ForumGarden

LarsMac;1460115 wrote: Quoting scientists out of context to try and prove your point is NOT science.

Still waiting for the science, bud.


How does the context change the quote?

Pahu;1460144 wrote: How does the context change the quote?


Um, you're kidding, right?

LarsMac;1460148 wrote: Um, you're kidding, right?


Wake me up when it's over!

LarsMac;1460148 wrote: Um, you're kidding, right?


No.

Pahu;1460144 wrote: How does the context change the quote?


LarsMac;1460148 wrote: Um, you're kidding, right?


Pahu;1460164 wrote: No.


I don't know where you learned to read, but I was taught that context is pretty darned important when reading. Without it, you just have a collection of sentences, and many of them won't make any sense at all without relating them to the surrounding conversation.

LarsMac;1460175 wrote: I don't know where you learned to read, but I was taught that context is pretty darned important when reading. Without it, you just have a collection of sentences, and many of them won't make any sense at all without relating them to the surrounding conversation.


So why can't you answer my question? How does the contexts of my posts change the meaning of the quotes?

Pahu;1460186 wrote: So why can't you answer my question? How does the contexts of my posts change the meaning of the quotes?


It is not the context of your post that I speak of. It is the context from which you extract the quotes that matters.

You extract a sentence from the writings of some person, removing it from its context, drop it into your own context, and use it as evidence of something completely contrary to the original intent.

Actually, correction. You seem to be basically just quoting from a book where someone else did all that work.

I suggest going back to all of those lines you have quoted, and read each of them in context with the work they were extracted from, and see if you still draw the same conclusions as those you have been posting.

LarsMac;1460193 wrote: It is not the context of your post that I speak of. It is the context from which you extract the quotes that matters.

You extract a sentence from the writings of some person, removing it from its context, drop it into your own context, and use it as evidence of something completely contrary to the original intent.


For example?

Pahu;1460237 wrote: For example?


For example, let's refer to post # 1074 of this thread.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1459864

And I will simple refer to another page on Wikiquotes regarding such things:

Notable Charles Darwin misquotes - Wikiquote

Also, allow me to refer to yet another page regarding the use of misquotes in general:

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It does a very nice job of explaining the logical error of "Contextomy"

LarsMac;1460242 wrote: For example, let's refer to post # 1074 of this thread.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1459864

And I will simple refer to another page on Wikiquotes regarding such things:

Notable Charles Darwin misquotes - Wikiquote

Also, allow me to refer to yet another page regarding the use of misquotes in general:

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It does a very nice job of explaining the logical error of "Contextomy"


Post #1074 refers to Darwin's doubts concerning the evolution of the eye. In that post it is admitted Darwin speculated on how the eye might have evolved. However, no evidence was given.

In your Wikiquote the speculation is given in detail without evidence. Richard Dawkins presents his idea with no evidence.

You have still failed to show us where the contexts in my posts has changed the meaning of the quotes.

Pahu;1460248 wrote: Post #1074 refers to Darwin's doubts concerning the evolution of the eye. In that post it is admitted Darwin speculated on how the eye might have evolved. However, no evidence was given.

In your Wikiquote the speculation is given in detail without evidence. Richard Dawkins presents his idea with no evidence.


You have failed to even grasp the point of my statements.

Dawkins was irrelevant to the conversation we are having.

It was simply Dawkins statement about the quote that was made. What follows his statement was the full paragraph, that your "quote" was taken from. If you bothered to read that paragraph, you would see the "context" of Darwin's own words. The thought represented by the paragraph in its entirety is wholly different from the thought expressed by the single sentence.



So, again, taking statements from scientists completely out of context, and using them to try and prove your point is not "science"

This pretty much deflates the purpose of your entire, tedious thread, and shows Mr brown up as the charlatan he really is.

Pahu;1460248 wrote: You have still failed to show us where the contexts in my posts has changed the meaning of the quotes.
Again, the context of your posts is entirely irrelevant.

You keep saying that evolution has not been observed (and therefore that it doesn't exist). When I first started posting here I mentioned the Peppered Moth, which was to be found on the bark of the Silver Birch, where it was camoflaged very well. Yet when the railways came along, spewing soot everywhere, blackening the trees, the moths stood out like a sore thumb. Those that developed patterns & colouring survived from attacks from birds to breed & pass on their genes, resulting in an entire new species. Then technology moved away from steam engines & the environment began to clean itself up - reversing the situation for the moths, who went on to re-evolve to suit their environment.

Those that don't change to suit their environment die off. Those that do survive & live to produce further generations with those enhancements. Obviously in our own relatively long life span, this is not quite so visible, but in short life spans it is easily seen.

is there any evidence for the theory of evolution? | Iodine Zone

One of the most obvious examples to demonstrate evolution in that of a common virus. With the initial development of anti-biotics this looked as if it was going to be the magic bullet to cure all ills. Then the viruses (viri?) began to adapt / evolve, and now we are having problems in keeping up with their advances as they develop more & more resistance to the drugs. Yes, this is a mere virus, but it only has the life span of a matter of hours, in which time it has reproduced to 1000s of generations. Even in that petri dish evolution may be observed through a microscope in real time. Yes, a mere virus, but it is still, nonetheless, life - or are you denying that also?

A simple case in point, if, as claimed from the Bible, we are all descended from Adam & Eve, then how come there are so many races & colours? A persons race can be analysed by their skeleton. It has been shown whereabouts a person lived from the remains of a body, dead for 1000s of years by the DNA found in their teeth - something you have denied the existence of, yet these are techniques which continue to be used in modern criminal forensic science, as well as in archaeological science.

As for taking quotes out of context, you can't deny that Jesus is written to have told Peter that he should be a Fisher of Men? Well, using your own methods of using quotes out of context in order to make it fall in line with what you want it to mean, this just goes to 'prove' that men evolved from the sea. Where else would you find men-fish (Mermen)?

