The Revolution against Evolution

[rizen1]

The movie, Expelled, highlights what staunch advocates of Darwinian Evolution are trying to keep in the dark. Their ranks are steadily thinning as more and more genuine “scientists,” that is, those who require empirical evidence for their conclusions, are waking up to, and abandoning the idea of the “Big Bang” theory, a curious hypothesis proposing that quintillions of years ago life was inexplicably produced by an explosion of all inert matter. The original whatever-it-was has now evolved into the countless number of mind-boggling physiological characteristics of a human being, as well as innumerable creatures such as the one-ounce hummingbird. This amazing creature has an up-to-1200-beats-per-minute heart rate, can fly backward, and travels 2000 miles back and forth from its same USA home each year.

Starring Ben Stein, the conservative, Jewish actor, comedian, and political pundit, the film is a trenchant expose of the hypocrisy and dishonesty in much of academia today. It reveals to what lengths academic hierarchies will go to shut down honest debate about the origin of life. I was going to write a review of Expelled, which I saw twice in its first four days, but I found an absolutely fabulous review by Mary Ann Kreitzer, which is a must read. A link to it is provided at the end of this article.

This movie reminds us that Evolution should be more accurately referred to as a “religion” and not science. Darwinian “theory” is nothing more than an hypothesis, which is not scientifically proven, as some would have us believe. In fact, Darwinian evolution violates many proven laws of science, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, in grossly simplistic terms, means that, over time, things tend to fall apart rather than assemble themselves.

Expelled brings to light the chicanery and coercion employed to suppress rational discussion of the issues. Those who continue to rabidly promote evolutionary theory do so at the risk of maintaining their increasingly shaky academic prestige. We must rightly question their antipathy toward the very idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer. And the thought of anyone calling that designer “God” is even more apoplectic to them. One must wonder what is generating such fanatical opposition to the idea of a Creator.

The belief that all life originated from inorganic material is one tenet of the “religion” of atheism, and as Kreitzer points out, its advocates like renowned atheist Richard Dawkins propound it with religious fervor. For those who hold a biblical worldview, it is simply another manifestation of the spiritual war between God and Satan, as the latter attacks the very idea that there is a God.

Say, what time is it? When you just looked at your watch to answer that question, did you marvel at how it has evolved from a bracelet?! Probably not. You realize that someone designed it, and as you look around at the things in your home, the same holds true, doesn’t it? Furthermore, many of the items in your possession came with a page, or a book, of instructions. Who wrote the instruction manual that came with your computer? Clearly, it is the designer of the computer.

Well, what about life, and in particular, mankind? Life comes with a Book of instructions, authored by our Creator. Those who adhere to its truths get the most out of life, while those who reject it at best miss out on what they could have, and at worst wreck their lives.

If you want to know the truth concerning Evolution and the “scientists” who promote it, then Expelled is a must see.

Mary Ann Kreitzer Review

 

[james1523]

This movie reminds us that Evolution should be more accurately referred to as a “religion” and not science. Darwinian “theory” is nothing more than an hypothesis, which is not scientifically proven, as some would have us believe. In fact, Darwinian evolution violates many proven laws of science, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, in grossly simplistic terms, means that, over time, things tend to fall apart rather than assemble themselves.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by scientific evidence, research, and theoretical proof. A theory is stronger than a law, because it explains the underlying structures and principles, rather than a law, which says "if something goes up, it must come down". It is an experimentally and theoretically provable fact of science that complex behaviours and features can arise out of simple interactions between simple structures. Through evolution an organism can show gradual improvements over time, from simpler to more complex functionality.

With evolution it cannot be said that things "tend to" happen this way or that way, because it is dealing with seemingly random processes. With evolution, some things "tend to" work well, and other things "tend to" work poorly.

Evolution has actually been observed in the lab with e-coli bacteria. This proved that complex traits can evolve as a result of seemingly unlikely events, effectively negating the argument that evolution cannot result in improvements over time. So it is possible for simple organisms to evolve into more complex ones, simply through the act of random processes.

 

[DHC]

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by scientific evidence, research, and theoretical proof. A theory is stronger than a law, because it explains the underlying structures and principles, rather than a law, which says "if something goes up, it must come down". It is an experimentally and theoretically provable fact of science that complex behaviours and features can arise out of simple interactions between simple structures. Through evolution an organism can show gradual improvements over time, from simpler to more complex functionality.

