory and
medical science experiments on "lower" life forms is OKAY but
it's not okay to do it on Humans. Think about it. Darwin
unleashed a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE that fueled the
deaths of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!
It's NOT okay to experiment on life forms for ANY REASON.
Evolutionary theory REQUIRES that we do so to learn how to
better DOMINATE all other species for OUR UBERMENSCH BENEFIT in
health and increased longevity. It's NOT OPTIONAL for an APEX
PREDATOR of HIGH INTELLIGENCE to do that. That includes
GENOCIDAL WARFARE on the UNFIT as well.
As a Christian, I firmly believe that is WRONG and is the 'DO
NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200' PATH to our moral decay and
species suicide. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]<br
/>You don't.
Word substation is fallacious logic. Try again. ;D
#Post#: 1897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2014, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Scientific proof of God
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Dr. Gerald Schroeder is NOT a Christian Fundy.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> He is an EMINENT SCIENTIFC AUTHORITY. He can think rings arou
nd
ANYBODY HERE (you too, RE! [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img])!<br
/>
Atheist PUBLIC reaction ---->
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif[/img]<br
/>
Atheist PRIVATE reaction ---->
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__smokelots.gif
Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG, the discovery of harmony between
modern science and the Bible , published by Bantam Doubleday;
now in seven languages; and THE SCIENCE OF GOD, published by
Free Press of Simon & Schuster, and THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD, also
published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster. He teaches at Aish
HaTorah College of Jewish Studies. :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Video by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy
Snippet:
The big bang of animal evolution is quite amazing. Every, it is
described quite succinctly in Scientific American, that [b]every
phylum that exists today came into being simultaneously.[/b]
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
There are approximately 34 animal phyla; all of those 34 appear
in the fossil record, in the strata called the Cambrian
explosion. Of which Darwin knew about, it was not dated, he just
assumed that the strata in which every body type, in which every
body type that exists today, not little people sleeping through
lectures, no, but simply here is chordata, that is our first
formation in our phylum, it is primitive fish. These are the
first insects, the trilobites, and there are mollusks, and all,
all together, all the 34 appear out of the blue. 3.8 billion
years ago, 3.6, 3.7 approximately, 3.8 billion years ago, water
forms, life begins. For 3 billion years, life remains one cell,
then out of the blue, the Cambrian explosion produces this
menagerie of life, these are drawings of the American Museum of
Natural History, they showed in Time magazine. In that life,
already our eyes, every phylum that has eyes today appeared in
the fossil record for the first time with eyes. Now that is
quite amazing. So Darwin assumed that other fossils would be
found that would show a difference. What other fossils have been
found, it becomes worse and worse constrained for these
explosions of life, these punctuated of life. And hence, the
Journal of Science which is the leading overall peer review
science journal in the United States, had an article in 1995 by
Robert Kerr said did Darwin get it all right, did Darwin get it
all right, the subtitle was no, Darwin did not get it all right.
That species appear in the fossil record with an amazingly
un-Darwinian abruptness. What does it mean?
It means we still do not understand what is going on and it is
interesting to see how one of the leaders, one of the leaders in
this understanding that life became by random reactions, how
this person had the fortitude mentally to change his opinion. It
is George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, professor of biology,
Harvard University, wrote an extraordinary interesting article
called “The Origin of Life.” The Origin of Life, 1954, was based
on a thesis that in fact life could start by random reactions.
Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” George Wald. Wald
becomes a Nobel Prize winner for discovering the role of Vitamin
E, I think it is E, maybe it is A, yeah, beg your pardon, in
visual, the functioning of the retina. Here is what he had to
say in 1954, however, remember, water, first life, water appears
here, and in 1950’s and 60’s, the first fossils were only a half
a billion years ago, so there are 3 billion years of blank space
in there in which life is thought to have evolved. So he is
talking about these 3 billion years for the random reactions.
