Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

[center][/center]
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 at any stage 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. For example, Why do human females live past menopause? If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

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.

u “When egg meets sperm in mammals, zinc sparks fly. ... [They] are needed to stimulate the transition from egg to embryo.� Ashley Yeager, “Images Reveal Secrets of Zinc Sparks,� Science News, Vol. 187, 10 January 2015, p. 14.

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.

u “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.

u “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.

u “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.

u “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.

u “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.

u “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.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp5214829

[JoeyKnothead]

"Science disproves evolution!"

Only in the Chat subforum.

Bring this OP into the Science subforum, and let's see how it fares!

[Divine Insight]

[center][/center]
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 at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

You are already wrong right out of the gate.

From Wikipedia

Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions

The earliest species that began to sexually reproduce no doubt started off being able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. This makes perfect sense, and there are species still living today that can do this.

There also exist species that can change their sex on the fly naturally.

See Wikipedia Sex Change in Animals

Before proclaiming that scientists and biologists have no clue what they are talking about with evolution you might do well to learn a little bit about biology first.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

You are already wrong right out of the gate.

From Wikipedia
Quote:
Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions


The earliest species that began to sexually reproduce no doubt started off being able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. This makes perfect sense, and there are species still living today that can do this.

There also exist species that can change their sex on the fly naturally.

See Wikipedia Sex Change in Animals

Before proclaiming that scientists and biologists have no clue what they are talking about with evolution you might do well to learn a little bit about biology first. Wink

Pahu: Are you claiming that since some animals can change their sex, the rest of the article is wrong?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

You are already wrong right out of the gate.

From Wikipedia
Quote:
Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions


The earliest species that began to sexually reproduce no doubt started off being able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. This makes perfect sense, and there are species still living today that can do this.

There also exist species that can change their sex on the fly naturally.

See Wikipedia Sex Change in Animals

Before proclaiming that scientists and biologists have no clue what they are talking about with evolution you might do well to learn a little bit about biology first. Wink

Pahu: Are you claiming that since some animals can change their sex, the rest of the article is wrong?

Yes.

I'm saying that since their very first claim (a) is clearly false there isn't even any point in reading anything else they have to say. They obviously haven't done their homework.

They claim that it would be impossible for sexual reproduction to evolve because it would need to begin as sexual reproduction without any other means of reproduction which is clearly false. Since even have modern day examples of species of animals that can reproduce BOTH ways, then their premise (a) is clearly false.

We also see some species of animals that can actually change sex after reaching adulthood. So there's yet another solution.

So their claim that evolution would be "impossible" and that "Science Disproves Evolution" is clearly grossly wrong. They are basing their accusations on claims they are making that are clearly false.

Therefore there is no point in reading their entire article. They have already proven their ignorance of biology and the natural world in their very first premise. Why bother wasting any more time reading anything they have to say after that?

In fact, their claim (b) depends on claim their (a) being true. So it also has no grounds.

In fact, pretty much everything they have to say after premise (a) relies on premise (a) being true. But it's not true. So they are totally done.

This is a common mistake that Creationists make. They see something in nature and imagine that it had to have evolved instantly into its totally evolved form. That's totally wrong and only displays an extreme ignorance of how evolution works in the first place. If things had to instantly be in their "totally evolved" state then there would be no need for evolution at all.

So this article represents the epitome of ignorance. It simply rejects evolution out-of-hand and then tries to argue why things could not "evolve instantly" into highly evolved forms. But evolution doesn't ever claim that this would happen.

So all they are doing is displaying at extreme ignorance of evolution and trying to appeal to other people who are also ignorant of how evolution actually works. And they probably will win over people who have no clue how evolution actually works.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, they would indeed be right if sexual reproduction had to evolve in one single step. That obviously could never work. But that's not how it would have happened to be sure. And there is no need for it to have happened that way.

So their claim that "Science Disproves Evolution" is totally without any merit at all.

[Bust Nak]

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?

Life presuppose reproduction. The precursor to life was self-replicating molecules.

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.

Incorrect. Species as a whole evolve, not individuals. Male and female did not evolve independently.

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

Not required to sexual reproduction.

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.

Granted.

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.

Well, how "general" is general is subjective. Either way, that's same point as above.

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.