With evolution it cannot be said that things "tend to" happen this way or that way, because it is dealing with seemingly random processes. With evolution, some things "tend to" work well, and other things "tend to" work poorly.

Evolution has actually been observed in the lab with e-coli bacteria. This proved that complex traits can evolve as a result of seemingly unlikely events, effectively negating the argument that evolution cannot result in improvements over time. So it is possible for simple organisms to evolve into more complex ones, simply through the act of random processes.

Hello James.

Do you believe that your ancestors in the deep past were tree dwellers?

 

[james1523]

Hello James.

Do you believe that your ancestors in the deep past were tree dwellers?

The Bible doesn't describe what Adam and Eve looked like or whether they dwelt in trees or on the ground.

 

[DHC]

The Bible doesn't describe what Adam and Eve looked like or whether they dwelt in trees or on the ground.

Hello James.

You must have edited your post, I read this post last night and you mentioned the 'tailbone' as evidence of evolution?

Hope your not thinking along the lines that we once had tails?

Your reference to the tailbone as a throwback to an evolutionary past is not a sound argument.
Your probably thinking that a tailbone or coccyx was in the distant past a longer tail. This idea
that some organs in the human body were vestigial organs was popular for over one hundred years.

A German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 compiled a list of 100 organs that were seen as vestigial
organs. Vestigial means degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become without function in the
course of evolution.

As science progressed, it was found that all of the vestigial organs in Wiedersheim's list had important
functions. For example the appendix, which was viewed as a vestigial organ, was in fact a lymphoid
organ that the body uses to fight infection.

Another example of a vestigial organ included in the list was the tonsils. Science has discovered that
tonsils play a significant role in fighting infection up until adolescence. So we do not extract the tonsils
as quickly as we once did.

It was also found that the coccyx (tailbone) at the lower end of the vertebral column. Is the convergence
point of some small muscles at the bottom of the pelvis. For this reason, it would not be possible to sit
comfortably without a coccyx. Remove your coccyx and you will be standing or lying down while
watching the football.

All the vestigial organs have a role to play in the functioning of the human body. The only truth about
vestigial organs is the word 'vestigial' itself.

James, man has never dwelt in the trees, think about what your saying.

 

[james1523]

Hello James.

You must have edited your post, I read this post last night and you mentioned the 'tailbone' as evidence of evolution?

Hope your not thinking along the lines that we once had tails?

Your reference to the tailbone as a throwback to an evolutionary past is not a sound argument.
Your probably thinking that a tailbone or coccyx was in the distant past a longer tail. This idea
that some organs in the human body were vestigial organs was popular for over one hundred years.

A German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 compiled a list of 100 organs that were seen as vestigial
organs. Vestigial means degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become without function in the
course of evolution.

As science progressed, it was found that all of the vestigial organs in Wiedersheim's list had important
functions. For example the appendix, which was viewed as a vestigial organ, was in fact a lymphoid
organ that the body uses to fight infection.

Another example of a vestigial organ included in the list was the tonsils. Science has discovered that
tonsils play a significant role in fighting infection up until adolescence. So we do not extract the tonsils
as quickly as we once did.

It was also found that the coccyx (tailbone) at the lower end of the vertebral column. Is the convergence
point of some small muscles at the bottom of the pelvis. For this reason, it would not be possible to sit
comfortably without a coccyx. Remove your coccyx and you will be standing or lying down while
watching the football.

All the vestigial organs have a role to play in the functioning of the human body. The only truth about
vestigial organs is the word 'vestigial' itself.

James, man has never dwelt in the trees, think about what your saying.

Sorry DHC I was trying to make a dry joke re: tailbone, but it didn't work out. The name tail bone comes from Darwin who thought we once had tails. As for whether we had tails or not, I don't know - as I said the Bible doesn't describe what Adam and Woman looked like. Were they caucasian? asian? blonde hair, blue eye? If we did have tails, they would have been non-functional, meaning we did not dwell in trees, and we don't need a tail to live in trees DHC. Most think that humans evolved from tail-less ground-dwelling apes. But I think God is needed to make any kind of evolution happen, I don't see that evolution can just happen by itself. I just know that God created everything, and evolution happens. Joining the dots is the hard part.