Once again, as to the definition of what the Universe is - well, that has always been an absolute uncertainty. You have admitted that the Universe is known to be expanding. No arguments there although, as I have previously stated, I still can't get my head around the infinity of the nothingness beyond the current limits. Ever since the concept of the Big Bang was first conceived, it was referred to as simply be a few particles of infinitely dense matter within nothing which by some chance atomic catalyst resulted in a massive chain reaction. The point is, that even this is an unknown - just the most probable explanation based on the observed evidence. The big question is not really what defines 'something', but as to what defines 'nothing'. It was originally thought that space itself was nothing, but this this has proved not to be the case. It was thought not to have any atmosphere. It has, although very little. Even energy, in the form of light has matter in the form of photons, so even in what was thought to be 'nothing', there is 'something'.

You are constantly claiming that God has been there from the beginning of time, before there was anything. Time, itself, is a physical thing, as demonstrated by Einstein, being relative to the famous E=MC2. Therefore, in order for there to be Time, there has to be something else. Ergo, before there was Time, there was Something - or more to the point, as the same moment as there was first Time there was Something.

You must obviously be aware that if you take a balloon (the Universe), remove all the air (the 'nothing' before the Big Bang') & seal it, then put that balloon into a bell jar (the nothingness beyond the Universe) & evacuate the air in the bell jar, the balloon will continue to inflate, despite it having been emptied to start with. Quite simply because the amount of 'nothing' within the balloon is still greater than that of the nothing in the bell jar, even though the cubic capacity is nothing like what it inflates to.

As I said, I don't understand what classifies as 'nothing', but I do understand what classifies as something, and if there was a God before there was anything, then that contradicts itself. You say that nothing comes of nothing (agreed), but you also say that God (who came from nothing) created the Heavens & the Earth (from nothing) and life (from nothing) ... are you seeing a pattern here?

You claim that evolution has not been observed. I have shown you to be wrong with documented examples, yet you continue to deny the evidence in favour of your belief in the fairy tales & myths of folklore.

I really think you should seek professional help.

I got this item, entitled "That's How It Happened", re-tweeted from Brian Cox yesterday, which I thought appropriate here:

FourPart;1460265 wrote: You keep saying that evolution has not been observed (and therefore that it doesn't exist). When I first started posting here I mentioned the Peppered Moth, which was to be found on the bark of the Silver Birch, where it was camoflaged very well. Yet when the railways came along, spewing soot everywhere, blackening the trees, the moths stood out like a sore thumb. Those that developed patterns & colouring survived from attacks from birds to breed & pass on their genes, resulting in an entire new species.


No, they were still peppered moths. Both colorings always existed side by side. The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).

The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’

Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’

However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

[continue]

[continued]



Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. ¦ In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.



Goodbye, peppered moths - creation.com

FourPart;1460265 wrote:

One of the most obvious examples to demonstrate evolution in that of a common virus. With the initial development of anti-biotics this looked as if it was going to be the magic bullet to cure all ills. Then the viruses (viri?) began to adapt / evolve, and now we are having problems in keeping up with their advances as they develop more & more resistance to the drugs. Yes, this is a mere virus, but it only has the life span of a matter of hours, in which time it has reproduced to 1000s of generations. Even in that petri dish evolution may be observed through a microscope in real time. Yes, a mere virus, but it is still, nonetheless, life - or are you denying that also?


The viruses are still viruses. All they are doing is adapting to changes in their environment, something all life forms have in common. But they are unable to change into a different species as required by evolution. Such changes have never been observed.

FourPart;1460265 wrote:

A simple case in point, if, as claimed from the Bible, we are all descended from Adam & Eve, then how come there are so many races & colours? A persons race can be analysed by their skeleton. It has been shown whereabouts a person lived from the remains of a body, dead for 1000s of years by the DNA found in their teeth - something you have denied the existence of, yet these are techniques which continue to be used in modern criminal forensic science, as well as in archaeological science.


How Did Human “Races Develop?



Figure 226: Faces. A few members of the human race from the following places: top row, left to right: Japan, Tibet, Borneo, Holland; second row: Ireland, China, Rwanda, Korea; third row: New Zealand, Bali, Okinawa, Israel; fourth row: United States of America, Australia, India, Egypt; bottom row: Molucca Islands, Canada, Greece, Guatemala. Visualize all without variations in dress, hair style, age, and skin color. How different are we? People continents apart laugh alike and cry alike. Yes, our personalities, experiences, and talents are individually unique, but our physical differences are small; our similarities are great.

In this context, there is only one race, the human race. Today, the word “race has come to mean a group of people with distinguishing physical characteristics, such as skin color, shape of eyes, and type of hair. This new meaning arose with the growing acceptance of evolutionism in the late 1800s. The word “race, when referring to physical characteristics, hardly ever occurs in the Bible.1 Instead, the word “nation is used more than 200 times.

The term “race may be used to describe ethnic groups, but is not a scientific concept. Genetic and molecular variations among the so-called “races are trivial, although a few traits may vary widely. Human variations are minor when compared with those in most other forms of life. For example, consider the many traits in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 6.] Most varieties of domestic dogs have been produced during the past 300 years. Dogs may be white, black, red, yellow, spotted, tiny, huge, hairy, almost hairless, cute, or not-so-cute. Temperaments and abilities also vary widely. Because domestic dogs can interbreed with the wolf, coyote, dingo, and jackal, all are part of the dog kind. The vast number of genes in every kind of life permits these variations, allowing successive generations to adjust to environmental changes. Without this design feature, extinctions would be much more common. Besides, wouldn’t life be much less interesting without variations within each kind?

The following three mechanisms2 probably account for most “racial characteristics, all of which developed since the flood, approximately 5,000 years ago.

[continue]

How Did Human “Races Develop?

[continued]

1. Natural Selection. [To understand this often misunderstood mechanism, see “Natural Selection on page 8.] This well-established phenomenon does not produce macroevolution, as a century of experimentation has shown; instead, it produces some microevolution. Natural selection filters out certain parental genes in successive generations, producing offspring with slightly different characteristics but less genetic variability. For example, fair-skinned people living near the equator are more susceptible to several health risks, such as skin cancer. Consequently, they have slightly less chance of living to reproductive age and passing on genes for light skin color to their children. Likewise, darker-skinned people absorb less sunlight, depriving them of vitamin D3, which forms in skin exposed to sunlight. In polar latitudes, this could cause rickets. Therefore, over many generations, dark-skinned people tend to live near the equator and light-skinned people tend to live at higher latitudes.

