0
   

Evolution Is Impossible Dot Com

 
 
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:11 am
Check this one out:

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/


No faith, no dogma, no sermons, no religion of any sort, just the cold, hard facts about evolution and evolutionism, and the basic problems old Chuck Darwin has with modern mathematics and science.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,105 • Replies: 88
No top replies

 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 09:54 am
checked it out. it first quotes Darwin, thus:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

and never demonstrates that a complex organ could not be formed, etc.

then, the article that supposedly proves evolution is biologically impossible, says this:

Quote:
Some estimates of mutation's pace put the rate at about once per ten million cells. This is not difficult to achieve in a cell population of, say, one billion. In fact the possibility of having a group of mutant genes is somewhat high. Unfortunately, these mutations rarely affect the reproductive cells, preventing the altered DNA from being passed on to its offspring. If this were not the case a father with cancer would pass his DNA along with his cancer on to his children. Even when genes are passed on the offspring are often sterile. These obstacles prevent most mutations from even reaching the gene pool!

unfortunately, this modern scientist either forgot, or omits, that prokaryotes, ie. bacteria, blue-green algae, and the like, which constitute the bulk of Earth's biomass, and were the only lifeforms on earth for most of the history of life, do not reproduce sexually and therefore do not have reproductive cells. And in the case of more complex organisms, mutations rarely occuring only makes them less likely, not impossible.

returning to the statement by Darwin, even Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box testified in Dover, PA, as follows (Q is the plaintiffs attorney, and A is Dr. Behe):

Quote:
Q. Right. And you're not testing the natural -- the difficult task facing evolution, which starts from the pre-cursors and moves forward to the system you're studying. You're going backwards. Isn't that what irreducible complexity proposes?

A. It does not propose that anything goes backwards. It asks, how do we identify this problem for Darwinian evolution? And if you can remove a part, and a system no longer works, then the system needs those parts to work.

And so the problem, how you put that together by numerous successive slight modifications, as Charles Darwin thought one had to do, is, I think, illustrated by that.

Q. In any event, you have not repaired this asymmetry?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that article was written four years ago, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you've used the expression, produced directly. I think that's in the definition. Matt, if you could pull that back up. And if I understand what you mean by directly, it means, for example, in the case of the flagellum, that it has to be steps in which there's a rotary motor that continues to become the rotary motor, that is the flagellum?

A. Yes. By direct, I mean that it essentially worked, as the definition says, it works by the same mechanism, has the same number of parts; essentially, it's the same thing.

Q. Same thing. And then if you could turn to page 40 of Darwin's Black Box. Matt, if you could highlight the first paragraph. You acknowledge another possibility?

A. That's correct.

Q. You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right?

A. Yes.


Q. And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied?

A. Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on.


as I understand the English language, if evolution cannot be definitely ruled out, then Darwin's theory has not been refuted by Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. i note that Dr. Behe also invokes "purposeful arrangement of parts" in his critique of natural selection, but concedes that it's the same argument employed by Paley, which clearly does not refute natural selection, for if it did, why did Behe have to devise another refutation?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:10 am
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one. Claiming our present biosphere was built with natural selection is like claiming New York City was built with a wrecking ball.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:16 am
Quote:
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one.


Gungasnake- This is the first time that I have seen this particular point of view. Would you please elaborate?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:32 am
i don't know about NYC, but it has produced a bacteria that eats PCB, a pollutant:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dunk.cfm#how2eatpcp

i think it's a difficulty for creationists to explain the origin of an organism that subsists on a manmade chemical.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:32 am
Surely with an intelligent designer anything is possible.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:34 am
anything's possible, if the intelligent designer is still designing. but otherwise, what did those bacteria eat before PCP contaminated the soil?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 10:38 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one.


Gungasnake- This is the first time that I have seen this particular point of view. Would you please elaborate?


while he's at it, he might also explain how something that's impossible can be destructive.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 11:17 am
It's a laugh a minute yit.