 

[DHC]

Sorry DHC I was trying to make a dry joke re: tailbone, but it didn't work out. The name tail bone comes from Darwin who thought we once had tails. As for whether we had tails or not, I don't know - as I said the Bible doesn't describe what Adam and Woman looked like. Were they caucasian? asian? blonde hair, blue eye? If we did have tails, they would have been non-functional, meaning we did not dwell in trees, and we don't need a tail to live in trees DHC. Most think that humans evolved from tail-less ground-dwelling apes. But I think God is needed to make any kind of evolution happen, I don't see that evolution can just happen by itself. I just know that God created everything, and evolution happens. Joining the dots is the hard part.

Hello James.

Nice to hear from you.

Sorry DHC I was trying to make a dry joke re: tailbone, but it didn't work out.

Yes James, I have tried a few jokes myself and some of those backfired.

Most think that humans evolved from tail-less ground-dwelling apes.

To believe that humans are evolved from apes requires evidence. To make a claim one
needs to provide hard evidence to support the claim. I guess I will be waiting a long time
to see any evidence to support this particular claim of evolution. The last time I looked at
the 'evolution of man', some scientists were claiming the skeleton 'Lucy' was the evidence.
Of the link between us and the apes, some kind of intermediate species if you like. Well Lucy
was later found to be an ape and is now not considered as evidence anymore.

I do not adhere to the evolutionary doctrines, James. When the scientists start finding real
evidence to support their claims instead of the continual flood of ideas. Then they will have
my full attention. All I see in the fossil record are explosions of life forms and they all appear
fully developed.

In my humble opinion the evolution of one species to another is without any evidence
in the fossil record. I would assert that evolution is more of an ideology rather than a true
discipline of science. They need evidence and not speculative ideas, science requires
real and testable evidence.

 

[james1523]

Hello James.

Nice to hear from you.

Yes James, I have tried a few jokes myself and some of those backfired.

To believe that humans are evolved from apes requires evidence. To make a claim one
needs to provide hard evidence to support the claim. I guess I will be waiting a long time
to see any evidence to support this particular claim of evolution. The last time I looked at
the 'evolution of man', some scientists were claiming the skeleton 'Lucy' was the evidence.
Of the link between us and the apes, some kind of intermediate species if you like. Well Lucy
was later found to be an ape and is now not considered as evidence anymore.

I do not adhere to the evolutionary doctrines, James. When the scientists start finding real
evidence to support their claims instead of the continual flood of ideas. Then they will have
my full attention. All I see in the fossil record are explosions of life forms and they all appear
fully developed.

In my humble opinion the evolution of one species to another is without any evidence
in the fossil record. I would assert that evolution is more of an ideology rather than a true
discipline of science. They need evidence and not speculative ideas, science requires
real and testable evidence.

Hi DHC, welcome back (by the way). Yes fossil gaps are evidence against evolutionary theory. I tend to believe that God created a set of distinct parent species, and then God let evolution take care of the rest. That is, only one or two kinds of species in Noah's ark, and all of the variety of species we see today are a result of evolution over time due to in-breeding, cross-breeding, etc. That is, I do not believe there was every kind of dog breed in Noah's ark. Evolution is not magic - it can't create something out of nothing, and although it can produce more advanced and complex features, it is incremental changes and at some point cannot improve any further. For example, if we consider how the personal computer has "evolved", we have reached the fundamental limits of what they can do, and now are looking into quantum computing etc. Similarly, take a monkey, maybe evolution causes its tail to lengthen or shorten, maybe it changes color, eye shape, foot shape, but it will never evolve into an elephant.

 

[DHC]

Hi DHC, welcome back (by the way). Yes fossil gaps are evidence against evolutionary theory. I tend to believe that God created a set of distinct parent species, and then God let evolution take care of the rest. That is, only one or two kinds of species in Noah's ark, and all of the variety of species we see today are a result of evolution over time due to in-breeding, cross-breeding, etc. That is, I do not believe there was every kind of dog breed in Noah's ark. Evolution is not magic - it can't create something out of nothing, and although it can produce more advanced and complex features, it is incremental changes and at some point cannot improve any further. For example, if we consider how the personal computer has "evolved", we have reached the fundamental limits of what they can do, and now are looking into quantum computing etc. Similarly, take a monkey, maybe evolution causes its tail to lengthen or shorten, maybe it changes color, eye shape, foot shape, but it will never evolve into an elephant.

Hello James.

Yes fossil gaps are evidence against evolutionary theory.