However improbable you regard the invent of the origin of life,
or any steps it involves, give it enough time, it will almost
certainly happen at least once, and for life as we know it, once
may be enough. Time is in fact the here of the.., you have got
to think humorous here, time is in fact the here of the plot,
the time with which we have to deal with is nearly 2 billion
years. What we regard as impossible in the human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes the
possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain,
one is only to wait time itself performs the miracle. That is
1954.
Comes another Harvard professor in 1975 and 76, Elsa Barsham
discovers that the oldest big fossils that we have, fossils that
you can easily see, do indeed date, only to about 600 million
years, about a half a billion years ago. But the fossil record
Professor Barsham discovered goes back 3.8 billion years or 3.7
billion years. :o But it is one celled before the Cambrian
explosion, there are close to 3 billion years, 3 thousand
million years of one celled life, one celled, one celled, one
celled, and then out of the blue this explosion of life. And
based on that 25 years later after 1954, Scientific American
reprinted Wald’s article with a retraction, they retracted the
article. Although stimulating, this article probably represents
one of the few times in his professional life was wrong, can we
really examine this man’s thesis and see, can we really perform
a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic
compounds. This would require more time than the universe might
ever see if chance random combinations were the only driving
force for life. Since 1979 you will not find it, in peer review
journals, the fact that life started by random reactions. You
will always find that a catalyst is required, a force is
required, something is required in the environment that forces
the life to occur.
Wald being intellectually honest and strong of character in
1984, 5 years after the retraction, and 30 years after his
article about random reactions producing life, which led
research off on a wild goose chase for about 25 years, Wald
writes the following. In an article published in the
International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, the quantum
phenomena has changed our understanding of the universe and
here, listen to his wording, it is exquisite, on his retraction,
not of his article, but his previous thesis that the world was
totally materialistic. This is a man that said time in fact
performs the miracles, notice that leaves something out. It has
occurred to me lately, this is Wald direct quote, in the
International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 1984, “It has
occurred to me lately and I must confess with some shock at
first to my scientific sensibilities,” this is Wald speaking,
“and I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific
sensibilities that the questions of the origin of consciousness
in humans, and the origin of life from non living matter, might
both be brought to some degree of congruence. This is with the
assumption that mind, that mind, rather then emerging as a late
outgrowth in the evolution of life has in fact existed always as
the matrix, the source and condition of the physical reality,
that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind stuff,
it is mind that has composed the physical universe that breeds
life, and so eventually evolves creatures that no one creates,
creates science and art and technology, these animals, humans,
in them the universe begins to know itself.” And Wald stated a
bit of his heritage, you might have seen that in kabala was
talking about the last 2,000 years.
But quantum physics caught up with it also. James Jeans the
mathematician, there is a wide agreement which in the physical
side of the sciences approaches unanimity that the stream of
knowledge is heading towards a non mechanical reality that the
universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great
machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder in
the realm of matter, we are beginning to suspect that we ought
to hail mind as the creator and the governor of the realm of
matter. Not of course our individual minds but the mind in which
the atoms out of which the entire universe has grown exist as
thoughts. Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in quantum mechanics,
quantum mechanics has placed the universe in a different
footing, quantum mechanics is part of, it is not some esoteric
theory on the corner in a shelf somewhere. Quantum mechanics
allows your digital watch to work, allows your remote control
that turn on your TV or opens your car to work, it allows your
clock radio to work, it allows, essentially from the time you
get up to the time you go to bed, the theories and understanding
the quanta have changed electronics in your life. Verna
Heisenberg - inherent difficulties in the materialist theories
of existence that everything is material, the materialist
theories of existence have appeared very clearly in the
development of the physics of the 20th century. This difficulty
relates to the question as whether the smallest units of matter
such as atoms in which we and all objects from bacteria to
galaxies are composed or ordinary physical objects, whether they
exist in the same way as flowers and stones, that you can touch
them. Here the quantum theory has created a complete change in
the situation. The smallest units of matter are not in fact
physical objects, in the ordinary sense of the word, they are
ideas.
