McGentrix wrote:Gungasnake, evolution has not been disproven and is a viable alternative to creationism.
You can't counter physical evidence with a book.
Okay, so I'm the only one on this forum who's kept up with this one...
First off, when you talk about evolution, you have to discern two kinds of it and keep the two kinds separated.
MICROEVOLUTION is a proven fact of life and nobody argues over it. Microevolution means brown moths changing to white ones, finches with short beaks changing to finches with longer beaks, and that sort of thing.
MACROEVOLUTION is the notion that new KINDS of animals can somehow arise via an accumulation of the changes involved in microevolution and/or via mutations and this is the thing which is normally referred to as the theory of evolution.
There is no evidence supporting macroevolution at all. In fact when scientists tried to prove the concept in the early 1900s, they utterly failed and the failure was so stark and garish that a number of the scientists involved publically renounced evolution at the time, most notably Goldschmidt who devised his "hopeful monster" theory as a possible replacement.
What they did, over a period of about twenty years, involved fruit flies which breed new generations every few days. Twenty years worth of that is equal to tens of thousands of generations of any normal animal, i.e. enough for any possibility of macroevolution to be observed without requiring millions of years.
What they did was to subject those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations, including electricity, chemicals, heat, cold, noise, silence, vibration, and basically just everything, and then recombine like mutants in every possible way.
And all they ever got was what the breeders told Charles Darwin was all he would ever get via mutation when they told him he was full of **** in the 1850s, i.e. fruit flies, sterile mutants, and next generations of mutants which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit fly. Basically, all they had to show for their work after 20 years was fruit flies. No wasps, ants, spiders, mantises, beetles, hornets, mosquitos, or any other kind of animal whatsoever; just fruit flies.
Basically, the typical yuppie who believes in evolution does not really understand the meaning of "natural selection" and assumes it to be some sort of magical process which produces new kinds of animals. Natural selection in fact is a destructive process and not a constructive one. You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could build a skyscraper with a wrecking ball. Natural selection is the conservative process which weeds out everything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given animal species. It is an agent of stasis and not of change.
What the theory of evolution actually says is that chance mutations create new kinds of animals and that, amongst these new kinds of animals, natural selection then weeds out the "unfit".
The only problem is that, in real life, mutations all have names, such as "Down's Syndrome", "Tay-Sachs", "cri-du-chat syndrome", phoco-locii etc. etc. etc. Ever notice the women walking door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they are ALWAYS collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and never for money for research to CAUSE them? Think there might be a reason for that??
Charles Darwin's theory demands that these kinds of mutations which are invariably destructive and detrimental, are the root cause of our entire biosphere, starting from one-celled animals. The whole idea is basically idiotic.
More info on fruit flies:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