There are exceptions. Eskimos (Inuits) have dark skin, yet live in Arctic latitudes. However, their traditional diet, which includes fish-liver oils containing large amounts of vitamin D3, prevents rickets.

[continue]

Everything you have said thus far (apart from the usual twaddle copied & pasted from your Fairy-Tale site, which, as usual I choose to ignore, as it's never based on any demonstrable evidence) has actually done nothing but support the existence of evolution.

You have confirmed the existence of Natural Selection by mentioning the filming of birds having a preference for the less camouflaged moths.

You have confirmed the increase in the numbers of the darker variety during the polluted eras, and their decline, reverting to type after it.

Yes - over the short term they are still the same variety of moths, but the genes of those that survived to reproduce gave rise to being passed on to the next generation.

No - they did NOT always co-exist, side by side. That is the whole point of this example. There were lepidoctrists about long before Industrial Pollution came about, and it was when the pollution started that the numbers of the light speckled moths began to dwindle, having become an easy target for birds. Then a seemingly new species came to light, and it was realised that this was actually a new variation of the same species.

Apes & Monkeys could all be said to be the same species, inasmuch as they are all Primates, yet you can't deny that they are radically different from each other, even though they share the same root source - in the same way as we do.

The viruses are still viruses. All they are doing is adapting to changes in their environment, something all life forms have in common. But they are unable to change into a different species as required by evolution. Such changes have never been observed.


You couldn't be more wrong. Not only are known viruses adapting / evolving (Natural Selection), but new ones are being created all the time as a consequence (HIV being one obvious example).

Evolution, as a rule, happens naturally over millions of years - usually in a restricted environment - as demonstrated in Darwin's Galapogas Islands, which were once part of the original Land Bridge before the Continental Shift (the acceptance of this much I am assuming is agreed), but as the circumstances vary, any creatures that don't adapt to their environments die. Those that do, survive.

You claim (or more to the point, your claptrap quote claims) that the evolution of races (yes - evolution by Natural Selection, as they have actually admitted, but skimmed over, seeing as it opposes their point of view) is restricted to skin colour due to differing environments. First of all, there is a major flaw here. The African Continent was the main one BEFORE the shift, and therefore the origin of all the others which evolved to adapt on other continents as they drifted apart. The Black skinned Africans were the original design, and therefore didn't have to evolve further.

Furthermore, it's not even a matter of simple skin colour. The skeletal structure is completely different. If it were skin colour alone, then it wouldn't be possible to tell one colour from another.

Plus, although sunlight is a source of Vitamin D, the actual amount attained from it is microscopic, and the primary source is from diet of which, as you rightly say, fish is an excellent source. As an example of this, Africa is rife with rickets to this day, but there is no shortage of sunlight, or the skin colour to cope with it.

Evolution of humans continues, although the process may have been slowed due to technology having artificially lessened the gap between continents, thus evening out genetic modification due to environment, but it still continues.

If, as you claim, species will happily co-exist, side by side, why are there such stringent laws on the introduction of non native livestock to different countries? For example, the irresponsible action of one person introducing a single mating pair of American Grey Squirrels, a couple of hundred years ago, has made the UK native Red Squirrel all but extinct, as the Greys carry a virus which the Reds have no resistence to. However, it seems that small regions of the remaining Reds are now starting to show a level of immunity & are fighting back. They are having to adapt to the change of environment.

When the earth got warmer, the Wooly Mammoth evolved to lose its hair, as that was no only no longer necessary, but a handicap in the changing environment - Although you could argue that it was still an Elephant - or would you say that an Elephant is still a Mammoth?

FourPart;1460405 wrote:

You have confirmed the existence of Natural Selection by mentioning the filming of birds having a preference for the less camouflaged moths.


Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allow variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection will be used.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents. Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, members of a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children. Only in this sense, does nature “select genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it “selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved,c or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos Islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g It deletes information; it cannot create information.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 5. Natural Selection

Once again, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. You really should get a handle on the difference between Fact & Fiction.

Pahu;1460410 wrote: Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allow variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection will be used.
Nature is cruel. Two animals of the same species. One is born with the ability to run. The other is not. Which one is most likely to be eaten by predators & which one will survive to pass on his genetic ability (or non-ability) to run to the next generation?



An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents. Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, members of a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children. Only in this sense, does nature “select genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations.


Once again you support the case for the existence of evolution, as these minor changes are what is at the core of how evolution works.



Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.


In which case, Man must have a virtually non-existent Gene Pool, having all descended from Adam & Eve.



Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it “selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection implies, variations are reduced, not increased.


Wrong again. Mutations DO create additional genes. However, these mutations are not always beneficial, as in the case of Down's Syndrome, which have an additional Gene 21. In your view, does this make them a different species & no longer human, by having a different genetic structure?

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved,c or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.


How could a previously lost capability have resurfaced to resist new pesticides & antibiotics that never existed before? Put quite simply, if they didn't adapt / evolve, the bacterial war would have been won at the first discovery of penicillin.



While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost.


So, once again you admit that it exists.



The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos Islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g It deletes information; it cannot create information.


Once again you admit the existence of evolution, but then try to quantify your ignorance of the fact by claiming that it doesn't explain the existence of the fittest, which you have already explained, despite trying to deny its existence.



If you're going to continue to be an idiot, at least try to be a consistent idiot by not making claims against your arguments by blatantly reinforcing the argument against them. That's no fun at all.

FourPart;1460419 wrote:

Wrong again. Mutations DO create additional genes. However, these mutations are not always beneficial, as in the case of Down's Syndrome, which have an additional Gene 21. In your view, does this make them a different species & no longer human, by having a different genetic structure?


Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Dr. John Sanford has shown that mutations occur at such a rapid rate that “mutational meltdown would have occurred if humans were only 100,000 years old. In other words, “genetic entropy is pushing mankind toward extinction.c

a . “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation. Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, ... Ayala, p. 63.

b . “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at TBioMed | Full text | Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Ibid., p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment. Ibid., p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

“... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations, so the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ... [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

c . “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species. N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations. Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother, Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

d . For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 6. Mutations

I notice that nearly all of your supposedly 'well informed sources' are based on state of the ark information available in the 50s / 60s - before the existence of DNA was even known about.

FourPart;1460458 wrote: I notice that nearly all of your supposedly 'well informed sources' are based on state of the ark information available in the 50s / 60s - before the existence of DNA was even known about.


The famous British evolutionist (and Communist) J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that evolution could never produce ‘various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’ Therefore such machines in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false. That is, evolution meets one criterion Teaching about Evolution claims is necessary for science, that there are tests that could conceivably prove it was wrong (the ‘falsifiability criterion’ of the eminent philosopher of science, Karl Popper).

Recent discoveries have shown that there are indeed ‘wheels’ in living organisms. This includes the rotary motor that drives the flagellum of a bacterium, and the vital enzyme that makes ATP, the ‘energy currency’ of life. These molecular motors have indeed fulfilled one of Haldane’s criteria. Also, turtles, monarch butterflies, and bacteria that use magnetic sensors for navigation seem to fulfil Haldane’s other criterion.

I wonder whether Haldane would have had a change of heart if he had been alive to see these discoveries. Most evolutionists rule out intelligent design a priori, so the evidence, overwhelming as it is, would probably have no effect.

Proteins and DNA, the most important large molecules of life, are not ordered (in the sense of repetitive), but have high specified complexity. Without specification external to the system, i.e., the programmed machinery of living things or the intelligent direction of an organic chemist, there is no natural tendency to form such complex specified arrangements at all.

The atheist Dawkins says:

“[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over (R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 115).

If it’s unreasonable to believe that an encyclopedia could have originated without intelligence, then it’s just as unreasonable to believe that life could have originated without intelligence.

Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum requirement for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment (W. Wells, Taking Life to Bits, New Scientist 155(2095):30–33, 1997).

The genetic information in the DNA cannot be translated except with many different enzymes, which are themselves encoded. So the code cannot be translated except via products of translation, a vicious circle that ties evolutionary origin-of-life theories in knots. These include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA. One sieve rejects amino acids too large, while the other rejects those too small (Osamu Nureki et al., Enzyme Structure with Two Catalytic Sites for Double-sieve Selection of Substrate, Science 280(5363):578–82, 24 April 1998; perspective by A.R. Fersht, Sieves in Sequence, same issue, p. 541; J.D. Sarfati, Decoding and Editing Design: Double Sieve Enzymes, TJ 13(1):5–7, 1999).

The genetic code also has vital editing machinery that is itself encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from the beginning—another vicious circle for evolutionists.

Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?

Another link to be disregarded, due to it's being from yet another Creation Ministry site. Why do you bother? It's non valid information.

No scientist would EVER claim that anything had to be perfect - especially in evolution, as if it were the case that everything WERE perfect there would be no cause for evolution in the first place.

Humans are not the only ones to effect tools. Chimpanzees will make themselves roughly formed clubs while they go on attack missions against other Chimp tribes - one mutual base instinct that, regrettably we've never evolved out of.

Even ants will make war on their own kind, take prisoners & enslave them. The leaf cutter ant chemically induces its prisoners to chew up the leaves into a mulch & farm the fungi that grows on it. This is what the Leaf Cutter Ant feeds on.

These are examples of how even the basest of species has evolved & adapted behaviours to their best advantage. While the ants may be seen as the same species, they are fundamentally entirely different.

Evolution isn't always only a matter of physical form, but one of mental development, which is something that has been charted, by skull size, through the ages from the Apes to Prehistoric Man, and ultimately to us. If we don't destroy the earth first, who knows what we're likely to develop into?

I say again, that 'if' (and a very big 'if') there were ever a divine creator, it would have had to have been his intention to let life evolve from the initial seeds of the primordial slime to what we are today & beyond.

FourPart;1460492 wrote: Another link to be disregarded, due to it's being from yet another Creation Ministry site. Why do you bother? It's non valid information.

No scientist would EVER claim that anything had to be perfect - especially in evolution, as if it were the case that everything WERE perfect there would be no cause for evolution in the first place.


There is no such thing as evolution according to the facts of science.

Humans are not the only ones to effect tools. Chimpanzees will make themselves roughly formed clubs while they go on attack missions against other Chimp tribes - one mutual base instinct that, regrettably we've never evolved out of.


There is no such thing as evolution according to the facts of science.

Even ants will make war on their own kind, take prisoners & enslave them. The leaf cutter ant chemically induces its prisoners to chew up the leaves into a mulch & farm the fungi that grows on it. This is what the Leaf Cutter Ant feeds on.

These are examples of how even the basest of species has evolved & adapted behaviours to their best advantage. While the ants may be seen as the same species, they are fundamentally entirely different.

Evolution isn't always only a matter of physical form, but one of mental development, which is something that has been charted, by skull size, through the ages from the Apes to Prehistoric Man, and ultimately to us. If we don't destroy the earth first, who knows what we're likely to develop into?

I say again, that 'if' (and a very big 'if') there were ever a divine creator, it would have had to have been his intention to let life evolve from the initial seeds of the primordial slime to what we are today & beyond.


There is no such thing as evolution according to the facts of science.

There is scientific proof for a divine creator who reveals Himself in the pages of Scripture, and that revelation does not include evolution:



Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. [From In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible? ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

None so blind....

As I've said before, 'God could not have 'revealed' Himself in the scriptures, as the scriptures were written by Man.

Scriptures are unfounded myth & legend handed down by word of mouth, with absolutely no scientific basis behind them.

There is NO evidence to prove that Evolution does not exist - quite the contrary.