Agreed.

I tend to believe that God created a set of distinct parent species, and then God let evolution take care of the rest.
That is, only one or two kinds of species in Noah's ark, and all of the variety of species we see today are a result
of evolution over time due to in-breeding, cross-breeding, etc.

Yet again in full agreement.

That is, I do not believe there was every kind of dog breed in Noah's ark.

There appears to have only one species of dog originally, a type of wolf according to science.

it is incremental changes and at some point cannot improve any further.

This is an area that poses some problems for evolution, 'incremental change'. If incremental
change occurred in the past then the fossil record would be full to the brim of these increments.
This is not the case in the fossil record, I repeat all species appear in the fossil record fully formed.
A dragonfly fossil dated at 200 million years is virtually identical to the modern dragonfly we observe
today!

Show me the incremental variations in any one species over many fossil layers and perhaps I may
consider the idea. Any scientific theory is only ever as strong as the underlying assumptions. If the
scientific assumptions are not ultimately verifiable then the resulting scientific theories are useless.

Here is a beautiful example that modern science somehow must deal with. Until recently the observable
universe was thought to be the sum total of all that existed. Not any more is this the case, modern cosmology
is being forced to accept. That approximately 95% of the universe is invisible and undetectable. We cannot
observe, we cannot measure and we cannot even theorize what constitutes the universe.

Dark matter and dark energy are thought to be the bulk of the contents of the universe. We may never be able
to understand our universe due to the reliance on a scientific procedure. So if the true matter of the universe is
beyond our scope then cosmology ultimately becomes redundant. Can we burn the cosmologists now?

 

[james1523]

Hello James.

Agreed.

Yet again in full agreement.

There appears to have only one species of dog originally, a type of wolf according to science.

This is an area that poses some problems for evolution, 'incremental change'. If incremental
change occurred in the past then the fossil record would be full to the brim of these increments.
This is not the case in the fossil record, I repeat all species appear in the fossil record fully formed.
A dragonfly fossil dated at 200 million years is virtually identical to the modern dragonfly we observe
today!

Show me the incremental variations in any one species over many fossil layers and perhaps I may
consider the idea. Any scientific theory is only ever as strong as the underlying assumptions. If the
scientific assumptions are not ultimately verifiable then the resulting scientific theories are useless.

Here is a beautiful example that modern science somehow must deal with. Until recently the observable
universe was thought to be the sum total of all that existed. Not any more is this the case, modern cosmology
is being forced to accept. That approximately 95% of the universe is invisible and undetectable. We cannot
observe, we cannot measure and we cannot even theorize what constitutes the universe.

Dark matter and dark energy are thought to be the bulk of the contents of the universe. We may never be able
to understand our universe due to the reliance on a scientific procedure. So if the true matter of the universe is
beyond our scope then cosmology ultimately becomes redundant. Can we burn the cosmologists now?

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts. The gaps in fossil record don't disprove it. The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium can help answer the reason for gaps in the fossil record.
I think those dragon flies were very large ones weren't they? And modern ones are smaller - that is an example of evolution.
Normally a species will grow smaller or bigger to adapt to its food source or environment.
The average American male has increased in size and height over the past 50 years alone.
We don't have to look to the fossil to see examples of evolution. There are many examples over the past 200 years that a simple google search reveals:
Drug resistant pathogens, peppered moths changing their camouflage due to industrial pollution.
The finches on Galapogas Islands observed to grow smaller beaks more suitable for smaller food sources.
Plus evolution has been observed in e-coli bacteria in the lab.
So species can adapt and change to their environment, to create a new species. This is happening all the time and humans are evolving too, in some good ways and some bad ways. We are losing our ability to see (number of people requiring glasses has increased dramatically over the past 100 years), probably due to spending most of our time in front of a computer, and nearly everyone gets their wisdom teeth out - the jaw is not big enough for them, probably because we are eating much processed and easily digested food, and don't really need the extra teeth.

