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

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 109 by Pahu]


Moderator Final Warning

You have already been warned about posting links that contribute nothing to discussion. Please desist.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Pahu]

[Replying to post 109 by Pahu]


Moderator Final Warning

You have already been warned about posting links that contribute nothing to discussion. Please desist.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

My purpose is to share scientific information that disproves evolution. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientists for that information in order to make my point. If you cannot accept information beyond my ignorant opinions, then you make it impossible for me to communicate. If that is your purpose, then you will succeed, since you have the power to silence me.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that’s fine. I believe the free exchange of ideas based on facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with known laws of physics and biology confirmed by the scientists being quoted, not me.

The refusal to accept facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[otseng]

My purpose is to share scientific information that disproves evolution. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientists for that information in order to make my point. If you cannot accept information beyond my ignorant opinions, then you make it impossible for me to communicate. If that is your purpose, then you will succeed, since you have the power to silence me.

Moderator Comment

Very few of us are scientists here. But, we all must play by the same rules.

Simply posting information from other websites is not debating. This is a debate forum, not a place to post information you find on the internet.

Think of it as writing a paper. You must have your own reasoned argument that you are trying to present, then you include evidence to support your argument. If you turned in a paper with nothing but a copy and paste from a website, it would result in a failed grade.

We have explained this to you numerous times. Consider this the last time we are going to explain this. Further violations will result in an instant ban.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Pahu]

[center]Natural Selection 3[/center]


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

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are 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.

f. “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.� Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.� Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,� Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference� was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.� Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:


“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.� Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under

Fire,� Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ � Ibid., p. 884.

“But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones.� Ibid., p. 883.

Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. If so, how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead.

As stated earlier, micro + time  ≠  macro.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] [i] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], [i] not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.� Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,� [i]Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]