The is NO evidence to prove that 'God' exists. Ergo there is NO evidence to prove there is any such thing as Divine Creation.

You cannot use a story book which has no basis of proof as evidence. That's like saying there is proof that the Three Little Pigs exist, because it's written in a story book (with about the same amount of credibility).

FourPart;1460564 wrote: None so blind....

As I've said before, 'God could not have 'revealed' Himself in the scriptures, as the scriptures were written by Man.

Scriptures are unfounded myth & legend handed down by word of mouth, with absolutely no scientific basis behind them.

There is NO evidence to prove that Evolution does not exist - quite the contrary.

The is NO evidence to prove that 'God' exists. Ergo there is NO evidence to prove there is any such thing as Divine Creation.

You cannot use a story book which has no basis of proof as evidence. That's like saying there is proof that the Three Little Pigs exist, because it's written in a story book (with about the same amount of credibility).


Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

You really aren't too bright are you? How many times have I told you that no amount of extremist quotes will ever make your case - quite the contrary in fact.

It's a bit like the case in the news at the moment, regarding the Israel / Palestine business. If you do a search online for evidence of the Palestinians hiding their missiles in schools, hospitals & Mosques, the only one that their is EVIDENCE for is one where the UN have found 20 missiles in a VACANT, empty school. These are the ACTUAL facts. However, you will also find loads of allegorical claims about evidence having shown all these other civilian sites being used. Now, it's not really surprising to see that these claims only being made by the Jerusalem Post, the Israel Post & the like. These are not exactly unbiased sources, yet they claim these to be FACTS, but without any evidence to support their claims.

Your claims are no different. You constantly cite the same, tired old quotes over & over again, somehow in the hope that if you repeat them often enough it will somehow make them true. Well, I can assure you that it doesn't. Quite the contrary, it increases how much of a mockery it makes of the stupidity of those who hold such beliefs & the gullibility of those who take any notice of them.

We've already been through the business of rocks & how there are fossil of sea life at the tops of mountains. This much I have agreed, as mountains grow from the depths of the earth from being pushed up there by geological activity, so it would be surprising if there were NOT such evidence. It does NOT prove the existence of Noah's Great Flood, apart from, perhaps, that in the times before the mountains existed everything was underwater. However, I think the fact that this preceded human life is pretty much self evident.

You gotta admit, this guy is good at dodging the point.

LarsMac;1460619 wrote: You gotta admit, this guy is good at dodging the point.
He can also get very boring. I love playing with the Trolls, but he never puts up any decent arguments - just the same old quotes from the same old sources, which are as unbiased as the BNP campaigning in favour of an Open Door policy to India & Pakistan.

Well, let's see, over a thousand posts in the thread, and he has yet to offer any actual science. Merely partially quoted opinions of scientists and pseudo-scientists, many taken out of context from their original documents and discussions.

He seems to have no interest in an actual discussion.

Genetic Information 1




Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.}

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, th

ey would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 × 10^-12 × 50 × 10^9 = 0.32 grams.

This is less than the weight of one aspirin.

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

You are either forgetting, or deliberately choosing to omit one vital point in those statistics. The human body is made up of more than 90% water, plus a whole hotch-potch of of various other chemicals & elements.

In the same way as a computer, which can be the size of a house, is of no use without an operating system, that operating system may easily fit onto a microchip less than the size of a pin head - and that's just information that's been mechanically put there.

Of course, you are the world's leading Genius on such things, and despite all the noted scientific names in the world having accepted the whole concept of DNA, what it is & what it does, and are still fathoming its deepest mysteries, we can be assured by the Great Pahu & His famous book of Mythical Quotations that reassure us that it doesn't really exist at all, and that it's all part & parcel of the Anti-God Conspiracy.

Did you know that if you take some Coral & put it through a liquidiser, not only will it reform into its original structure, but if you mix 2 types of Corals together, of the same varient, only different colours, they will also reform to their original colours.

Weight has nothing to do with complexity. Just as with a computer, the whole thing is based on Binary. Something is or it isn't. Simple as that.

The Enigma Code Machine, developed by the Germans during WW2 generated a code so complex that in order to list all the possible permutations on a single sheet of paper, it would stretch to the sun & back - and that only used 6 wheels - i.e. 36 (letters & numbers) to the power of 6. With human DNA you are looking at things being to the power of 42, FAR, FAR more than 4,000 books. Even identical twins, who have identical DNA have unique fingerprints. This is another mystery to be solved.

When Dolly the sheep was cloned, it was discover that the offspring died early because all her organs had also been copied to the same biological clock settings. These are facts about how DNA affects the living body. This is also why Men are mortal. They have a body clock that tells them when it's time to die. That body clock is programmed into all life in the form of DNA.

You say that information doesn't assemble itself? Think again, Buster. How else do you define the base instincts common to ALL life. Even the base urge to reproduce is a a fundamental piece of information, yet having that urge isn't enough. It has to know HOW to reproduce. And even then, that's not enough, it has to know WHEN it's reached a mature enough age to reproduce. All this is instinct, all of which are coded in its DNA - information that has assembled itself from the root of a single cell.

DNA, as with most things, is basically just a chemical - albeit a uniquely complex chemical. In the same way as when a couple of Hydrogen atoms meet up with a single Oxygen atom & introduced to each other by a flame, they become Water. How that happens is something that we have learned to understand, yet whether we understand it or not, it still happens. That's just the way it is in Physics, yet those atoms don't need to have the information of what to do, or how. It just is. Then other molecules join together to make strings. Once again, that's the way it is. Eventually it reaches the point when those molecules form themselves into acids. That's just the way it is. Each molecule along the way is storing information of its own chemical structure. Each time it combines with another molecule that information is shared with its own. A very much simplified explanation, but this is basically what DNA is. It hasn't just 'magiced' the information from nowhere, in the same way as your Bible would have us believe, but by a complicated chain of events.

If you believe that information cannot be passed on in this way, the explain how Black people will parent Black children, White People will parent White children, and how mixed parentage usually (but not always) produce children that share certain characteristics from each race? All of this is information.