 

[DHC]

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts. The gaps in fossil record don't disprove it. The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium can help answer the reason for gaps in the fossil record.
I think those dragon flies were very large ones weren't they? And modern ones are smaller - that is an example of evolution.
Normally a species will grow smaller or bigger to adapt to its food source or environment.
The average American male has increased in size and height over the past 50 years alone.
We don't have to look to the fossil to see examples of evolution. There are many examples over the past 200 years that a simple google search reveals:
Drug resistant pathogens, peppered moths changing their camouflage due to industrial pollution.
The finches on Galapogas Islands observed to grow smaller beaks more suitable for smaller food sources.
Plus evolution has been observed in e-coli bacteria in the lab.
So species can adapt and change to their environment, to create a new species. This is happening all the time and humans are evolving too, in some good ways and some bad ways. We are losing our ability to see (number of people requiring glasses has increased dramatically over the past 100 years), probably due to spending most of our time in front of a computer, and nearly everyone gets their wisdom teeth out - the jaw is not big enough for them, probably because we are eating much processed and easily digested food, and don't really need the extra teeth.

I think those dragon flies were very large ones weren't they? And modern ones are smaller - that is an example of evolution.

Hello James.

The size of a creature has nothing to do with the generation of a new species. 'Species', means a
group of living creatures consisting of similar individuals, which are capable of exchanging genes
or interbreeding! Dragonflies do not mate and cannot mate with say seagulls. The reason is that
dragonflies have a different genetic structure to all other creatures. It is the genetic code that
makes dragonflies unique. It is the genetic code that makes all species unique. Larger dragonflies
are able to interbreed with smaller dragonflies, as long as they are the same species. Large dogs
reproduce with smaller dogs, all dogs are the same species. Dogs do not and cannot mate with
cats, as cats belong to a different species.

Peppered moths may alter their appearance but they are still peppered moths. There has never
been a recorded translation of one species into another species. This change has not been observed
within the fossil record. I need the evidence for the translation of one species into another species.
Without this specific translation of species from one species to another there can be no evolution.
Life cannot exist on planet earth using this principle of evolution as the explanation. Evidence
is necessary in science to support a claim, absence of evidence is a telling feature of mute claims.

Let us examine the claims of science more deeply, James. In the beginning was the 'big bang',
and 'radiation' is the key to this claim. Background radiation at all points in the sky is detectable,
this radiation is claimed to be the result of the big bang. This implies that the universe was in
the first instance a sterile domain. Hence, life cannot exist without the initial generation of some
living matter. This genesis of life must occur within this sterile universe (evolution). This genesis
of life is what 'evolution' attempts to address, James. Evolution always means at the primary level,
life from non living matter. Evolution always means that all species observed are all related to each
other. You according to evolution arose from the primordial slime in the very distant past.

Evolution is the direct contradiction of the Divine Genesis of life. The Bible states that God created life
and life itself is not a 'natural event'. Life never generates in a sterile environment James. Only God can
generate life from non-life. The universe was irradiated and life will never exist in that universe unless
there is a God. Science is a bankrupt ideology and is useless for the purpose of understanding both;
the existence of matter and the existence of life. Science is a never ending, and speculative exercise,
in the generation of ideas without the formal and necessary evidence.

The Big Bang cannot be observed or measured, this is speculation and not science. The Genesis of Life
cannot be observed or measured and once again is not science. Science is the idea that by observation
and measurement we will understand ourselves and the universe. This is not the case at all and will never
be true to any degree. Science needs that which is not available to science, the ability to see the deep
past of both the universe and of life itself!

 

[james1523]

Hello James.

The size of a creature has nothing to do with the generation of a new species. 'Species', means a
group of living creatures consisting of similar individuals, which are capable of exchanging genes
or interbreeding! Dragonflies do not mate and cannot mate with say seagulls. The reason is that
dragonflies have a different genetic structure to all other creatures. It is the genetic code that
makes dragonflies unique. It is the genetic code that makes all species unique. Larger dragonflies
are able to interbreed with smaller dragonflies, as long as they are the same species. Large dogs
reproduce with smaller dogs, all dogs are the same species. Dogs do not and cannot mate with
cats, as cats belong to a different species.

Peppered moths may alter their appearance but they are still peppered moths. There has never
been a recorded translation of one species into another species. This change has not been observed
within the fossil record. I need the evidence for the translation of one species into another species.
Without this specific translation of species from one species to another there can be no evolution.
Life cannot exist on planet earth using this principle of evolution as the explanation. Evidence
is necessary in science to support a claim, absence of evidence is a telling feature of mute claims.

