Is the theory of evolution correct?

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't beat this place for free entertainment.

I agree😉

The answer is no: evolution is an ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory.



A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:





The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

Humans are supposed to be descended from hominids such as the Neanderthal or the gracile hominids whose remains are found in caves in the Levant.

In real life:

For any hominid to have evolved into humans, that hominid would have to have:
• Lost his fur while ice ages were going on.
• Lost almost all of his night vision while living in the perpetual twilight of the “Purple Dawn” age and while surrounded by predators which could see very nicely in the dark.
• Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal.

That third item would have been more or less instantly fatal for a land prey animal.

Is this gonna begin some more GUnga-tales??

Were you always a moron Gunga? or do you just play one on TV??

Like the vampire which cannot survive daylight, there are things in the world which will not be able to survive the free flow of information of the Internet age. Islam is one such, the theory of evolution is another. At this juncture, evolution is being defended only by what I would call academic deadwood (like formerman here). Nobody with brains or talent is defending it any more.

Vampires are fiction, snakkke. Not surprised you lseem to think they are real. Islm is thriving. So is evolution. The internet is also great at widely spreading misinformation and you are the poster boy for that.

The huge eye sockets which you see in the remains of hominids like the Neanderthal and dinosaurs, indicate eyes very much larger than ours or than land animals generally other than for a few remaining such creatures (lemurs, tarsiers, Bush babies, owls...). Those kinds of eyes were adapted to the darkish conditions of a world age in which the bodies comprising the southern part of our system were not part of the present system and did not orbit the sun as they do now:

https://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist") notes that even if you were to try to draw a totally yuppified/humanized Neanderthal with the nose and eyes as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you would end up with is still outlandish:



Danny Vendramini provides a much more realistic picture of the Neanderthal, with eyes the size that the bones indicate. Vendramini's reconstructions correspond to everything that we actually know about the Neanderthal:





Humans have the smallest relative eye size of advanced creatures and could not have arisen in such an environment. In other words, hominids like the Neanderthal were native to this planet and were well adapted to it; humans are not native to this planet. Humans somehow or other came here fairly recently.

The Neanderthal has been viewed as a primitive human rather than as an advanced ape largely because of the size of his brain, which was actually bit larger than ours. Nonetheless, unlike humans whose brains are dominated by the front part of the brain which is involved in reasoning and logic, the Neanderthal brain was dominated by the part of the brain involved with vision. That in combination with the huge eyes, indicates that the Neanderthal brain was largely the neurological equivalent of the circuitry for a military night vision system.

Neanderthal DNA is roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. If Danny Vendramini's reconstructions look strange to, you have to ask yourself what you would expect a creature with DNA halfway between ours and they chimpanzees to look like. The Neanderthal should probably be thought of as a very advanced bipedal ape.

I love love love the artistic drawings and reconstructions of these fairytale beings! Puts evolutionism into a different perspective👍

only for those of you who think Alley Oop is valid science.

What would you have to see or understand to convince you that the "micro" changes are just one end of a spectrum of accumulated change which results in "macro" changes? What test can be done, what evidence can be found? Bear in mind that the process being described, by its very nature, takes a lot of time and/or a very large scale.

Even bacteria, which evolve relatively quickly might take many human generations to accumulate a change that you might consider "macro", and even then if we documented all the little changes you might declare that the "macro" change was just the last step in a long sequence of "micro" changes, which is exactly what evolution is, but you might reject it anyway because the steps are in plain view. I see no way to differentiate your "micro" from a "macro" when only little changes are what actually ever happen.

The earth took almost a half-billion years just evolving replicative molecules which change at chemical speeds, and it had a whole planet to use as a test tube. We can't replicate that in a lab. Even if we replicate the chemical conditions we can't duplicate the time frame or the scale. Remember what it was like, whole oceans of molecules replicating, changing, being selected for, year after year, eon after eon, and all the while the best replicators are accumulating in greater numbers. Great swaths of them interacting along their borders as they accumulated and grew, then selection occurring again, and again and again, until some evolved replicator out competed all others and just happened to be the one that took over the planet.