That depends on what you mean by "tightly controlled." This is basically same as the point above. Sure, the first sexual reproduction has to be "controlled" and intricate, but it's no more tightly controlled, no more intricate than any sexual reproduction that is happening day in, day out, every second in the world, right now.

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

Incorrect, just need to happen once.

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.

Hence the word "similar" instead of "identical."

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

The same way any other biological trait arise and survive, from random variation and selection.

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. For example, Why do human females live past menopause?

Because it offers an evolution advantage to the species, obviously.

If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Incorrect. While reproduction is the main mechanism, by help your offspring (or indeed any relatives) survive, you are increasing your contribution to the gene pool.

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.

Incorrect. Life by definition could reproduce itself.

[Pahu]

You are already wrong right out of the gate.

In fact, pretty much everything they have to say after premise (a) relies on premise (a) being true. But it's not true. So they are totally done.

But are you not basing your rejection on the fact that some animals can change sex? What about the majority?

This is a common mistake that Creationists make. They see something in nature and imagine that it had to have evolved instantly into its totally evolved form. That's totally wrong and only displays an extreme ignorance of how evolution works in the first place. If things had to instantly be in their "totally evolved" state then there would be no need for evolution at all.
So this article represents the epitome of ignorance. It simply rejects evolution out-of-hand and then tries to argue why things could not "evolve instantly" into highly evolved forms. But evolution doesn't ever claim that this would happen.

So all they are doing is displaying at extreme ignorance of evolution and trying to appeal to other people who are also ignorant of how evolution actually works. And they probably will win over people who have no clue how evolution actually works.

Since there is no evidence supporting evolution, the idea it works is erroneous. According to Steven Gould, evolution did happen instantly according to his hopeful monster notion. The May 1977 issue of Natural History carried an article with his position and reasons for it.

As a respected paleontologist, Gould was fully aware that there simply was no fossil evidence for evolution of one species from another. All the evidence from the world around us and the fossil record from the past points to separate distinct species, with no transitional species linking them.

In the article, Gould opens up this entire problem—and says that "hopeful monsters" are the only possible answer: entirely new species which were suddenly born from totally different creatures! One day a lizard laid an egg and a beaver hatched out of it.

Declaring that "we never see the processes we profess to study" [that is, cross-species changes], Gould announced his new position which he described by this awesome new name: "punctuated equilibrium." By this term he means that, (1) for 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an "equilibrium" without any evolution). And then, (2) suddenly (in a very rare "punctuation"), and by total chance, two totally different life forms will emerge.

By sheerest chance, (3) one will always be a male and the other a female. (4) Coincidentally, they will always appear at the same time in history, and less than a few miles apart, so they can continue in the new species. (5) It is not happening now.

We have here a total argument by silence; pure speculation, without any scientific evidence to back it up.

For more, go here:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... 0mut14.htm

[Divine Insight]

Since there is no evidence supporting evolution, the idea it works is erroneous.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that there is no evidence supporting evolution? That's absurd. We actually see evolution working in the world around us.

The fact that things constantly evolve are an extreme problem for both medical and agricultural reasons.

The claim that there is no evidence supporting evolution is a totally false claim.

[Pahu]

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?

Life presuppose reproduction. The precursor to life was self-replicating molecules.

Where did those self-replicating molecules come from?

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.

Incorrect. Species as a whole evolve, not individuals. Male and female did not evolve independently.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?

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

Not required to sexual reproduction.

But isn't that what we observe?

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.

Granted.

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.

Well, how "general" is general is subjective. Either way, that's same point as above.

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.

That depends on what you mean by "tightly controlled." This is basically same as the point above. Sure, the first sexual reproduction has to be "controlled" and intricate, but it's no more tightly controlled, no more intricate than any sexual reproduction that is happening day in, day out, every second in the world, right now.

True, which confirms the fact.

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

Incorrect, just need to happen once.

Once for each species?

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.

Hence the word "similar" instead of "identical."

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

The same way any other biological trait arise and survive, from random variation and selection.

Where is evidence supporting that assertion?

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. For example, Why do human females live past menopause?

Because it offers an evolution advantage to the species, obviously.

In what way?

If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Incorrect. While reproduction is the main mechanism, by help your offspring (or indeed any relatives) survive, you are increasing your contribution to the gene pool.

In what way?

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.

Incorrect. Life by definition could reproduce itself.

True, but the statement is "...natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself..." Do you know of any natural process that produces life?