Let us examine the claims of science more deeply, James. In the beginning was the 'big bang',
and 'radiation' is the key to this claim. Background radiation at all points in the sky is detectable,
this radiation is claimed to be the result of the big bang. This implies that the universe was in
the first instance a sterile domain. Hence, life cannot exist without the initial generation of some
living matter. This genesis of life must occur within this sterile universe (evolution). This genesis
of life is what 'evolution' attempts to address, James. Evolution always means at the primary level,
life from non living matter. Evolution always means that all species observed are all related to each
other. You according to evolution arose from the primordial slime in the very distant past.

Evolution is the direct contradiction of the Divine Genesis of life. The Bible states that God created life
and life itself is not a 'natural event'. Life never generates in a sterile environment James. Only God can
generate life from non-life. The universe was irradiated and life will never exist in that universe unless
there is a God. Science is a bankrupt ideology and is useless for the purpose of understanding both;
the existence of matter and the existence of life. Science is a never ending, and speculative exercise,
in the generation of ideas without the formal and necessary evidence.

The Big Bang cannot be observed or measured, this is speculation and not science. The Genesis of Life
cannot be observed or measured and once again is not science. Science is the idea that by observation
and measurement we will understand ourselves and the universe. This is not the case at all and will never
be true to any degree. Science needs that which is not available to science, the ability to see the deep
past of both the universe and of life itself!

DHC,
You are correct that one species cannot breed with another. But that is not how evolution works - that is not how new species are created.
This is how it happens.
Genetic mutations within a species create sub-species. Let's say 10 sub-species are created. Normally this is via adaptation to a new environment eg camoflage patterns changing, change in diet etc.
Each sub-species can interbreed with other sub-species. However eventually the genetic difference will be too great and there will not be interbreeding, and there we have a new species.
It is possible that sub-species and also new species can be created via the process of evolution.
Evolution does not mean that species are related to each other in the immediate sense - there is convergent, divergent and parallel evolution.

You are right that science can't explain the beginnings of life. I believe such attempts are more pseudo-science than real science. What science does it look at the observable facts.
Evolutionary science has done that as well. A scientific theory, just like evolution, is not a "stab in the dark", a scientific theory has the necessary underlying theoretical frameworks and the experimental results and observations to back it up. But a theory is always open to being disproved, or improved.

It is true that the Big Bang model cannot explain the initial conditions, but we can look back into the past, and maybe, one day there will be an advanced enough telescope to allow us to do that. But evolution is more about studying the processes of life, rather than the origins of life, although it tries (somewhat poorly) to do that as well. Science for the Christian is about studying the world that God has created, to further the Gospel and build the Church. Science for an unbeliever can be more about disproving that God exists (or finding a reason to believe that God cannot exist).

Evolution does say that all species are related (in the sense of at one time having a common ancestor), but not that each current species is an ancestor of the other. The divergence between many species is so great that any direct relationship between them is virtually non-existent. I understand that when it is said we evolved from apes, it means we had a common ancestor at some time in the past. It doesn't mean that my great great great x 10 grandfather was an ape. Creationism also believes we and all animals have a common ancestor - dust and water :shade:.

 

[Strypes]

Hello James,

You mentioned in your OP about the ongoing E coli experiment being "proof" of evolution as they have observed the ecoli, whom they deprive of proper food, adapting to new food sources that once killed them. You are aware that it is a flawed experiment with extreme bias right? It is a joke! A twenty year plus joke.

They adapted they did not "evolve"..

 

[Strypes]

I admit that I watched "The Walking Dead".. I live in Atlanta and the place where the the redneck had to kill his brother is on the way to my mother's house ...

Soooo that being said... What would be the result if that university lab where they keep the frozen generations of E coli were to be hit by a tornado and all those "super E coli" were airborne and spread across the heartland? (Was it the University of Indiana?) ... I doubt they have a nuke beneath the lab that they would blow if a tornado got too close.... just sayin'

 

[Strypes]

Only people who have watched "The Walking Dead" will understand my previous post....

:smiley:

 

[Strypes]

In "The Walking Dead" when the backup generators were about to go out at the CDC (Center for Disease Control) here in Atlanta, the backup plan was to incinerate all the bad "bugs" by blowing up the CDC.

If the super strains of E coli were ever to get loose, it would be bad... really bad.

 

[james1523]

Hello James,

You mentioned in your OP about the ongoing E coli experiment being "proof" of evolution as they have observed the ecoli, whom they deprive of proper food, adapting to new food sources that once killed them. You are aware that it is a flawed experiment with extreme bias right? It is a joke! A twenty year plus joke.

