Evolution

[mindphuk]

10 facts that prove evolution is false

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

This is ridiculous. You are dismissing the talent and expertise of forensic anthropologists and paleontologists. No one is lining up skulls because of the way they look. They look at all of the fossil that is available to them and use specific features, bony prominences, etc. to determine for example if they walked upright, their brain size, and see that they have many features that non-human apes have as well as many human features, telling us they are an intermediate between modern humans and our chimpanzee common ancestor. We also are able to tell that some of these humans developed along their own branch before going extinct and are not our direct ancestors but cousins. That doesn't disprove human evolution in the slightest.
And yes, we do it for elephants and giraffes as well as whales, fish, dinosaurs, birds, and every species of which we find fossils.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Sexual selection is a very efficient way to get more variety in the genome. More variety means more chance that some offspring will inherit traits favorable to the environment. The strawman here is that no one is claiming the gametes pass along environmental factors, this would be Lamarkian inheritance, not Mendelian. A big FAIL here too.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

More stupidity. The average human contains about 50-100 mutations. This is observable fact. Error checking is not infallible.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

The sun provides energy to the earth. It is not a closed system. This old creationist lie has been debunked so many times it's sad to see people still cling to it.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Plants change their DNA count all of the time. Just more scientific ignorance by the author. Human Chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes and includes a central telomere and TWO centromeres on either side. Chromosome count can change and there is ample evidence for it.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

The origin of matter has nothing to do with evolution of biological organisms. Does atomic or chemical theory have to tell us where atoms came from? Does germ theory have to explain where microorganisms come from? To say that we don't know where matter came from is a problem for evolution is to say that it is a problem for ALL of science but you seem to only have this problem with evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

So because we haven't found life elsewhere YET means that life elsewhere is non-existent? You have absolutely no basis in fact to say that Mars is or was suitable to support, let alone create, life forms.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how life evolves. It means that there aren't radio signals on the specific bands that SETI searches currently bombarding earth. Its absolutely meaningless. Lack of evidence of intelligent life in our immediate corner of the universe hardly discounts the possibility of life everywhere else. We have only search a small portion of our own galaxy. Light takes time to reach us and we would not have seen any evidence of a civilization farther out than the time they have been around. SETI has not looked outside the hydrogen line until very recently. There are many other frequencies that we could be searching for but haven't so it's quite possible we have missed signals.

You really should learn some science yourself, it will really help you rid yourself of disinformation like this copy/paste you found so compelling.

 

[motoracer110]

Absolutely.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/299672-global-warming-update.html

Just like I'll believe the Dr. if he tells me I have cancer. That's kinda the idea... you trust the professionals, the guys who are actively studying the stuff you've got questions about. Why would you believe the guy with little experience? Would you let that same guy fly the plane you're traveling in?

hahahahahaha you just proved my point THANK YOU... Global warming has already been proven to be false my friend. I think you are BLIND to the FACTS or you just dont want the facts to be true, but they are. You should really open your eyes to what is really going on. thats all i have to say.

 

[Pipe Dream]

I think it's common sense I don't see how it could be disputed. Now I'm not sure on the exact concepts of THE theory of evolution but it's obvious that evolution takes place IMHO.

Just look at species like the hog island boa. Once just a typical boa constrictor which was up to over 15' in length the continent was seperated by tectonic movement and the hog island boas evolved into a smaller species of boas because of the isolation and inbreeding and environmental changes. They became smaller because their was less large prey and changed colors to adapt to their new environment.

 

[Brazko]

This has turned into the Twilight Zone... Are you going to go back and misrepresent everything I say or, are you going to come to grips with the facts , Do you see in bee lines when reading, or is your mindphuked. Pointless, you get a cookie for this one.

Here you go....

The theory of Evolution is a Fact.


NOT

This is Fanaticism at it's finest

Bye, Bye

It appears you have very short term memory of your own statements


You still seem to be misunderstanding scientific laws. They are no more factual than theories. They are just a set of observations. Laws are subject to change if we observe something counter to that law. Newton's Laws of Motion had to be modified to work at relativistic speeds. Coulumb's Law had to be modified for QED.
Theories are the set of facts put together to form an explanation of those facts. The theory of gravity takes the things we know about gravity (that masses attract proportional to their mass, etc.) and attempts to explain why - because the curvature of spacetime that pushes things together. We are not pulled to the earth, spacetime pushes us down to the earth. Quantum gravity attempts to explain how it works in the subatomic level.