Erwin Schrodinger winner of the Nobel Prize the year after
Heisenberg, both again for quantum mechanics. So in brief, we do
not belong to this material role that science constructs for us.
We, the awareness of being ourselves are not part of it. We are
outside, we are only spectators, the reason why we believe that
we are in it, that we belong to this picture is that our bodies
are in the picture, and that is the only way of our minds
communicating within. The reality is there is a substrate, that
has allowed this phenomenal complexity to exist. That things
like DNA, itself is complex, but it is a closed book. The real
complexity of life is not in the DNA. The real complexity of
life is the reading of the DNA of which course the DNA is self
structured to develop a system that can read it. The reading of
the DNA, the complexity of life, is overwhelming. The question
is from where does it arise. How did light beams manage to do
all these things. Let alone to wonder about them. Because that
is what is happening with condensed light beams. It sounds
corny, we are condensed, or poetic that we are made of stardust.
But we are. 5 billion years ago, everything you see around you,
including what you see in the mirror when you brush your teeth
in the morning was stardust and it just happened to become
alive. And that stardust was made up with primitive, initial
elements of the universe, the hydrogen and the helium, a few of
the elements, and those elements were made of quarks, and those
quarks were made of the light of creation. The light of creation
shines in everyone. We just have to let it shine forth.
Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy
HTML http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/dr-gerald-schroeder/
HTML http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/dr-gerald-schroeder/
#Post#: 1898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2014, 9:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=330]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180914225557.png[/img]
#Post#: 1900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2014, 11:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Evolution’s oyster twist
HTML http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p095/c09510/Ostrea-Gryphaea.jpg
The oyster, Ostrea sp. (left), was said to have evolved over
millions of years into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.—also known
as “the devil’s toenails” (right). But there’s a new ‘twist’ to
the story—Gryphaea’s coiling has nothing to do with evolution.
by David Catchpoole
SNIPPET:
[quote]Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were
one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary
lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E.
Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to
have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. Several
generations of science students were taught this as ‘one of the
best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record.
However, today it seems that coiling is a built-in programming
response to the environment, i.e. mud-sticking oysters grow into
a coiled cup-shaped form, while oysters attaching to firmer
substrate2 grow to be ‘flat, fan-shaped recliners’.3 So, coiling
is an individual growth response to local environment; not a
millions-of-years evolutionary twist. 8)
[/quote]
HTML http://creation.com/oyster-twist
#Post#: 1901--------------------------------------------------
LEGO Blocks Amino Acids and Protein Folding Fun
By: AGelbert Date: September 19, 2014, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=440
height=165]
HTML http://varsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Intellectual-Property.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=200
height=165]
HTML http://www.nativevillage.org/Archives/2009%20Archives/MAY%20News/V3%20May%202009/world_according_to_monsanto_poster.jpg[/img]
The Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case involved a Canadian
farmer who discovered Roundup Ready Canola seed in his farm
despite never using it. Users of this weed controller are forced
to enter into an agreement with Monsanto that specifies the
repurchase of the new seed every year, along with an annual
licensing fee.
Percy Schmeiser was a canola breeder in Canada, but had never
used Monsanto’s products. Unfortunately, he discovered that a
section of his field was resistant to the herbicide Roundup, the
harvest was sold without him knowing. Monsanto then sued
Schmeiser for patent infringement. The farm maintained that the
selling of Roundup ready crop was accidental, and the seed had
flown into the harvest from a passing truck. The court found
Schmeiser guilty >:(, as growing GM plants constitutes using
patented GMO’s.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
It's the LAW! Monsanto REARRANGED genetic material so they OWN
the patent to the GMO, RIGHT?
They OWN the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY to the GMO they,
painstakingly and with deliberate, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, CREATED
with their KNOWLEDGE of Molecular biology and genetics. ;D
These GMOs are NOT the result of RANDOM MUTATIONS. Monsanto
created them so they must be credited with the work done to
create them (even if the creation wasn't ex nihllo. Whaddaya
want, eggs in yer beer!!? ;D).