They adapted they did not "evolve"..

The bacteria mutated, they showed some advantage. That is evolution. Adaptation is evolution too.

 

[DHC]

DHC,
You are correct that one species cannot breed with another. But that is not how evolution works - that is not how new species are created.
This is how it happens.
Genetic mutations within a species create sub-species. Let's say 10 sub-species are created. Normally this is via adaptation to a new environment eg camoflage patterns changing, change in diet etc.
Each sub-species can interbreed with other sub-species. However eventually the genetic difference will be too great and there will not be interbreeding, and there we have a new species.
It is possible that sub-species and also new species can be created via the process of evolution.
Evolution does not mean that species are related to each other in the immediate sense - there is convergent, divergent and parallel evolution.

You are right that science can't explain the beginnings of life. I believe such attempts are more pseudo-science than real science. What science does it look at the observable facts.
Evolutionary science has done that as well. A scientific theory, just like evolution, is not a "stab in the dark", a scientific theory has the necessary underlying theoretical frameworks and the experimental results and observations to back it up. But a theory is always open to being disproved, or improved.

It is true that the Big Bang model cannot explain the initial conditions, but we can look back into the past, and maybe, one day there will be an advanced enough telescope to allow us to do that. But evolution is more about studying the processes of life, rather than the origins of life, although it tries (somewhat poorly) to do that as well. Science for the Christian is about studying the world that God has created, to further the Gospel and build the Church. Science for an unbeliever can be more about disproving that God exists (or finding a reason to believe that God cannot exist).

Evolution does say that all species are related (in the sense of at one time having a common ancestor), but not that each current species is an ancestor of the other. The divergence between many species is so great that any direct relationship between them is virtually non-existent. I understand that when it is said we evolved from apes, it means we had a common ancestor at some time in the past. It doesn't mean that my great great great x 10 grandfather was an ape. Creationism also believes we and all animals have a common ancestor - dust and water :shade:.

Hello James.

I understand the claim that you presented James, mutations in the genetic fabric of a subspecies.
Will in time cause sufficient divergence say, to generate a new species altogether. I understand
that subspecies tend to differ from one another in morphology. An African lion is different in
appearance to an Asiatic lion, both groups are termed subspecies. According to the claim made
by the theory of evolution, the African lion given enough time, will diverge sufficiently. From say
the Asiatic lion, that one day the African lion will be a separate species from it's Asiatic cousin.
This new species of African lion will have an inherent DNA structure. That is different from the
Asiatic lion, so interbreeding will no longer be possible, or so the theory goes.

Is this process James, the exact same process that is employed by dog breeders. Each subspecies
of the canine clan is bred in isolation from the main canine gene pool. Resulting in a weaker and
weaker genetic subspecies, this is reflective of the geographical separation required in evolution.
It has long been proposed by evolutionists that the separation of the main species gene pool into
smaller specific gene groups. Will eventually acentuate various stronger and weaker traits within
each subspecies. Until eventually the subspecies no longer carries the inherent traits of the main gene
pool of the original species. No longer in the 'natural kingdom' would the said subspecies be able
to interbreed with the other subspecies of the ancestoral gene pool. They have become a different
species with a different genetic structure, the chromosone number would be increased or decreased.

With dog breeds or subspecies to be more formal, the opposite is true. Continual selective breeding
of any subspecies tends to fry the genetic characteritics of the original Canine ancestors. Selective
breeding is always destructive to some extent and will produce a dysfunctional subspecies altogether.
That is why animal breeding programs in Zoos, continually swap animals of a subspecies world wide
to ensure. That the subspecies is not interbred into a dysfunctional genetic subspecies.

Pure breed dogs always have inherent problems, the more selective the breeding the more these
problems are enhanced. It does appear on the surface that geographical separation of a subspecies
is a downward genetic step. Not at all beneficial to the subspecies as a whole. I reject the idea that
a geographical separation of one subspecies will produce a new genetic species. I accept that the
separation will eventually only highlight deficiencies in the selected subset of the main gene pool.

James, the evolutionary theory(?) desperately needs an example from the current observable animal
kingdom. An example subspecies that we can, using the fossil strata, observe the transitional forms.
Not dubious and speculative examples, I need strong evidence, it must be beyond any reasonable doubt.
We need to observe, measure, and repeatedly be able to observe the transition of a subspecies into a
new species. Without this observable evidence the initial theory will only ever be an idea of dubious merit.