The Theory of Evolution takes the facts that we know about evolution, that species are related and display a twin nested hierarchy, that geologic time is necessary for the large scale changes, the earliest lifeforms on this planet were simple and more complex species did not arrive until much later, and combines them into a theory that explains what we see in genetics and the fossil record. That is that environmental pressures select for the organisms that are most able to survive and those traits are passed down to the next generation. This is natural selection, the MECHANISMS for evolution are the only theoretical parts, everything else is a fact because it is an observation. Even the theoretical part of common ancestry is de facto proven by modern genetics. Yes I know nothing is ever 'proven' in science, but there is too much overwhelming evidence for common ancestry, it cannot be dismissed. Theories are the backbone of science. Raw facts and laws have no power to explain nature, only theories do. To continue to complain that something is not a fact YET misunderstand what a theory and a fact is and that theories are built upon facts.
The funny thing is you acknowledge theories don't become facts then one sentence later say
You seem very confused.

 

[Jerry Garcia]

I think it's common sense I don't see how it could be disputed. Now I'm not sure on the exact concepts of THE theory of evolution but it's obvious that evolution takes place IMHO.

Just look at species like the hog island boa. Once just a typical boa constrictor which was up to over 15' in length the continent was seperated by tectonic movement and the hog island boas evolved into a smaller species of boas because of the isolation and inbreeding and environmental changes. They became smaller because their was less large prey and changed colors to adapt to their new environment.

This is known as the island effect.

 

[Jerry Garcia]

This is ridiculous. You are dismissing the talent and expertise of forensic anthropologists and paleontologists. No one is lining up skulls because of the way they look. They look at all of the fossil that is available to them and use specific features, bony prominences, etc. to determine for example if they walked upright, their brain size, and see that they have many features that non-human apes have as well as many human features, telling us they are an intermediate between modern humans and our chimpanzee common ancestor. We also are able to tell that some of these humans developed along their own branch before going extinct and are not our direct ancestors but cousins. That doesn't disprove human evolution in the slightest.
And yes, we do it for elephants and giraffes as well as whales, fish, dinosaurs, birds, and every species of which we find fossils.


This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.

Sexual selection is a very efficient way to get more variety in the genome. More variety means more chance that some offspring will inherit traits favorable to the environment. The strawman here is that no one is claiming the gametes pass along environmental factors, this would be Lamarkian inheritance, not Mendelian. A big FAIL here too.
More stupidity. The average human contains about 50-100 mutations. This is observable fact. Error checking is not infallible.


The sun provides energy to the earth. It is not a closed system. This old creationist lie has been debunked so many times it's sad to see people still cling to it.
Plants change their DNA count all of the time. Just more scientific ignorance by the author. Human Chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes and includes a central telomere and TWO centromeres on either side. Chromosome count can change and there is ample evidence for it.
The origin of matter has nothing to do with evolution of biological organisms. Does atomic or chemical theory have to tell us where atoms came from? Does germ theory have to explain where microorganisms come from? To say that we don't know where matter came from is a problem for evolution is to say that it is a problem for ALL of science but you seem to only have this problem with evolution.

So because we haven't found life elsewhere YET means that life elsewhere is non-existent? You have absolutely no basis in fact to say that Mars is or was suitable to support, let alone create, life forms.
This has absolutely nothing to do with how life evolves. It means that there aren't radio signals on the specific bands that SETI searches currently bombarding earth. Its absolutely meaningless. Lack of evidence of intelligent life in our immediate corner of the universe hardly discounts the possibility of life everywhere else. We have only search a small portion of our own galaxy. Light takes time to reach us and we would not have seen any evidence of a civilization farther out than the time they have been around. SETI has not looked outside the hydrogen line until very recently. There are many other frequencies that we could be searching for but haven't so it's quite possible we have missed signals.

You really should learn some science yourself, it will really help you rid yourself of disinformation like this copy/paste you found so compelling.

All good responses.

 

[mindphuk]

All good responses.

Thank you.
I noticed he hasn't been back to respond even though he's been on this site. Should I hold my breath?

 

[PadawanBater]

Glad to see these poll results.

Why's pot illegal again?

 

[Brazko]

Glad to see these poll results.

Why's pot illegal again?

It makes You think.. , and then the system will fall apart.. It's for your own good...

 

[Pipe Dream]

It makes You think.. , and then the system will fall apart.. It's for your own good...

lol your right.....thinking for yourself is over rated anyways.

 

[morgentaler]

Most people get their information on the "global warming debate" from reporters, not from scientists or research papers.
Reporters are usually incompetent in matters of science, and will outright lie to spice up articles. I've been interviewed by, and interned at, newspapers and saw the ridiculous amounts of fabrication going on.

If you get away from the reporters it comes down to the following:
People hear the phrase 'climate change' and freak out, denying it. Except that the climate is ALWAY changing. They confuse that with "Global Warming".
The scientific observations indicate that over the past 20-30 years there has been a very slight increase in temperature. Whether it is anthropogenic isn't certain, but based on the environmental impact the best approach is to treat it as such and adapt human activity to mitigate the effects if at all possible.
That's it.
Even small changes in temp would affect the way storms and other natural phenomenon behave, and due to the population densities in coastal areas that makes the potential impact significant.