If you are determined to believe that an intelligent designer had to tweak things to make them go, then I'm actually ok with that. Just don't try to justify it by saying it's not a logical possibility, because clearly it is a logical possibility. It's not only logical, it's highly probable given what we already know.

That was beautiful ros, almost made me cry .

Ive never really understood why the Creationists had chosen to make
such a dumass demarcation line so as to give them some ammo with which to deny evolution. If you can support micro evolution (as adaptive modifications intra species), why does macro evolution not fit within the "spectrum" as youve cleverly assigned it?

I think , were I a non Evolution "believer", Id more take to Hugo De Vries quote"
" Natural selection does explain the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST , but it does not explain theARRIVAL OF THE FITTEST".

All the necessary quotes and techy bumper stickers have already been created for us all , over which to mull, and are available" copyright -free" from earlier days of biology.
Gunga tries to get his "Science" from early times but they all seem to forget about the really great arguments that we still present papers about.

Another one is
"Contemporaneity precludes common ancestry".
This was one of the things that Darwin f"ed up and Ehrlich and Holm tried to memorialize (as late as 1960) after which all the new fossil species began to be found as paleontologists began to use fossil hunting (and finding) as "tests" of predictability and falsification.

We seem to have made a huge departure from the "tree of life" to a more acceptable "Hedge of life" yet the Creationists seem to miss their opportunities for argument.
Somebody oughta hore us geo scientists to make up many of these arguments. the only one with any cred is still Steve Austin who claims that the Polonium birefringence ("halos of beta particles) precludes old vulcanism. that one is harder to explain than "dinosaur soft tissue and fossil porphyrines'

Yes, I know the 'just so' story of how Evolution is supposed to work. Very slowly and gradually over time. But the fossil evidence does not support that. Things change radically at some points then stay the same for hundreds of millions of years.

Neo Evolutionists had to invent other theories to force fit Darwin into the evidence. They came up with P.E. (Punctuated Equilibrium) which presumably explains why the first theory (constant, gradual, micro evolution) isn't in evidence, but is somehow still true. How do you rationalize that?

Other problems are explained away by saying it's all environmentally driven, as if random changes can always find a solution to changes. But then it can't and extinctions happen.

There are simply too many contradictions and ad hoc explanations to be credible in my view. The sudden and spontaneous emergence of all the body plans and vertebrates in the Cambrian Explosion is a show stopper for me. Ignoring the information barrier here is simply denial. That much detailed specific information does not randomly occur in the time available. Actually, we've never seen any information sufficient to create a whole new life form or species emerge by random process. We only assume that it did.

We certainly can, just by scaling down the process and seeing how much time it takes to form something much simpler, say a functional protein. We both know that's unlikely so how about a partial chain of any known DNA or Amino acid chain for a protein. From there we could mathematically calculate the time required for the fully functional code to assemble in any arbitrary sample size.

We can also do it virtually in a computer since we know the approximate rates of mutation, reproduction, etc. We can simulate a billion years in an hour that way.

Gungasnake is not an evolutionist. He uses those drawings and reconstructions to argue his brand of creationism.

Quote: ‘That was beautiful ros, almost made me cry .’

Laugh so hard it almost made you cry?
Preach it Preacherfarmerman! Preach it😎

Haha, love u guys!

I know I know. You post here and make a bunch of claims, then I say they are all bullshit and you've got your information wrong (which is exactly what I would say about your last post). Then you post some reference to a fluff media piece or a creationist opinion or even a speculative scientific piece which seems to support your assertion, then we get to debate what was "really" meant by the article in question. And round and round we go. Haven't we done all this already, many times. I know I have. And not just with you.

So what's the next step? Where do we go from here without repeating that cycle again?

What would it take to get you to feel that it doesn't require an Intelligent Designer to make evolution work?