The Evolution Myth

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Mr. Newman,

Some fascinating stuff you're sharing. In part three of four in the above message there is an erroneous statement about Pidgeons and Doves and Hawaii - In Hawaii we have an *Infestation of Pidgeons* somewhat similar to London. Yes, we also have many Doves but the Pidgeons are a real nuisance.

Best regards,

CD

[Robert Newman]

Aloha Mr. Newman,

Some fascinating stuff you're sharing. In part three of four in the above message there is an erroneous statement about Pidgeons and Doves and Hawaii - In Hawaii we have an *Infestation of Pidgeons* somewhat similar to London. Yes, we also have many Doves but the Pidgeons are a real nuisance.

Best regards,

CD

Ah, yes C.D.,

I based this on a statement I found on Pigeons and Doves - the Columbidae -in Wikipedia -


Distribution and Habitat -

''They have colonised most of the world's oceanic islands (with the notable exception of Hawaii) ''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove

It seems they (pigeons) may have arrived in Hawaii quite recently, relatively speaking (?).

Regards

Robert

[Corno Dolce]

And the Pidgeons have learned to dive-bomb with their shite - no fun getting shat all over whilst enjoy a luncheon *Al Fresco* with guests.

[Robert Newman]

C.D.,

LOL !

And imagine the passage of billions (that's BILLIONS) of pigeons in a flock a mile across, taking several hours to pass. As reported in the 18th century etc. Anyone for an umbrella ??

Regards


/

[Robert Newman]

5/5

We read and hear all the time of now 'extinct' species. They are presented as examples of species arriving and then disappearing. If we were to choose a dramatic emblem of alleged species 'extinction' we might choose the famous Dodo, a flightless bird known in Madagascar and other areas of the world up until it disappeared.

And yet, once again, the facts are quite different -

DNA Says the Dodo was a Dove

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=uk

also -

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=uk

The Dodo was a variety of Dove which lived on islands that were subjected to major geological/environmental hazards some time after their arrival there. Their strange new forms were caused by the exposure of that population on those islands to hazardous environments associated with vulcanism and geological movements on those same islands. Now trapped on these islands in their strange, flightless form, the 'Dodo', was always simply a variety of dove that had visited there and they continued to exist there in that strange, new and isolated form until made extinct in the last few centuries.

The case of the Dodo is therefore not the 'extinction of a species', but the end of a peculiar and localised form. In many other parts of the world doves continued to live in areas unaffected by these peculiar environmental hazards.

It's highly likely these birds first arrived on those islands at the time of major earth movements during the early Cenozoic - the time when those islands were formed. And the same time when huge earth movements were forming such mountain chains as the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockie Mountains etc. That is, during the early Cenozoic period - the beginning of the time generally called the start of the 'Ice Age'. From this same time come many other fossils of highly localised and strange forms. Many from places that were cut off from interaction with other members of the same genus.


//

[sunwaiter]

i hardly would have imagined dodos and doves were parents! that's why simply looking at nature doesn't provide an evidence that is strong enough without going deeper in research.

thank you Robert for these links.

right now i'm searching for documentation about the upland moa. according to wiki,
this bird is "Generally believed to have been extinct by 1500, this is the only Moa species that according to current knowledge might have survived until later times, possibly as late as the 1830s".

if i find more valuable info on this bird i will let you know.

[Robert Newman]

Here, the modern evolution 'guru' Richard Dawkins is floored by a brilliant, straightforward, simple scientific question on 'evolution' from an American student.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


'And, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools' (New Testament)

[Andrew Roussak]

Here, the modern evolution 'guru' Richard Dawkins is floored by a brilliant, straightforward, simple scientific question on 'evolution' from an American student.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


'And, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools' (New Testament)

Great video, Robert, thanks! And great answer of Dawkins having absolutely nothing to do with the matter. It's like Bush or Blair being asked about WMD in Iraq after three years of war.

[Robert Newman]

Hello Andrew,

Yes, he stops the camera and eventually repeats the myth of organic evolution, never once addressing himself to the actual question !

LOL !!!

[sunwaiter]

argh i can't watch the video right now (youtube de-activated at working place), but i have read the notes written by the poster, that end like this:

"NB: The reasons for posting this video is not to disprove evolution or to prove creation - but merely to show that this man who is at the forefront of the modern-day evolutionist movement does not have an answer for the most fundamental question to what he proclaims. There are actually three processes [at the time of writing] that scientists know of that add information to the genome - none of which Dawkins covers in any of his responses - websites, books or otherwise. "

for now i only can read your posts from time to time and do what i'm doing right now, that is to say, add comments with nothing new. but whenever i have the time at home, i gather some doc. see you soon, take care, all of you.

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

This is interesting. We wait to see your promised evidence of these 3 processes by which new information can be added to the genome, thus allowing the evolution of new species.