Evolutionists call IDers stupid and loony and yet IDers are evolutionary products.

They are basically style choices or forms of power broking with coat-tailers jumping on as the fancy takes them.

In the tight corner of fundamental thinking the answer is not only unknown but unknowable.Which is perfect for legal fee generation and filling up white space at low cost and for "15 minutes of fame"opportunities.The judge may well take the way out that the judges did in Rabelais' time,i.e.toss up.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 03:32 pm
Link to the whole article
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 04:24 pm
Such a test could only provide evidence for evolutionist theory, regardless of the results. If no flagellum evolves, this does not hurt the theory of evolution. If a flagellum does evolve, this supports the theory of evolution...
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 04:55 pm
that's precisely what Dr. Behe claims. nonetheless, since the ID camp seeks to overturn prevailing opinion, it seems incumbent on them to conduct the test, and then let the evolution camp explain/rationalize a negative result; by refusing to do so, it undermines Dr. Behe's claim that he knows the outcome will be negative.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 05:58 pm
yitwail mentioned,in passing-

Quote:
prevailing opinion


Where have you got in mind?On A2K or in the wider world?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 05:59 pm
scientific community, spendius.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:10 pm
How many votes have they?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:17 pm
not many, but i think their influence is greater than a headcount would reflect. for instance, if ID became a prevailing paradigm in biology, nearly every general science & biology textbook would undergo significant revision, at least in countries where materialism is not a state doctrine.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:22 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one.


Gungasnake- This is the first time that I have seen this particular point of view. Would you please elaborate?


Sure.

Evolution, like most phony doctrines, involves a lot of smoke and mirrors, including the idea that "natural selection" somehow or other creates new species.

Natural selection, however, is a purely destructive process. It means weeding out the unfit, not creating anything new. The actual formulation of the original doctrine amounted to a claim that combinations of mutations created new species, and that natural selection then eliminated the "unfit" from amongst the new species which mutations had created.

In real life, of course, mutations all have names, like Down syndrome, cri-du-chat syndrome, Tay Sachs disease, Klinefelter syndrome and the like. Ever notice the women going door to door for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and not to cause them? Think there might be a reason for that? In real life, the normal term for "mutation" is "birth defect".

Evolution is basically the birth-defect theory of how all our present animals got here. If it weren't the case that so many people with arrogant attitudes and advanced degrees believed in it, it would be funny.

In fact, in real life (as opposed to evolutionist never-ever land) natural selection actually serves as a guarantor of stasis and not change, i.e. it does the exact opposite of what Darwinists claim it does, e.g.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/battson/stasis/4.html
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:25 pm
Here we go again-

Quote:
undergo significant revision


Come,come yit.That's Mr Robertson's technique.

This is ask an expert.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:48 pm
after reading that article, which quotes two paragraphs from a Stephen J. Gould essay, it may be worthwhile to read the rest of Gould's piece which gives the solution to the problem introduced in those two paragraphs:

Stephen J. Gould "Not Necessarily a Wing" 1985
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:50 pm
Gunga-

Do you mean that if I was to be the first person to show my bare bottom on the Evening News it would not only be a mutation in etiquette procedures but would make me a fortune and with a fortune I could spread my genetic material far and wide and thus begin a whole new process whereby it would become normal to have one's bottom on the Evening News.

I don't think that natural selection under the severe exigencies of the red in tooth and claw struggle for existence would go that far but if you applied it to really clever monkeys I daresay it might happen.I couldn't see what would stop a monkey from going for that.I have seen them in the zoo and they have no shame whatsoever.

Do you think that a scientist who has reservations about showing her bottom on the Evening News,which you must admit requires little skill or perseverence,could really lay claim to such an high status assuming it wasn't illegal.The Shameless Syndrome so to speak.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution Is Impossible Dot Com
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 09:10:19