Science Disproves Evolution

[megaman125]

And yet all this time I've been talking about a lack of absolute certainty particularly when it comes from scientific theories.

Playing both sides of the fence again, typical dishonest tactic.

You tell me it's truth, then you tell me you lack absolute certainty, then you tell the evidence points to it being true, but you won't tell me we shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school about evolution because it might not be absolute truth.

 

[IronChariots]

50 pages of pure science!

 

[Grey]

Playing both sides of the fence again, typical dishonest tactic.

You tell me it's truth, then you tell me you lack absolute certainty, then you tell the evidence points to it being true, but you won't tell me we shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school about evolution because it might not be absolute truth.

As I explained to you earlier the truth is that evolution is a theory with evidences. And believe me theres a difference between indoctrination and the teaching of theories.

 

[Tethered]

I said i'd start looking into Pahu's creation wiki article, so ffter some reading around #892
An agreed RadionCarbon limitation is one caused by contamination by C-14 produced by the upper atmosphere.
CreationWiki cites Flood Geology? asserting that a flood can explain C-14 contamination to render 1000bc dating innaccurate

Despite my non-recognition of Flood Geology as science yet, my questions:
How can I demonstrate a global contamination occured?
Does flood geology assert that organisms (and other entities formed in the presence of atmospheric carbon), sealed in the earth before the flood, were also contaminated?.
To my knowledge, buried and sealed organisms keep showing older ages the deeper into the rock you go, under flood geology, should I expect a plateau in result consistency at 1000bc instead of 50,000yrs, regardless of the depth of rock strata?

...if you would prefer to talk about dating calibration, I'll look into those claims, but I figure one point at a time.

 

[ddallen]

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition…Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation…Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.”

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.”

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.


Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Please stay away from ad hominim attacks - they undermine your position and do nothing to forward your arguments.

Yes I oversimplified the QM statement - my apologies, I assumed, wrongly, that I was talking to lay people. The fact is that virtual particles do come into existence from nothing - the cause may be due to quantum fluctuations within the zero point energy field but they spontaneously are created and destroyed. I do not assert that there was no cause, I have said that there was a super dense atom and this expanded into the universe. I have stated that to ask where and when this atom came into existence is a meaningless question as time and space did not exist. You ask why did this universe happen to pop into existence - why not, the universe was not designed to suit us - we have evolved to live in a universe with a particular set of physical laws - which existed long before we came into existence.

 

[ddallen]

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

1) The protein “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H[SUB]2[/SUB]S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.

Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”

Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.

But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.

“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

Further Reading: Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis - Answers in Genesis

From time to time, Richard Dawkins says wise and insightful things. Seriously -- no sarcasm intended. Among his wisest statements is the following observation from The Blind Watchmaker (italics in the original):

"It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living -- flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive." (1987, p. 9)

Please - if you are going to quote me - do not misquote. I distinctly mentioned that the Miller-Urey experiment is in conclusive and still under debate

 

[ddallen]

More evidence free speculation!

All the evidence so far seems to point to this fact - it is not speculation. The evidence for evolution vastly out ways that for creation

 

[ddallen]

And yet more evidence free speculation!

Which part is speculation?
Dolphins are mammals not fish - that is proven
Monkeys do not have human brain capacity - proven
Species adapt to their environment - proven

 

[ddallen]

Oh look, the typical response evolutionists give when their evolutionary beliefs are shown to have major holes. Just resort to mocking the non-evolutionists by saying "you don't understand what evolution is," and therefore evolutionists are right.



And I didn't say anything contrary to that. My post was starting with the single living cell being there. *sigh* once again I find myself explaining the basics of the conversation to those who can't follow along.



I wasn't talking about wolves into dogs. I was talking about the first single living cell into dogs, the single cell into cats. That's the common ancestry the evolutionists purport, but yet when they'll called out on it, they always try to change the subject, all the while trying to avoid the holes that just got blown into their religion.

I am not mocking anyone - your comments show that you misunderstand evolution - so do many other people - including a lot of evolutionists. I have never said you do not understand therefor I am right. In my post I tried to explain what evolution is - if needed I can do so in more depth

 

[Pahu]

Hm, perhaps because we see a species that did not exist arise out of a pre-existing one in the fossil record? Perhaps the genes? Perhaps the bone structure similarities?

Or perhaps your imaginary preconceptions.