As said over and over again, nobody claims 'creation' can be scientifically proved. Creation is a matter of faith. Is 'evolution' a matter of faith ? How often must this be said ? We say simply that 'the supposed evolution of species' (so-called) is bogus, not even a scientific theory, whose exponents are completely unable to produce verifiable/scientific evidence when asked for it, despite their dominance of classrooms for over a century. This fact is shown over and over again throughout our own lifetime by scientific enquiry. And here repeated. Dozens of other examples of this incompetence and academic dishonesty can be presented. The claims of evolutionists and their propagandists are today massively contradicted by the facts and discoveries of honest scientific enquiry. The supposed evolution of new species is truly nothing but a baseless fairy story for grownups and it's time to end this nonsense for the sake of honesty and integrity.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi again!

well, i did not promise you anything, but it's fair that you wait for an answer, since you absolutely need precise facts or examples. and it's fair that i try to learn even more, because i like it. sorry if i don't give another way of increasing genetic information right away, i'm still new on the topic.

i've just come back home and found this:


"Two steps:

1. A mutation called a gene duplication. This is where a gene (or a sequence of nucleotide bases) is accidentally duplicated on the same chromosome, or even on a different chromosome.

2. A mutation called a point mutation. This is where one or more nucleotides in a sequence accidentally get copied to a different nucleotide. (Like a typo.)

Now you could argue that neither 1, nor 2 produce "new genetic information" (depending on what your definition of "new genetic information" actually *means*).

But what is not arguable is that if 1 happens followed by 2, then you have a new gene. Where once you had one gene, now you have two genes, with different properties ... new genetic information.

1 and 2 don't have to occur in the same individual. 1 can occur, and then be followed even *generations later* in a descendant, by 2.

But if a gene is copied, and then later in some descendant, one of those copies gets altered, then you have a new gene ... new genetic information.

This is precisely how we seem to have the three pigments in the human retina that gives us three-color vision. (See source.) A gene duplication of the gene (called opsin) that gives us the long-wavelength pigment (responding to red light). Then later, one of these copies was altered by a point mutation that changed the frequency of the light it reacted to ... resulting in a new opsin gene that produced a third pigment ... one that responds to medium-wavelength light (green light). We even know *when* this event occurred ... sometime *after* the split in the primates caused by the continental split of Africa and S. America ... but *before* the split between the monkeys and the apes. This is why all New World primates (the monkeys of C. and S. America) do not have this three-color vision ... while all the Old World primates (from Africa and Asia, which includes all the apes, and humans) not only all have color vision, but this is caused by the exact same opsin genes."

once again, you will demand solid evidence. still searching, for the sake of honesty and integrity.

[sunwaiter]

another point, not linked with the above:

Robert, you said:

"Man is different from all other living creatures in a number of very important ways. Biologically Man is not a species. He is not a member of any genus. But all species are members of a genus. Man is unique in this sense. "

found on a "creationwiki" page:

"Humans or human beings are any of the species or races within the genus Homo. Human creationism is the doctrine or belief that each human soul is created, notably by God. The view is thus philosophically opposed to evolutionism or traducianism.
Biblical human creationism is based on the Bible, which states that human beings were created on the 6th day of creation following land animals approximately 6000 years ago. The book of Genesis states that man is distinct from the animals, and was created in the image of God. "

now, i know that as usual you won't agree but i still recall the official taxonomy of man:

xxKingdom Animalia
xxxxSubkingdom Metazoa
xxxxxxPhylum Chordata
xxxxxxxxSubphylum Vertebrata
xxxxxxxxxxSuperclass Tetrapoda
xxxxxxxxxxxxClass Mammalia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubclass Theria
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxInfraclass Eutheria
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOrder Primates
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSuborder Anthropoidea
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxInfraorder Catarrhini
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSuperfamily Hominoidea
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFamily Hominidae
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubfamily Homininae
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTribe Hominini
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGenus Homo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSpecies sapiens
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubspecies sapiens



as i'm a complete amateur on the subject, i remind you that i don't copy/paste documents just to fill voids or to show off without any conscience of what i'm doing. ok, from your point of view, all taxonomy boards do not display the animal kingdom as it should, since you think man is a being well apart. then do we have to trust ANY taxonomic board? because it's confusing.

i agree to say that we're special because of things like what we call "conscience"; there are lots of essays about "what makes us human" or "why are we different"? and it is really a passioning subject. but there are so many kinds of animals with different levels of intelligence, brain size, shapes, etc that i feel it fair to look at ourselves as we look at any other creature in a scientific way, that is, as neutral as possible.

[sunwaiter]

and something else, with again no direct connection with the last post:


i was fascinated by the thylacine, an animal that has disappeared:

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine

sorry for posting three different things in a row, but i'm afraid of forgetting to do it.

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

There are countless examples of animal forms no longer with us. Of this there is no doubt. None were typical of those same animals and birds elsewhere even at the time when they lived. The evolutionist never quite understands this.

For example, Neanderthals and anatomically modern man were actually contemporary. Neanderthals were NOT the 'evolutionary ancestors' of anatomically modern man. But this fact, confirmed by many fossils and much evidence is nowhere found in evolutionary textbooks. So much for 'man's evolution' from other species.

Let's hope you can be just as neutral with such facts !


Regards

Robert