But, of course, All Hail the Great & Powerful Genius, Pahu, who can reassure us all of its non existence, because his Bible, written thousands of years ago, tells us so.

FourPart;1460671 wrote:

You say that information doesn't assemble itself? Think again, Buster. How else do you define the base instincts common to ALL life. Even the base urge to reproduce is a a fundamental piece of information, yet having that urge isn't enough. It has to know HOW to reproduce. And even then, that's not enough, it has to know WHEN it's reached a mature enough age to reproduce. All this is instinct, all of which are coded in its DNA - information that has assembled itself from the root of a single cell.

If you believe that information cannot be passed on in this way, the explain how Black people will parent Black children, White People will parent White children, and how mixed parentage usually (but not always) produce children that share certain characteristics from each race? All of this is information.


Information can be passed on but it does not self assemble. Consider this:



Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly, mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm, Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm, Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals. Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop, Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory. George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists. Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup, New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today. Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex? Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret. Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex, Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types? Nilsson, p. 1225.

“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists. [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex? Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself. Pitman, p. 135.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37.** Sexual Reproduction

I Googled Kathleen McAuliffe. I notice that you conveniently omitted to mention that she is a Science FICTION writer.

Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
What utter nonsense! No self respecting evolutionist would ever claim such a thing. There are thousands of species that are asexual, as well as those that are sexual. Furthermore there are even some that are still in the evolution process that can produce sexually OR asexually. There are also Hermaphrodites which are in between the 2. For instance - the common earthworm has Male & Female organs, but is incapable of reproducing by itself & requires another earthworm to mate with. However, it has been shown how similar they are to other worms which reproduce purely asexually. A simple step along the evolutionary trail.

Asexual reproduction has the one major drawback in that the progeny is genetically identical to its parents & will therefore be killed of when conditions change. Crocodiles will even change sex according to temperature.

There have been so many drastic changes on earth that if it were not for evolution & the ability to adapt, there would be no life left whatsoever.

You view of evolution seems to be that of ZAP!! POW!! Overnight & everything changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a very long, slow process of trial & elimination, finding what works & what doesn't. As demonstrated in Hermaphrodites, life didn't suddenly go from being Asexual to Sexual overnight either. If it hadn't, then I agree that the species would have died out after a single generation. The fact is that by phasing changes in, going through a transitionary phase where either method would work, then that overcame the obstacle & life went on to thrive & grow stronger to dominate with methods that were most practical & most suited to adapt to climate & environment in general.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain

LarsMac;1460698 wrote: “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain
Now THAT is a quote that makes sense .

Scientists say they have extraordinary new evidence to support a Big Bang Theory for the origin of the Universe.

BBC News - Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed

The work will be scrutinised carefully, but already there is talk of a Nobel.


That's how science works. It's peer reviewed. It's scrutinised by other scientists.

How many times has Walt Brown or the psuedo-scientists involved with the Young Earth Creationism been bestowed with a Nobel Prize ?

Genetic Information 2




Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero (b). It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure (c):



a. Start with a meaningful phrase.

b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.

c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.

d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

e. Return to step “b.

[continue]

Genetic Information 2




[continued]

b. “Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material. Ibid., p. 148.

Not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is the simple fact that even a few correct words typed by the hordes of monkeys would decay long before a complete sentence of Shakespeare was completed. Correspondingly, a few correct sequences of amino acids would decay long before a complete protein was completed, not to mention all the thousands of proteins that must be in their proper place in order to have a living cell (minus, of course, its DNA).

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre. Ibid., p. 150.

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Ibid., p. 141.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, “even to the extreme idealized limit of God.  They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 144.

“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.

c. Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism, Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological. Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1460978 wrote: [center]

Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero


Not 'if' - It has been & is constantly being observed. Therefore the probability is 1.



(b). It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure (c):



a. Start with a meaningful phrase.

b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.

c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.

d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

e. Return to step “b.


A perfect description of how the Bible was written.

Co-incidentally a perfect description of how evolution works.

Congratulations. You have just proved what Evolution & the Bible have in common. Therefore you have proved that they can work hand in hand.

Genetic Information 3




To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)

In 1972, evolutionists, out of ignorance (e), began referring to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA, because that DNA supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. What evolutionists called “junk DNA is now known to produce microRNA which is vital for each organism’s health and also controls to a large extent the production of proteins. Cancers (lung, breast, stomach, prostate, colon, pancreatic, and brain) are frequently a result of damaged microRNA (f).

d. “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

e. See Susuma Ohno, “So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome, The Brookhaven Symposium on Biology, Vol. 23, 1972, pp. 366–370.

Ohno’s catchy term “junk DNA stuck and no doubt discouraged a generation of researchers from studying the vast amount of important “junk DNA that did not code for proteins. (Who wants to study junk?) This is one example of the harm that evolution thinking has done to science. Nevertheless, the thrust of Ohno’s paper made an insightful point: If all the DNA “of man, mice, and other organisms was useful, so many mutations would accumulate in hundreds of millions of years that those species would become extinct. What Ohno overlooked is that life has not been on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Belief in the supposedly old age of the earth has also been harmful to science.

Non-coding DNA differs more among different species than does protein coding DNA. Had the non-coding DNA received equal attention since 1972, the great dissimilarity between species would have been more apparent.

“So whereas if you find a particular protein-coding gene in a human, you’re going to find nearly the same gene in a mouse most of the time, and that rule just doesn’t work for regulatory elements [non-coding DNA]. [See Ewan Birney, “Journey to the Genetic Interior, Scientific American, Vol. 307, October 2012, p. 82.]

f. “The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology. John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk, Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49–50.

“What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity. Ibid., p. 52.

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined. Gisela Storz, “An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs, Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance. Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk? Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

“... non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ‘junk DNA’] have regulatory roles. John M. Greally, “Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA, Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

g . Brendan Maher, “The Human Encyclopedia, Nature, Vol. 489, 6 September 2012, pp. 46–48.

