Science Disproves Evolution

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you going to listen to reason or just troll? I want to know before I waste my time debunking your ridiculous assertion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you reason with a rock? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, they want to apply reason to scientific claims, but not to religious ones.

 

Correct.

Correct - but the ABILITY to grow large muscles can be.

Correct. That belief - that striving for something makes evolution take you there - is called Lamarckism and has been thoroughly disproved.

Also correct. An organism, in response to an evolutionary pressure, can evolve "genetic machinery" that activates only in time of need. For example, many humans, when exposed to UV light, increase their pigmentation to protect their skin. This remains true even if, for generations, no offspring is exposed to UV light - the genetic machinery remains.

Now, given thousands of generations, random genetic drift may disable that mechanism - and if it is not required, that genetic drift may not be selected against, and thus the trait will slowly fade away if not used.

?? They often do. The rapid transition through the time of "reduced fitness" (or more accurately non-optimal fitness) is often referred to as "punctuated equilibrium."

 

Science proves god tho right?

 

Mendel’s Laws

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

 

Different combinations are indeed formed. This means different genes. A chihuahua's DNA is 99.9% similar to a gray wolf's - but not 100% similar. Likewise it is 98% similar to a coyote, 95% similar to a horse, 90% similar to a bear. It's not hard to deduce that, given more time, dogs would become even more different, and follow a similar path.

"Upwards" has no meaning. Evolution selects for organisms that can reproduce, period. Sometimes that means more complex, sometimes it means less. Sometimes it means evolving wings. Sometimes it means losing eyes or organs.

There is no difference in microevolution and macroevolution, just as there is no difference between microerosion and macroerosion. Same process, just different time scales.

Look at the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua. Now multiply the same sort of changes by ten million or so. Voila! "Macroevolution."

 

:wallbang:

 

The denial thread, or the cesspool.

For the fiftieth time.

 

Is that a fact or an assumption? Has macroevolution ever been observed in nature or the lab?

 

Yes, it's been observed in the fossil record, which is nature.

 

Has macroevolution ever been observed in nature or the lab?


Yes, when land is originally connected, but splits apart and remains apart over hundreds of thousands of years, the evolution of the animals and plants on those separated land masses diverge. Similarly, creatures which become disconnected due to mountain ranges, or climate also diverge in time.

The opposite also happens. Land previously separated joins together.
Animals which previously had a niche to themselves have to compete. Some adapt, some thrive, and others become extinct.

North and South America came together about 3 million years ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Examples of migrant species in both Americas. Olive green silhouettes denote North American species with South American ancestors; blue silhouettes denote South American species of North American origin.

 

For which there is no evidence.

You can't simultaneously whine about there supposedly being no evidence for 'macroevolution' (which there is) and make unjustified falsified claims about a global flood.

Your religion is at odds with reality. Deal with it.

 

Yes, macroevolution has been observed dozens of times in the fossil record. A few examples:

The evolution of lobed fin in fish to leg in vertebrates.
The evolotion of basal amniotes (egg layers) to basal mammals
The evolution of mesonychians (hoofed land mammals) to whales

In the lab we only have a few thousand years of data. In that time we've seen perhaps a dozen new species emerge, each with (relatively small) changes from their parent species.

 

Stop commenting on this guys treads and he will stop writing them. Simple as that.

 

Mod Hat - Closure and Redirect

Mod Hat — Closure and redirect

A general note: If you think a moderator has wrongly closed, locked, or moved a thread, there are more constructive ways to go about it than simply reposting the whole thing all over.