 

[Pahu]

Everything I have said about evolution, including the time frame, is based on current evidence, as I said earlier there's no absolute certainty, but this is where the evidence points.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

​

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95."Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve]."I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]."The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19."In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

Scientists Speak About Evolution

 

[Pahu]

Here's the thing Bryan. First, we are classified as primates as far back as Linnaeus. We are also classified as part of the family Hominidae which is the family of the great apes. Now it is correct that we are the only surviving members of the Genus Homo. However, it is also true that there were several other species that were members of this group that have since gone extinct. As far as the separation goes, we are really very close to chimps. We share most of our DNA ~96-99% depending on how your counting and several important genes such as OPN1LW which allows us to see the color red (something most mammals can't do) and some of our most important genes like for speech, FOXP2 creates a protein with just two small changes different than our chimpanzee counterparts. Not only are our genes similar, they are also in the same spots, such that we can clearly match up our chromosomes to theirs with their 24 pairs matching up with our 23 (Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of 2 primate chromosomes) In fact, we are so closely related that chimp diseases such as the SIV virus can cross over to become the HIV virus. So, we are very similar to chimps, roughly the same amount of similarity as horses have with zebras (which are generally considered the same kind). In fact, there are some scientists who argue that Chimps should actually be reclassified as belonging to the genus homo. It helps to keep in mind that there are only a few genes for intelligence and that the trait of intelligence requires a great change in lifestyle (such as us having to eat more meat, making room for it within the skull, finding a way to have children with such a large head size, etc.), so it would be very unlikely to see a chimp with human intelligence. It's simply not advantageous enough in their niche, and we dominate it's useful niches too much for them to have a chance at them.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SIMILARITIES

​

Careful scientists wish to tell you that the concept of "similarities" (also called "homology"), as an evidence that evolution has occurred, is without foundation. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Similarities

Introduction: All we have are theories without evidence
The Amino Acid "Similarities": Forget about similar number of arm bones; look at the other "similarities"
Hemoglobin "Similarities": We descended from lampreys?
Genetic "Similarities": We should find the similarities in the genetic codes
Circular Reasoning: The similarities argument is based on reasoning in a circle
Conclusion: The similarities, even though logically required, do not exist

​

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, SIMILARITIES, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on
, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTRODUCTION

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species, pp. x-xi (1971 edition).

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

THE AMINO ACID "SIMILARITIES"

"When it comes to comparing similarities among amino acids in alpha hemoglobin sequences, crocodiles have much more in common with chickens (17.5%) than with vipers (5.6%), their fellow reptiles. Myoglobin sequences do show one reptile / reptile pair (lizard / crocodile) with greater similarity (10.5% to 8.5%) than the reptile / bird (crocodile / chicken) pair, but it also puts the lizard as close to the chicken (10.5%) as to its fellow reptile . . The greatest similarity is between the crocodiles and chickens."—Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 59-60.

"The difference between turtles and rattlesnakes of 21 amino acid residues per 100 codons is notable larger than many differences between representatives of widely separated classes, for example, 17 between chicken and lamprey, or 16 between horse and dogfish, or even 15 between dog and screw worm fly in two different phyla."—*T. Jukes and *R. Holmquist, "Evolutionary Clock: Nonconsistency of Rate in Different Species," in Science, 177 (1972), p. 530."It is hard to see a common line of descent snaking in so unsystematic a way through so many different phyla."—*Richard E. Dickerson and *Irving Geis, The Structure and Action of Proteins, 1969.

"There is simply no way of explaining how a uniform rate of evolution could have occurred in any family of homologousproteins by either chance or selection; and even if we could advance an explanation for one particular protein family, we would still be left with the mystifying problem of explaining why other protein families should have evolved at different rates."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 305.

"The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought . . [As a result] the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered."—*Op. cit., p. 306.

"However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature [from amoeba through its "descendants" on to man] but were going to reaffirm the view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence of evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have predicted."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), chapter entitled, "A Bio-chemical Echo of Typology."

HEMOGLOBIN "SIMILARITIES"

*There is not a trace, at a molecular level, of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredible, man is closer to lamprey [in his hemoglobin] than are fish!"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).It is of interest that chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by only one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees.

GENETIC "SIMILARITIES"

"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritancecannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find `homologous genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."—*Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (1971).

"But if it is true that through the genetic code, gene code for enzymes that synthesize proteins are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner,—what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered."—*Op. cit., p. 16.

"The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin."Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

CIRCULAR REASONING

"When Professor Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.

CONCLUSION

"Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology . . they cannot at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity in the evolution of animals."—*R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and Reference Book (1967)."A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the early decades of this century."—*G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in Experiential Biology (1976).

