Science Disproves Evolution

That shouldn't happen, unless I've misunderstood the theory.
They should further diverge, at random.
In some cases the divergence will undo the previous changes, but that shouldn't happen rapidly surely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The misunderstanding is yours. While physical separation is the commonest mechanism it is not the only one. I read recently of a case of East African cyclids that have divided themselves into two groupings that do no interbreed even though they intermix. I'll try to locate the document.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Upon research, it looks like a June 14, 2008 piece from here:
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

But it has mutated and spread widely via copyright violation.

Some fact-based readings to counter that anti-scientific exercise in apologetics:

Addressing some specific (old) misconceptions held by the OP.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/desperately-dis.html

A biological primer for the OP:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/comdesc.pdf

A picture of a bacterial colony showing inherited increased fitness from mutation. (i.e. why the pie wedge sticks out):
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/moraxella-bovis.html

And for the June 2008 research, where E. Coli -- a bacterial species defined in part by it's inability to grow off of citrate -- mutates to be able to live off of ... wait for it ... citrate.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008, PNAS, Blount et al.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/very_cool_evolution_experiment.php
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/06/evolving_without_gods_permissi.php
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/historical-cont.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/behes_vapid_response_to_lenski.php
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/07/the_lenski_affair_when_will_th.php
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/scientific-vacu-2.html

 

What do these people think? if they don't buy evolution do they think their God buried all those bones and made them appear to be millions of years old as a sick joke? Then after doing all that and leaving behind evidence of evolution you think he's going to send us to hell for not believing?

Or maybe they think God like failed the first hundred times he tried to make us? Or maybe God has a short attention span and like a kid that tears up his creations and starts over... we may be wiped out on a whim any second haha.

 

Or the flood buried them. But they aren't lying in order of density or size as they would be if they were flood sediments.

 

so still no NEW creationist arguments then?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102587

 

I'd add: probably driven by coadapted gene complex inheritance / phenotypic modularity. Easiest, fastest.

 

I thought that the difference between a species and a breed was that species could or would no longer interbreed.
What is a breed then?
Is that a subspecies made by human intervention?
Irish Wolfhounds and Pekinese even if kept together could not physically breed.
They might have a damn good go at it though.

As for Hercules the English Mastiff and Brandy the Chihuahua, no way Hose!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hercules

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Brandy

OK, so Hercules is a photoshop creation. Real mastiffs are half this size.
Brandy, a very perky lady, is at six inches length, very much a real dog.

 

The differences in description relative to function aren't uniform even across species. Different breeds of horses will interbreed. Some different breeds of dogs will not. People have to stop thinking about species, subspecies or breeds as fixed terms. Everything is proportional, really.

 

Well in my personal little view on things, if there is a "creator" it probably isn't much different than us only extremely smart, enough to simply set things in motion as we see them within the laws of physics. I don't subscribe to supernatural things, though knowledge is power its power based on science. I don't see why people hold on to a book written by ancient people who obviously had flawed views when they could just admit "who knows" and follow progress as opposed to fighting progress.

 

You are making the unwarranted assumption that people are capable of using their brains in an analytical way from the start to the end of a process. Almost nobody does, it's just that religious types have much more practice at not doing it.

 

Porn actors can interbreed as well, but usually it is not of scientific significance.

 

Don't you mean José?

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=jose&sl=es&tl=en#

Edit* I hope that link works...

 

Just read this article from The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2008:

http://outsideonline.com/outside/culture/200708/hybrid-animals-1.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am wondering though about theists and non-theists. Maybe we can fork a new branch on the tree of life. :shrug:

 

Nah. That's the same as dividing everyone into stupid and non stupid. There are too many hybrids.

 

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5).

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”

 

Complex Molecules and Organs 2

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye (b), the ear, or the brain (c).

b. “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? ” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]