To understand how Monsanto LOGIC ;D works, let's pretend a
unique LEGO Block represents every one of the 20 AMINO ACIDS
that exist and compose proteins in ALL LIVING THINGS.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914223702.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=680]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914230448.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914225020.png[/img]http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdM7zMUzH_Y&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Now, please watch an animation of an ACTUAL HEMOGLOBIN Protein
being manufactured at link to the video after the description.
Description: Fascinating clip explaining how densely packed
information (in the form of DNA) is unpacked, turning said
information into actual proteins.
This process of transcription and translation is in all aspects
a complete language system, with sender, receiver, messenger,
and translation algorithms.
This language convention and the transcendent information it
conveys defies evolutionary dogma at every turn.
HTML http://www.savevid.com/video/dna-transcription-amp-translation.html
[img width=320
height=350]
HTML http://www.mediawebapps.com/upload/quotes-20.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 1967--------------------------------------------------
More Darwinian Fantasies from the Evolution True Believers
By: AGelbert Date: October 3, 2014, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Color vision as we know it resulted from one fortuitous genetic
event after another.
HTML http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41055/title/The-Rainbow-Connection/
Agelbert NOTE: My, what a LUCKY and FORTUITIOUS Universe we live
in! ;D God? What God? No God here, there or ANYWHERE.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
[img width=700
height=980]
HTML http://www.the-scientist.com/images/Oct2014/pg46.jpg[/img]
[img width=700
height=980]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-031014195733.jpeg[/img]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180725.gif
#Post#: 1969--------------------------------------------------
Can you tell the difference between Evolution and Natural Select
ion?
By: AGelbert Date: October 3, 2014, 9:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell the difference between Evolution and Natural
Selection?
Muddy Waters
Clarifying the confusion about natural selection
by Carl Wieland
‘Natural selection’ is often referred to as ‘survival of the
fittest’ or, more recently, ‘reproduction of the fittest’. Many
people are confused about it, thinking that evidence for natural
selection is automatically evidence for the idea that molecules
turned into microbes, which became millipedes, magnolias and
managing directors. Most presentations of evolution add to the
confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even
according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true; natural
selection by itself makes no new things.
Darwin the plagiarist?
Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense
insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth
(1810–1873), wrote about it in 1835–7, before Darwin, who very
likely borrowed the idea from Blyth.1 An organism may possess
some inheritable trait or character which, in a given
environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on
all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of
its fellows which don’t have it). Over succeeding generations
that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more
widespread in that population. Such an improved chance of
reproductive success (i.e. having offspring) might be obtained
in several ways:
A greater chance of survival. I.e. the organism is ‘more fit to
survive’. This is what ‘survival of the fittest’ means, by the
way; it does not necessarily refer to physical fitness as
commonly understood. If you are more (or less) likely to
survive, you are correspondingly more (or less) likely to have
offspring, and thus to pass your genes on. For instance, genes
for longer hair will improve an animal’s chances of surviving in
a cold climate. Genes for white colouring will improve the
camouflage of a bear in a snowy wilderness (camouflage does not
just help an animal avoid being caught and eaten; it can also
help a predator to sneak up on prey). By thus being more likely
to avoid starvation, a lighter-coloured bear is more likely to
be around to pass its lighter colouring on to the next
generation.
A greater chance of finding a mate. If the females of a fish
species habitually prefer mates with longer tails, then male
fish with genes for longer tails will have more chance of
reproducing, on average, so that their genes (which include
those for long tails) have more chance of getting copied. The
long-tail genes (and thus the long-tail variety) will therefore
become more common in that population.
Any other way of enhancing reproductive success. Consider a
plant species, the seeds of which are dispersed by wind. If it
has genes which give its seeds a shape that confers on them
slightly better aerodynamic ‘lift’ than the seeds of its
fellows, then the genes for that particular trait (and thus the
trait itself) will be favoured, i.e. ‘selected’ in this
‘natural’ way, hence the term. Conversely, if that plant species
happens to be on a small island, seeds which travel far are
going to be more likely to be ‘lost at sea’. Hence genes which
give less ‘lift’ will be favoured. Presuming that genes for both
short-distance and long-distance seed air travel were available,
this simple effect would ensure that all the members of an
island population of such plants would eventually produce only
‘short-flight’ seeds; genes for ‘long-flight’ seeds would have
been eliminated.