"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—*Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," in Scientific Monthly 16(3):237 (1923).

"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted insuch an ordered pattern of diversity, the [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literatureas if it were anempirical discovery. The hold of every evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).

"The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory."—*Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1965), p. 211.

"By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship . . it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units."—*N. Heribert Nilsson, Sysnthetische Artbildung (1953), p. 1143.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SIMILARITIES

 

[Grey]

You ready posted those quote mines Pahu earlier.

 

[Pahu]

As I explained to you earlier the truth is that evolution is a theory with evidences. And believe me theres a difference between indoctrination and the teaching of theories.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
EVOLUTION: 2

​

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . ."Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335."The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin'sOrigin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).


"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . ."We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes."George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . ."Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2

 

[Pahu]

I said i'd start looking into Pahu's creation wiki article, so ffter some reading around #892
An agreed RadionCarbon limitation is one caused by contamination by C-14 produced by the upper atmosphere.
CreationWiki cites Flood Geology? asserting that a flood can explain C-14 contamination to render 1000bc dating innaccurate

Despite my non-recognition of Flood Geology as science yet, my questions:
How can I demonstrate a global contamination occured?
Does flood geology assert that organisms (and other entities formed in the presence of atmospheric carbon), sealed in the earth before the flood, were also contaminated?.
To my knowledge, buried and sealed organisms keep showing older ages the deeper into the rock you go, under flood geology, should I expect a plateau in result consistency at 1000bc instead of 50,000yrs, regardless of the depth of rock strata?

...if you would prefer to talk about dating calibration, I'll look into those claims, but I figure one point at a time.

The answer to your questions can be found here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:

That is the first of several pages. Just click on "Next Page" and continue.

 

[Pahu]

All the evidence so far seems to point to this fact - it is not speculation. The evidence for evolution vastly out ways that for creation

THE THREE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS

​

Evolutionists have their backs to the wall. All they can show for their efforts are three worn-out means by which evolution of plants and animals could possibly occur. Yet all three have been disproved by reputable scientists (See Natural Selection, Mutations, and the subsidiary articles under each of them.) Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: The Three Evolutionary Mechanisms

Natural Selection: This theory of random accidents was debunked by the early part of our century
Mutations: This theory of random accidents was dead by the middle of the century
Monster Mutations: In desperation, evolutionists are turning to this foolish idea, keyed to simultaneous, multimillion positive mutations

​

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS
. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

The public is told that "evolution" produced all our modern species of plants and animals. But it is not told that scientists themselves have gradually, over the years, abandoned, one after another, the various means—the mechanisms—by which it could occur.

NATURAL SELECTION

This theory of random accidents was debunked by the early part of our century.

The first was "natural selection." This was a rather vague concept which *Charles Darwin suggested over a hundred years ago. According to the theory, accidental changes in plants and animals will always produce improvements which will keep changing each species of plant and animal into new and larger ones.

But, by the 1920s, the weaknesses in Darwin's theory had become more and more obvious. Neither plants nor animals ever produced new species, and there was no evidence from the fossil record that this had ever occurred in the past. All the changes which occurred were within species. In addition, the fossil record only had distinct species like the ones we have today, with only gaps between them. (For more on this see Natural Selection and Fossils and Strata.)

Although the public is told that Darwin was the great apostle of scientific evolution, his theory of natural selection was abandoned by most research scientists decades ago!

MUTATIONS

This theory of random accidents was dead by the middle of the century.

Gradually, scientists exchanged "Darwinism" for, what they called, "Neo-Darwinism." Classical "Darwinism" teaches evolution by natural selection. In contrast, "Neo-Darwinism" declares that it is mutations which have made the changes from one species to another, and that natural selection only produced further adaptation within those changed species. By the early 20th century, scientists were already trying to prove that mutations could really make such cross-species changes.

In 1902, *Walter S. Sutton and *T. Boveri independently discovered chromosomes and the linkage of genetic characters. Gregor Mendel's genetic research had only been rediscovered two years earlier. This discovery was to sound the death knell of natural selection as producer of new species.

In 1906, *Thomas Hunt Morgan began experimenting with fruit flies, in an effort to find evidence of cross-species changes. He was watching to see fruit flies change into something else! But, even though they reproduce very quickly (a total life cycle is only 12 days), such changes never occurred. Millions of generations of fruit flies have been examined over the years, without any evidence of cross-species change.Later, *H.J. Muller, working at the University of Indiana, pioneered in using X rays to induce mutations in fruit flies. (The discovery that X rays could produce mutations was made shortly before in 1927.)