But when you read it in a paper, on a news site, or see it on TV it's hyperbolic bullshit with only a modicum of truth.
Like when the fudge factor used by the scientists was revealed in the leaked emails. The media neglected to mention that the fudge factor was a modification used on the statistical analysis to account for changes in environment that affected some of the standards like tree growth.

Eg. If you were measuring the amount of carbon dust that settled out of the air in your living room over a 3 month period while living downwind from a coal mining operation, you would see a trend. Then your roommate starts burning candles in the living room 2 weeks before the measurements are to end. You know the candles are there. You know how much carbon is being emitted. You can now fudge your measurements based on the statistical anomaly created by the introduction of the aberration.




Back on to the topic of evolution: If you don't have a basic understanding of genetics, you don't have even the slightest qualifications to say that evolution is not fact. You can sit back and watch Maury Povich say "You are NOT the father." all day, but if you don't understand the principles behind how DNA testing works you might as well be pooh-poohing Feynman's work in Physics.
Just by observations of phenotype alone, the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is staggering. And the ignorance of those who think the concept of evolution started with Darwin only shows how proud of their own stupidity they really are. Darwin had the tenacity to determine the mechanism that drove evolution, but evolution itself was known for centuries, with discussion of the concept occurring 2,000 years ago, albeit using differing words (languages evolve too).
Once Watson and Crick turned biology on its ear with their DNA research in 1953, the floodgates of verification opened. Not only does *every* single genotype observed indicate that the process of evolution is fact, you can map the progress using modifications from transcription errors, endogenous retroviruses, changes in codon location, etc.

The only alternative to evolution is that SkyGod Crankypants magicked everyone into existence. And if you don't think there's enough evidence for evolution, you sure as hell shouldn't be looking to Crankypants for help because the evidence in that department is sorely lacking.

You may not agree with Darwin's theory, but that's still just the mechanism for change - not the change itself.

 

[morgentaler]

In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Thalidomide, you fucking genius.

 

[ThatGuy113]

Some sort of evolution has happened.

 

[Brazko]

Ummmm, Yeah!! This thread has evolved into a complete lie.

Pitiful

P'zzuurrp!!

Some sort of evolution has happened.

 

[PadawanBater]

Evolution ftw

How do opponents of evolution explain things like skin tones, languages, genetic immunities, etc...?

 

[Brazko]

I don't believe you'll find many or, any opponents to evolution, including me.

That's why I don't understand why would you begin to alter your polling question. Some changes where necessary for clarity, but now you've fudged the facts. Typical charlatan gimmick

Evolution is vital to our survival, not your agenda

what U smoking on Paddy?

Evolution ftw

How do opponents of evolution explain things like skin tones, languages, genetic immunities, etc...?

 

[PadawanBater]

I don't believe you'll find many or, any opponents to evolution, including me.

Think again bro...

That's why I don't understand why would you begin to alter your polling question. Some changes where necessary for clarity, but now you've fudged the facts. Typical charlatan gimmick

How did I alter the question?

Evolution is vital to our survival, not your agenda

Not sure what you mean by that..

 

[Brazko]

I'm thinking and I may have exaggerated on the if any at all, but I'll stick with the not many, to very few people that oppose evolution on this forum

Think again bro...

Come on Man...., Really.., I mean Really? Hey if you don't know, I'll just chalk that one up to me being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week or so.. ( no problem they are all curable)

How did I alter the question?

"The faithful don't think, they feel." -Reality Activist

Not sure what you mean by that..

 

[PadawanBater]

I'm thinking and I may have exaggerated on the if any at all, but I'll stick with the not many, to very few people that oppose evolution on this forum

Unfortunately the forum demographics don't match the rest of the US population.

Come on Man...., Really.., I mean Really? Hey if you don't know, I'll just chalk that one up to me being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week or so.. ( no problem they are all curable)

I didn't alter anything. I still don't know what you mean..

"The faithful don't think, they feel." -Reality Activist

I completely stand by that quote.

 

[Brazko]

Exactly, that was my point.., Who were you expecting to answer that question?

Unfortunately the forum demographics don't match the rest of the US population.

Well, other than me just being High, Crazy, and Dislexic for the past week. I thought your poll first stated "who believes in evolution" then "who accepts evolution" now "who accepts the theory of evolution". And the latter change which I think is a significant difference came about 25 votes later. Is it a big deal?, NO. Would the voting probably been a little different?, Yes... Significantly different, NO.

But the changes seemed to come about when the fact of evolution happens and implications that the theory of evolution was a fact were being discussed. Which to a certain extent it is based on scientific facts, but still lacks the content to be considered a Scientific fact in complete theory, by science standards alone. (my opinion)

As you can see I was really tripping: Crazy, High, & Dislexic at the time >>> No problem

I didn't alter anything. I still don't know what you mean

I didn't say you couldn't stand by it, I think I said just the opposite. Unlike you tho', I believe that people of faith "Think", as well as, that atheist are capable of "Feeling"... but that's just my Theory..

I completely stand by that quote.