Adaptation
In such a way, creatures can become more adapted (better suited)
to the environment in which they find themselves. Say a
population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its
roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated
spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to
survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to
deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less
likely to get passed on (see diagram above). In time, none of
these plants will any longer have genes for short roots, so they
will be of the ‘long root’ type. They are now better adapted to
dry conditions than their forebears were.
Diagram (at link)
Darwin’s belief
This adaptation, really a ‘fine-tuning to the environment’, was
seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative,
and virtually without limits. If ‘new’ varieties could arise in
a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time,
any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new
creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs
originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a
featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works,
but people today should know better. He did not know, for
instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially
a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded
instructions.
It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection
actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of
creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the
plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the
elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the
information which their ancestors had. The information for the
longer roots was already in the parent population; natural
selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the
population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the
permanent loss of some of the information in that group of
organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter
roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information
for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would
no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a
short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the
environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’
or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes
were present.
Built-in limits to variation
Dogs
In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a
limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their
information indefinitely.
This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of
(in this case, artificial) selection—the principle is exactly
the same as natural selection. Take horses. People have been
able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses—big
working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are
soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already
there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown
coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will
ever generate a green-haired horse variety—the information for
green hair does not exist in the horse population.
Limits to variation also come about because each of the
varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type
from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot
start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for
Clydesdale draft horses—the information just isn’t there
anymore! The greater the specialization (or ‘adaptation’, in
this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents
the ‘environment’), the more one can be sure that the gene pool
has been extensively ‘thinned out’ or depleted, and the less
future variation is possible starting from such stock.
These obvious, logical facts make it clear that natural
selection is a far cry from the creative, ‘uphill’, limitless
process imagined by Darwin (and many of today’s lay-folk,
beguiled by sloppy public education).
Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that
they must rely on some other process to create the required new
information, because the evolution story demands it. Once upon a
time, it says, there was a world of living creatures with no
lungs. Then the information for lungs somehow arose, but
feathers were nowhere in the world—later these arose too. But
the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is
powerless to create. It is a process of ‘culling’, of choosing
between several things which must first be in existence.
Natural election
Darwin
Charles Darwin, TFE Grafik (at link)
In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin (left) to
the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but
this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes. :o A
prominent member of the Academy gave the reason as follows:
[quote]
‘What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that
the science of those of his books which have made his chief
title to fame—the "Origin of Species," and still more the
"Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and
absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious.
This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example,
which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.’1 [/quote]
However, later on 5 August 1878, Darwin was elected a
Corresponding Member in the Botanical Section of the same French
Institute. :o Darwin wrote to Asa Gray as follows:
‘It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the
Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more
than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea is a
Leguminous one.’2
References
1.From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co.,
London, 2:400, footnote, 1911.
2.Ref. 1, p. 401.
How do evolutionists explain new information? ???
Since natural selection can only cull, today’s evolutionary
theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the
reproductive process) to create the raw material on which
natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate
issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do
not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on
theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the world’s leading
information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal
Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says,
‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give
rise to information, neither is any physical process or material
phenomenon known that can do this.’3 His challenge to
scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered
since first published. Even those mutations which give a
survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not
creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural
selection can then go to work.4 (See ‘Blindingly obvious?’.)
In summary:
1.Natural selection adds no information, in fact it reduces it.
2.Evolution requires a way to add new information.
3.Mutations (genetic copying mistakes) must be invoked to
explain how new information arose in order for natural selection
to ‘guide’ the assumed evolutionary process.