But, with the passing of years, more and more scientists began to realize that mutations never produce cross-species changes. Instead, they only weaken, damage, sterilize, or kill the creatures that the mutations occur in. (For more on this go to Mutations.) Many researchers had given their lifetime to the attempt. The situation was becoming desperate.

MONSTER MUTATIONS

In desperation, evolutionists are turning to this foolish idea, keyed to simultaneous, multimillion positive mutations.

*Richard Goldschmidt spent 25 years trying to get the gypsy moth to change into something else. Using X rays, he was able to compress the mutational changes of millions of years into a short time. Yet all he succeeded in doing was to produce damaged and dead gypsy moths.

By 1933, Goldschmidt recognized that he was getting nowhere. So he developed a new theory to explain evolution, which was even more impossible than the earlier ones.

His idea was that every so many hundreds of thousands of years, millions of favorable mutations would occur in one egg, and it would hatch into a totally new creature. He called this the "saltation" (leap) theory, and he called the emerging new species a "hopeful monster."

Scientists laughed and laughed at such a foolish theory; but, with the passing of years, a large number of them recognized that neither natural selection nor simple mutations could produce the needed cross-species changes.

In 1977, *Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard professor and leading paleontologist (fossil expert), declared that there were no transitions between species in the fossil record, and therefore *Goldschmidt's theory must be right after all!

Gould said this rare monster-mutation event occurred once every 50,000 years, and had produced all our millions of species. Because the earlier theories had failed and Gould was the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the 20th century, his revolutionary article was carefully considered.

*Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, is another leading paleontologist. He has come to the same conclusion as Gould, and he gave the monster theory a new name: "quantum speciation." Like the monster advocates before him, he said that nature only produces such a multimillion-positive-mutation creature once every 50,000 years—but, Stanley added, by sheerest coincidence two (male and female) are produced each time.

At the present time, the monster theory is accepted by a growing number of evolutionary scientists. It fits in with two facts: (1) all species, past and present, have always been distinct, with no transitions between them; and (2) no new species are occurring now.

But the foolishness of this theory is even more quickly apparent than were those of natural selection and mutations. (See Monster Mutation Theory for more details on this.)

(1) Mathematics denies the possibility that sudden, multimillion positive-mutations could occur all at once.
(2) Each such occurrence is said to occur only once every 50,000 years, yet two such accidental events would have had to occur within a mile or two of each other—and one would have had to be a male and the other a female.
(3) One new species every 50,000 years could not produce all the species we now have. (*Gould and company have to stay with long-time periods to avoid the problem of why it is not happening today.)
(4) Each new accident requires that all the mutations be positive and harmoniously interrelated.

Those are the only three evolutionary theories of trans-species changeover which are accepted by any evolutionists today. Yet all three are unworkable.

THE THREE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS

 

[Pahu]

You ready posted those quote mines Pahu earlier.

When the same questions/assertions are posted, it sometimes becomes necessary to repeat the same facts.

 

[Grey]

When the same questions/assertions are posted, it sometimes becomes necessary to repeat the same facts.

So why is it that you don't care whether or not many of these quotes are used out of context, or simply made by creationists?

 

[ddallen]

Pahu,
It is quite difficult to debate when long passages are copied into the text. I would like a debate where your own opinions are forwarded, and we can discuss the conflicting ideas - these long quotes are quite tedious to trawl through.
That said:
(1) Mathematics denies the possibility that sudden, multimillion positive-mutations could occur all at once. Quite true. Evolution does not postulate that multi million positive mutations occurred all at once
(2) Each such occurrence is said to occur only once every 50,000 years, yet two such accidental events would have had to occur within a mile or two of each other—and one would have had to be a male and the other a female. This does not make sense. This supposes that a mutation from one species to a completely different species happens suddenly and all at once. Evolutionary theory does not state this.
(3) One new species every 50,000 years could not produce all the species we now have. (*Gould and company have to stay with long-time periods to avoid the problem of why it is not happening today.) Where does 50,000 years come from?
(4) Each new accident requires that all the mutations be positive and harmoniously interrelated. The vast majority of mutations are either negative or irrelevant to the host. A mutation only become positive if it occurs together with ecological or environmental pressures to ensure that the mutation is passed on.

 

[Pahu]

So why is it that you don't care whether or not many of these quotes are used out of context, or simply made by creationists?

If you will read the statements, you will find none of them are made by creationists. Apparently you missed the introduction which states: "An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists."

Go back and count the names without asterisks.

Also, where do the quotes alter the contexts?