This issue of Nature contains six of the 30 papers explaining the discoveries of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project, conducted by more than 500 international scientists beginning in 2003. Their discoveries will revolutionize our understanding of the vast complexity of the human genome. The other papers are published in Genome Research and Genome Biology.

Gary Taubes, “RNA Revolution, Discover, October 2009, pp. 47–52.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

You know, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who speaks out in support of the whole point & undeniability of Evolution, whilst believing themselves to be speaking against it.

Your constant repetition of the erroneous claim of "Junk DNA" supports this. The claim was made by 1 person who simply because he didn't understand it tried to deny its existence. This was later to haunt him once more became understood about the subject.

If you want to talk numbers & probabilities, you claim that the Universe has "Fewer than 10ˆ80 atoms in it, that in itself is not quite correct. The number refers to OBSERVABLE atoms (Atoms in the Universe). Just because we can't see them doesn't they're not there - but that's neither here nor there.

In a grid of just 100 units square, there would be potential combinations of 2^100 (although I admit Maths was never my best subject) for just 2 marbles. Turn that into 3 dimensions (100 x 100 x 100) & the combination instantly become vastly incremented. Then you take the varying polar aspects of those marbles, the permutations are virtually limitless - and this is only in a 100 x 100 x 100 cube, with just 2 marbles. Now multiply that by the size of the Universe (which is constantly expanding) by the number of atoms (which remains constant). Then come another dimension - Time. According to research the Earth is about 13.8 Billion years old, give or take a few million. Ever since the very beginning these atoms have been bouncing around, making random combinations every SECOND.

So, do the maths for yourself. 13.8 billion x 365.25 days per year x 24 hours in a day x 60 minutes in an hour x 60 seconds in a minute x 10^80 atoms. Now, you tell me that in all that time there isn't the remotest possibility of a chance occurrence of a simple strand of DNA being formed. You don't seem to have any difficulty accepting the formation of non-organic matter, which has EXACTLY the same probability factor. And what's more, much of the rock on the earth is made up of the fossilised remains of organic matter, proving that they are essentially the same atomic structure.

However, this is more of an explanation of the initial Creation of life - not evolution. We've already been through the whole argument about evolution, and I concede that you have argued the case to prove the existence of Evolution & how it works far better than I could. Congratulations. You're learning.

Here's a recent discovery: Honey, who shrunk the dinosaurs? Study traces dinosaur evolution into early birds | Fox News

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.

Comparing fossils of 120 different species and 1,500 skeletal features, especially thigh bones, researchers constructed a detailed family tree for the class of two-legged meat-eaters called theropods. That suborder of dinos survives to this day as birds, however unrecognizable and improbable it sounds.

The steady downsizing and elegant evolution of the theropods is detailed in the journal Science on Thursday.

"They just kept on shrinking and shrinking and shrinking for about 50 million years," said study author Michael S. Y. Lee of the University of Adelaide in Australia. He called them "shape-shifters."

Lee and colleagues created a dinosaur version of the iconic ape-to-man drawing of human evolution. In this version, the lumbering large dinos shrink, getting more feathery and big-chested, until they are the earliest version of birds.

For a couple decades scientists have linked birds to this family of dinosaurs because they shared hollow bones, wishbones, feathers and other characteristics. But the Lee study gives the best picture of how steady and unusual theropod evolution was. The skeletons of theropods changed four times faster than other types of dinosaurs, the study said.

A few members of that dino family did not shrink, including T. rex, which is more of a distant cousin to birds than a direct ancestor, Lee said.

He said he and colleagues were surprised by just how consistently the theropods shrank over evolutionary time, while other types of dinosaurs showed ups and downs in body size.

The first theropods were large, weighing around 600 pounds. They roamed about 220 million to 230 million years ago. Then about 200 million years ago, when some of the creatures weighed about 360 pounds, the shrinking became faster and more prolonged, the study said. In just 25 million years, the beasts were slimmed down to barely 100 pounds. By 167 million years ago, 6-pound paravians, more direct ancestor of birds, were around.

And 163 million years ago the first birds, weighing less than two pounds, probably came on the scene, the study said

Paul Sereno, a dinosaur researcher at the University of Chicago who wasn't part of this study, praised Lee's work as innovative.

The steady size reduction shows "something very strange going on," Sereno said. "This is key to what went on at the origin of birds."

People may think bigger is better, but sometimes when it comes to evolution smaller can be better because bigger creatures are more likely to go extinct, Sereno said.

And when the theropods started shrinking there weren't many other small species that would compete with them, Lee said.

"The dinosaur ancestors of birds found a new niche and a new way of life," Lee said.

Sereno added, "When you are small, it's a totally different ball game. You can fly and glide and I think that's what drove it."



Which leads me to the question: How do you explain dinosaurs without evolution and a massive timescale? And if you believe dinosaurs existed and that there is a huge timescale involved, why is evolution so hard to believe for you?

Plus, when food is scarce, smaller is more practical. Even in humans during recent history (in the past couple of hundred of years) there has been an overall increase of average size recorded due to improved diets. When the parents are large (and I don't refer to obesity, although the genetic side of that does come into it as well) or small, then their offspring are as well, and as circumstances in the environment / diet changes, so does the build of the person / animal - and this is something that has been observed & recorded over a mere couple of centuries. Think about the changes over Millions of years.

FourPart;1461484 wrote:

So, do the maths for yourself. 13.8 billion x 365.25 days per year x 24 hours in a day x 60 minutes in an hour x 60 seconds in a minute x 10^80 atoms. Now, you tell me that in all that time there isn't the remotest possibility of a chance occurrence of a simple strand of DNA being formed.


You are assuming 13.8 billion years without evidence.

Saint_;1461495 wrote:

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.


Dinosaurs to Birds?


Some extinct birds, such as Archaeopteryx, shared quite a few features with some theropods. That raises the question of how one can determine whether a creature is a bird that resembles a dinosaur or a dinosaur that resembles a bird. Feathers had long been accepted as a distinctively avian characteristic because they had never been found on any creature, living or extinct, that was not a bird.[22] The presence of feathers marked a creature as a bird, but one is now told that this is an invalid criterion and that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx were dinosaurs despite the fact they possessed feathers.