4.Mutations studied to date all appear to be losses of
information—not surprising for a random process.5
5.It is thus quite illegitimate to use instances in which
natural selection is happening (reducing the information in
populations) as examples of ‘evolution happening’.
6.Natural selection, operating on the created information in the
original gene pools, makes good sense in a fallen world. It can
fine-tune the way in which organisms ‘fit’ their environment,
and help stave off extinction in a cursed, dying world. By
‘splitting’ a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to
the amount of observed variety within the descendants of an
original kind, just as with the many varieties of horse from one
type. Even new ‘species’ can come about like that, but no new
information. This helps to explain greater diversity today than
on board the Ark.
Perhaps if evolution’s ‘true believers’ really had convincing
evidence of a creative process, they would not feel obliged to
muddy the waters so often by presenting this ‘downhill’ process
(natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the
ultimate ‘uphill’ climb—molecules-to-man evolution.
We need to tell this increasingly educated world how the facts
about biological change connect to the real history of the world
from the Bible, to help them understand and believe the Gospel
message that is firmly based upon this real history.
Photo by David Cook {at the link)
Shrimp
Blindingly obvious?
A CMI speaker visiting a cave in Australia was told by the guide
about a blind shrimp which, in that lightless environment, had
‘evolved the ability not to see’. (!)
Obviously, a mutation (genetic copying mistake) causing
blindness in a shrimp living in the light would normally hinder
its ability to survive. However, it would not be a handicap
where there was no light, and as a side benefit, the shrimp
would not be susceptible to eye infections like its still-seeing
relatives.
This slight advantage is enough to ensure that, after a few
dozens of generations, all the shrimps will carry the defective
gene, and thus will all be blind. They have not in fact evolved
any abilities, they have lost one.
A loss can be a survival advantage, but it is still a loss. The
evolutionary belief demands that massive amounts of new
information have arisen over time; showing how information is
lost or corrupted can scarcely be said to support this belief.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
HTML http://creation.com/muddy-waters
#Post#: 2239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: November 21, 2014, 11:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7TVSRGft8&feature=player_embedded
The Naked Emperor
#Post#: 2373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 11, 2014, 6:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=verdana]A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism [/font]
FAQ:
1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public
statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of
Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on
random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of
the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement
include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley
Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of
Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell;
American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle
Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev
Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of
Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic
recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and
Streptomyces.
2) When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute
in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible
scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery
Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of
Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were
willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of
Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have
grown to over 800 scientists, both in the United States and
around the world.
3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either
hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry,
mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other
natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a
professor of medicine. Signatories must also agree with the
following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability
of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged." If you meet these
criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing
contact@Dissentfromdarwin.com.
If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian
evolution, please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific
Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their
statement by doctors who dissent from Darwinism.
4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of
some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence
of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open
discussion of the scientific evidence for and against
Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement
exists to correct the public record by showing that there are
scientists who support an open examination of the evidence
relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether
Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and
diversity of the natural world.
5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are
signatories endorsing alternative theories such as
self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing
with the statement as written. Signing the statement does not
indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific
theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian
theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random
mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.
Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.
6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political
statement?
No. It is a professional statement by scientists about their
assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism
and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the
evidence for modern Darwinian theory.
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold
doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry,
mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines
from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth,
Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of
California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers
at major universities and research institutions such as
Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania,
University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose
Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion
University in Israel.
HTML http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php
[font=times new roman]Dissent List (page ONE of TWENTY
TWO):[/font]
[quote]“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of
life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory
should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated April, 2014.
Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry,
Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of
Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure
& Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish
Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State
University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology,
Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University;
Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech
Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy
Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of
Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science,
Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of
Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine
Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and
Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum
Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of
Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State
University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University
Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc
at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American
Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of
Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow,
Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science
and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista
di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn
College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas
(Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science[/quote]
FULL Dissent List:
HTML http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RASgI8UCy0o/UG253WL1bLI/AAAAAAAABV0/sCdXzsDCLdk/s1600/bugs%2Bbunny%2Brides%2Bagain.png
[center]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-022.gif[/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page