Science Disproves Evolution

[PennEd]

No. 99.5% of all scientists (including Christians) know that Evolution is true. If you have to deny Science to keep your faith, so be it.

First off you completely made that stat up. What is wrong with you? Why are you lying?

Secondly, what would it matter if what you posted were true? Truth is not determined by a poll or how many believe something. I know you are VERY young and naive, but at what point are you going to listen to what people here have been saying and examine whether you have been duped and lied to your whole life?

 

[LaurieB]

First off you completely made that stat up. What is wrong with you? Why are you lying?

Secondly, what would it matter if what you posted were true? Truth is not determined by a poll or how many believe something. I know you are VERY young and naive, but at what point are you going to listen to what people here have been saying and examine whether you have been duped and lied to your whole life?

Oh, I am sorry. It is only 98% of all Scientists and it should read "most Christian scientists believe in evolution as well. I got all this from a number of sources, including the Pew Research Center. The number for Christians who believe in Evolution in the USA is around 66%.
Theistic evolution is what I was taught in religious school; in college it was just evolution.

Please do not call me a liar. I am not lying. thank you.

 

[Didymous]

There is a book called ''Icons of Evolution'' This books shows how every icon used to supprt evolution has been proven to be fraudulant.

Negan is a sissy.

 

[Pahu]

Genetic Distances 2​

DNA and RNA. Comparisons can be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated genes (d). Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: (e) simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals. Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated (f).

(d). Gregory J. Brewer, “The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,”ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1–4.

Field, pp. 748–753.

(e). Denton, p. 285.

(f). “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.”Ibid. p. 289.

“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.” Ibid. pp. 289–290.

“Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.” Ibid. p. 290.

“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.”Ibid. pp. 290–291.

“In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate’, ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.”Ibid., p. 293.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.

 

[Didymous]

The bottom line is this: Evolution never did, and never will prove, that life evolved from nothing.

 

[Pahu]

Genetic Distances 3​

Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g), include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although only 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.

Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j). Also, humans shuffle male and female DNA to their offspring in different ways than chimpanzees (k).

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways (l).

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.”H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,”Nature,Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

i.“Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement...” Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010, p. 537.

j.“... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”Ibid. p. 538.

k. “Studying human and Western chimpanzees, we found no hotspot sharing between the two species,” Adam Auton et al., “A fine-Scale Chimpanzee Genetic Map from Population Sequencing,” Science, Vol. 336, 13 April 2012, p. 196.


“Chimpanzees’ shuffling pattern is similar to that seen in some previously studied organisms, while the human pattern is unusual ... .”Gil McVean, as quoted by Tina Hesman Saey, “Going Ape Offers Better Family Tree,” Science News, Vol. 181, 21 April 2012, p. 16.

l.“Instead, the comparisons[using DNA]have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.”Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

“We are left with a conundrum.[Evolutionary trees based on bodily characteristics (morphology) differ from trees based on genetics.]” Jonathan B. Losos et al., “Who Speaks with a Forked Tongue?” Science, Vol. 338, 14 December 2012, p. 1429.

[FONT=&quot][]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.

 

[EarnestQ]

Thank you , Pahu, for giving so much rich information and for referencing it so well.

 

[Pahu]

Genetic Information 1​

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

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

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^[SUP]14[/SUP] (10 to the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

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

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

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

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - “Follow the Money” on page 20

 

[Didymous]

I find it sad that any Christian would believe in evolution, but I rejoice in all those who believe in a God that created all things!

 

[EarnestQ]

Genetic Information 1​

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

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

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^[SUP]14[/SUP] (10 to the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

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

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

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

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - “Follow the Money” on page 20

Oh it all just happened. If you shuffle a card deck a few dozen times it will arrange itself in original new deck order, and still look like a new deck. Scientists wouldn't lie would they?

 

[Didymous]

Oh it all just happened. If you shuffle a card deck a few dozen times it will arrange itself in original new deck order, and still look like a new deck. Scientists wouldn't lie would they?

Nah! Because the God of science hates liars.