It is difficult to accept that the long hand-feathers of Caudipteryxevolved within (nonavian) Maniraptora. The strong, grasping hands of maniraptorans were an essential part of their weaponry,[37]but the well-formed feathers attached to Caudipteryx’s middle finger would prevent the hand from being used as a grasping organ. What possible selective advantage could be bestowed on a cursorial predator by the development of hand-feathers that disable the function of one of its primary weapons?

Since the discovery of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, two filament-bearing dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation in China (middle Early Cretaceous) have been reported in the formal scientific literature: a quite fragmentary seven-foot-long therizinosaur dubbed Beipiaosaurus inexpectus [50] and an eagle-size dromaeosaurid (mentioned above) dubbed Sinornithosaurus millenii. [51] Theropod advocates suggest that these filaments represent an early stage in the development of feathers and thus link theropods to avian ancestry, but this is pure speculation. As Dr. Olson put it in his recent open letter, “[t]he statement [in Sloan 1999] that ‘hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers’ is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The theropod faithful, undaunted by these issues, claim (in the recent exhibit at National Geographic Society) “there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers and depict Deinonychus and baby tyrannosaurs as having feathers. Dr. Olson labels the claim “spurious and says the depictions are “simply imaginary and [have] no place outside of science fiction.

Too specialized. In all the talk about shared anatomical traits and “sister groups, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that, even if they were old enough, all known coelurosaurs are too specialized to have been actual ancestors of birds. In other words, they have features believed to have arisen in their lineage after it split from the lineage leading to birds, which features disqualify them as actual ancestors. Thus, after explaining that Compsognathus could not be ancestral to Archaeopteryx because of its date and its specialization, Carroll says, “No other adequately known theropod appears to be an appropriate ancestor.

Similarities overstated. It is not widely known at the popular level, but many of the key characters seen as uniting birds and theropods are disputed. According to Feduccia, these include:

the nature of the pelvis (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the homology of the digits (Hinchliffe and Hecht 1984; Hinchliffe 1985; Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the nature of the teeth (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980); Martin 1991), the hallux (Tarsitano and Hecht, 1980; Martin 1991; Feduccia 1993a), the ascending process of the astragalus (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980; Martin 1991; also see McGowan 1984, 1985 and reply by Martin and Stewart 1985), the pubis (Martin 1983a, 1983b, 1991; Tarsitano 1991; also see Wellnhofer 1985), and even the supposed unique semilunate carpal thought to be shared by Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx (and modern birds) (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991).[95]

Since the hypothesized relationship of theropods to birds is based on the similarity of certain features, uncertainty about that similarity casts doubt on the hypothesis. There is obviously more art in the interpretation of these fossils than popular presentations would lead one to believe.

Lung questions. John Ruben, an expert in respiratory physiology, concluded from an examination of Sinosauropteryx“that theropods had the same kind of compartmentalization of lungs, liver, and intestines that you would find in a crocodile—and not a bird.[96] The thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity of theropods appear to have been completely separated from each other by the diaphragm, whereas birds have no such separation. In living crocodilians, the function of this separation is to provide an airtight seal between the cavities. Air is drawn into the bellows-type lungs by contraction of the diaphragmatic muscles which creates negative pressure in the thoracic cavity.

One reason this is significant is that, as Ruben argues, “a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. According to Ruben, this means that if there is a relationship between dinosaurs and birds, “it’s not the linear relationship you see in the museum displays.

Flight question. A corollary of the theropod theory of bird origins is that flight evolved from the ground up (cursorial theory) rather than from the trees down (arboreal theory). There is, however, no plausible explanation for how this could have occurred. The difficulty is so great that Chatterjee, who supports theropod ancestry, suggested recently that some theropods may have been tree climbers.[104] If they were, they apparently left no evidence of that ability. According to Fastovsky and Weishampel:

It has been argued that perhaps the earliest birds scaled trees, and from that position learned to fly. There is, however, no evidence for an arboreal proto-bird, no evidence for climbing adaptations, and no evidence in the skeleton of any nonavian theropod for arboreal habits.

The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs remains at best a highly speculative hypothesis. One suspects its popularity has less to do with the evidence for theropod ancestry than with the Darwinian aversion to ancestral vacuums. When paleontologist Hans-Dieter Sues says, “Only dinosaurs are anatomically suited to be the precursors of birds,[118] he is saying that, when it comes to bird origins, it is dinosaurs or nothing. Since evolutionists are convinced that every taxon arose from some other, “nothing is not an option. This philosophical predisposition induces them to read lineages into ambiguous data. They compound that error by confusing these interpretive constructs with fact.

One can state the matter no more forcefully than did Storrs Olson in his November 1, 1999 letter to the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society. He concluded with the following:

“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -



Which leads me to the question: How do you explain dinosaurs without evolution and a massive timescale? And if you believe dinosaurs existed and that there is a huge timescale involved, why is evolution so hard to believe for you?


They were created by God about 6000 years ago.

Pahu;1461526 wrote: Dinosaurs to Birds? ..........They were created by God about 6000 years ago.


One day, hopefully, there will come a time when you will read that and be ever so slightly embarrassed. One day you will learn to think for yourself and have the courage to question what you have been spoonfed by the fringe lunatics of the YEC.

I hope you have the opportunity to free your mind from such ludicrous nonsense. You don't need to abandon any belief in God, just an abandonment of blinkered ignorance and false pseudo science

Why didn't the Egyptians ever mention dinosaurs, then? They, according to you, were existing at the same time as the dinosaurs and recorded literally everything about their civilization at the time.

We have a coherent, continuous record of the last 6000 years from many civilizations and none mention dinosaurs. Why is that?

I won't challenge you with radioactive dating, now a highly accurate science, since I'm sure you've walled off that logical portal to knowledge long ago. Instead I'll ask this:

Why do you think God made you intelligent?.