The bacteria example you offered is not suitable for the purpose, James. Bacteria continually
reproduces, thousands of times every decade. That is what bacteria does most efficiently, reproduce!
But in the end, after tens of thousands of cycles, behold we still have only bacteria in the petri dish.
Give me some hard evidence James, I need a proper example from the animal kingdom. One species
into another species that is beyond any question, surely the fossil record should record this change.
I looking for chromosomal variations in a new species that powerfully supports the initial claim of
the evolutionary theory.

 

[james1523]

I understand the claim that you presented James, mutations in the genetic fabric of a subspecies.
Will in time cause sufficient divergence say, to generate a new species altogether. I understand
that subspecies tend to differ from one another in morphology. An African lion is different in
appearance to an Asiatic lion, both groups are termed subspecies. According to the claim made
by the theory of evolution, the African lion given enough time, will diverge sufficiently. From say
the Asiatic lion, that one day the African lion will be a separate species from it's Asiatic cousin.
This new species of African lion will have an inherent DNA structure. That is different from the
Asiatic lion, so interbreeding will no longer be possible, or so the theory goes.

Is this process James, the exact same process that is employed by dog breeders. Each subspecies
of the canine clan is bred in isolation from the main canine gene pool. Resulting in a weaker and
weaker genetic subspecies, this is reflective of the geographical separation required in evolution.
It has long been proposed by evolutionists that the separation of the main species gene pool into
smaller specific gene groups. Will eventually acentuate various stronger and weaker traits within
each subspecies. Until eventually the subspecies no longer carries the inherent traits of the main gene
pool of the original species. No longer in the 'natural kingdom' would the said subspecies be able
to interbreed with the other subspecies of the ancestoral gene pool. They have become a different
species with a different genetic structure, the chromosone number would be increased or decreased.

With dog breeds or subspecies to be more formal, the opposite is true. Continual selective breeding
of any subspecies tends to fry the genetic characteritics of the original Canine ancestors. Selective
breeding is always destructive to some extent and will produce a dysfunctional subspecies altogether.
That is why animal breeding programs in Zoos, continually swap animals of a subspecies world wide
to ensure. That the subspecies is not interbred into a dysfunctional genetic subspecies.

Pure breed dogs always have inherent problems, the more selective the breeding the more these
problems are enhanced. It does appear on the surface that geographical separation of a subspecies
is a downward genetic step. Not at all beneficial to the subspecies as a whole. I reject the idea that
a geographical separation of one subspecies will produce a new genetic species. I accept that the
separation will eventually only highlight deficiencies in the selected subset of the main gene pool.

Dog breeding is a great example of evolution, being an example of artificial selection. It demonstrates that genetics can change dramatically in a short period of time. Evolution is descent with modification and this is precisely what dog breeding is about. If it can happen artificially, then it can happen naturally. Another good example is genetically engineered food or plants, which has been done by humans for eons.

With pure-breeding, you are talking about a problem with the practice of dog breeding itself, not evolution. Of course, with artificial selection, the processes is controlled and accelerated by humans actively encouraging this kind of modification to occur, because people can't wait 100 or 200 years for a random chance that it might happen, and this may encourage a greater rate of damaged genes particularly with such a limited gene pool. But the process the dogs undergo is evolution, there is no doubt about that. Breeding in general is often destructive, even between two non-related human beings. In humans the number of genetically inherited disorders and diseases is increasing over time, not decreasing. It can largely depend upon the health and lifestyle of the parents (smokers, drinking, drugs etc), and the so-called "fat gene". If we are Caucasian (European), did you know that we are related to every person who lived 1000 years ago in Europe, from peasantry to royalty?

That geographic separation has produced divergence in species is clearly evident in the plant and animal kingdom. And it is not always a destructive process - for example adaptations in mouth size, food source, or camouflage, can hardly be called a disadvantage.

 

[Marriage Builder 121]

Science supports creation only a few thousand yours ago:
https://www.youtube.com/user/answersvideos/videos

https://answersingenesis.org/media/

https://answersingenesis.co.uk/store/



http://creation.com/qa#Some%20key%20articles

http://www.icr.org/science




REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION

http://www.rae.org/



http://www.creationresearch.net/index.php