The Evolution Myth

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

Bravo dear sir! Again, I admire your tenacity of purpose in acquiring knowlege. But your knowlege base will be incomplete without a working understanding of the scientific process.

Best regards,

CD

[sunwaiter]

i believe reading intelligible data will be enough for a start! i'm going home now, thank you for your attention! have a beautiful week-end.

and for your pleasure, here is what in french we call "une concession":

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]


footnotes:

1. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.
2. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

à bientôt!

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

Sorry to see you go but *a man's gotta do what he's gotta do*.

I see you have shared some text and appended footnotes to it. That is a step in acquiring knowlege.

"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Darwin's letter to Graham William, 03 July 1881)

A bientot...........

CD

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Yes, Darwin's theory of 'natural selection' only explains survival of some populations and extinction of others. It does not provide a mechanism for generation of 'new species'. A simple and unanswerable fact that has been pointed out by scientists themselves ever since 'The Origin of Species' was published in 1859. The survival/continuity of living things. But not their supposed 'evolution in to other species'.

Regards

[rojo]

I'm with you on this one, sunwaiter. Just thought I'd give you a little moral support.

[Andrew Roussak]

I'm with you on this one, sunwaiter. Just thought I'd give you a little moral support.

Well, Robin...Me thinks I have read it somewhere here, as I have just entered MIMF as newbie - " The forum regulators will be unpartisan in any discussion" ...or similar...

So...No democracy even here, damn!!!!



Well, well, weeeeeeeeellll............What did ya exactly mean with this "I am with you on that"? Or should we better simply forget it?

I feel myself compelled to report the case to the Holy Inquisition...Mmmm, where did I only have that damned Torquemada phone number?...

[Robert Newman]

In answer to questions asked of evolutionists such as -

1. What about your independent labwork?

and -

2. What methods do you propose to use to examine and verify your results ?

The answers are as follows -

1. Independent labwork is not required. 'Evolution' happens over millions of years, sometimes tens of millions of years. So, although we can't actually show it happening we are still sure about it.

and -

2. The methods we as evolutionists employ are to dogmatically assume and to teach as true from the very outset that 'evolution' must have happened (even though it flies in the face of everything we actually know about species) and then we look for and produce 'evidence' for it which we teach to gullible young students - provided, of course the 'evidence' is never at any time subjected to cross-examination.

The scientific alternative to this philosophical circle game of 'evolution theory' is that species are permanent entities in living nature and that no new ones have 'evolved' from others since the first fossils were formed. This despite a given species often existing in many forms. The forms we see in the fossil record need not be typical of species at any time.

Someone should have told Mr Darwin to read Herr Mendel's discoveries. (Cough, cough) !!

//

[rojo]

Well, Robin...Me thinks I have read it somewhere here, as I have just entered MIMF as newbie - " The forum regulators will be unpartisan in any discussion" ...or similar...

So...No democracy even here, damn!!!!



Well, well, weeeeeeeeellll............What did ya exactly mean with this "I am with you on that"? Or should we better simply forget it?

I feel myself compelled to report the case to the Holy Inquisition...Mmmm, where did I only have that damned Torquemada phone number?...

Hi Andrew,

Uh oh. Does it really say that somewhere around here? I guess I didn't get the memo. Although I've been 'partisan' in many a discussion here already, so I guess it's too late anyway.

Just to clarify, here are a couple of the things that sunwaiter has said that I'm generally in agreement with:

those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general.

,,,that's why i always prefer doubt to certainty. ....there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion, even if some people are wrong in their judgment at some time, wether they support the ID or the ET theory (and i stress the word THEORY).

i believe reading intelligible data will be enough for a start!

That said, I will now bow out, and leave you to your debate.

[Andrew Roussak]

Good morning partisan Robin!!!

You know I would never either pass you to inqusition or even post an inquisitive question to ya!! This one was just a great occasion for me to kid a bit - and how could I miss such a wonderful opp? Of course you are mostly welcome ( God, it might look even hilarious - myself sending an invitation to a senior regulator ) !

Well, I generally second your point , except for this one -

...there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion...

I don't see why. There are , seriously , no more people around who believe that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun orbits the Earth. The scientific theory can be obviously proved wrong, and then it will be a final point.
And, judging on everything I see and hear presently, I can make the following conclusion - the ET will be now promoted by the means which simply have nothing to do with science - pop mass media, pop-quasi-sci-series and populistic bestsellers of Dawkins. The communists in USSR have "proven" they were right using the very same instruments. This is, actually , a propaganda, not science - such situation alone would make me suppose that smth. must be wrong about ET.

That said, I will now bow out to another cup of coffee...

[Robert Newman]

The best possible answer to the 'uncertainty' and confusion of what evolutionists teach are FACTS.

What facts ? Well, how about these ? The following FACTS are so certain, so overwhelmingly true they are LAWS that apply to all species and are today accepted by ALL researchers in the field.

The LAWS OF HEREDITY

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e...m=11&ct=result

Why not read about them ? Welcome to reality !!!

[sunwaiter]

i will browse this book, though some pages are missing. thank you for the link!

"Welcome to reality!!!" is one of those somewhat pretentious sentences that create everything but a climate of trust or a feeling of following an invitation, that is, by the way, very interesting. But i must confess it would be more easy if you'd indicate the passages (pages) containing the facts you mention. i mean, i don't have much time. unfortunately, it's often a question of time. anyway when i have some i'll be reading this. i am already, just a bit before going out.

enjoy the week-end!


www.myspace.com/olivortex

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

You may agree that unlike theories, in science Laws are fundamental truths. From a scientific point of view they are fundamental and established facts. Aren't they ? They are more than a theory. We can be certain of them. It's these laws (rather than the 'theory of evolution') which should be taught to students of biology. But guess what ? Darwinists resist these facts.

But the laws of heredity first discovered and documented by Mendel were to remain completely unknown to Charles Darwin and to other early propagandists of Evolution Theory such as Lamarck and Lysenko. In fact, they were blatantly suppressed by 'evolutionists' for decades. Worldwide. (That's what ignoring reality does ! And how much more, 150 years later ?). Take just one example. In the Soviet Union evolution theory was dogmatically taught as 'fact' in countless universities and schools and Mendel's discoveries of the fundamental permanence of species were outlawed. A professor could lose his job if he taught them. The new science of genetics was laughed at but is now based on irrefutable, verifiable evidence. Species exist. They are not mere labels of convenience. There is nothing subjective about them. We determine which species a creature belongs to by verifiable facts, not subjective opinions on the form of a fossil or the form of a living variety. Genetics is able to say with precision which species is which.

You ask which parts of the Laws of Heredity you, as an evolutionist, should read.

May I suggest you at least become familiar with the two basic laws (plural) that apply to inheritance in all species -

1. Law of Segregation

2. The Law of Independent Assortment.

Fundamentally, genetics has proved species are identified not by their exterior forms (which may vary) but by their fundamental genetic makeup. A makeup which is fundamentally fixed.

Thus, instead of describing a fossil as a 'new species' to fuel the propaganda of evolutionists the sciences of genetics, zoology, biology and other sciences show a species can actually exist in many, many different forms. And has often done so. Mendel showed why. A species remains always the same species. According to the same laws.

Of course a species can and often does change its form in response to changing environments. It can adapt, morphologically. It can even exist in many varieties. But if those environments are themselves changed the species can respond to those changes. By ways that are completely understood. Yet it always remains the same species.

Darwin did not even know what 'species' are. If you read the 'Origin of Species' he says that nobody should try to define what they actually are ! So his subjective opinions were made to 'prove' anything he liked about species and their supposed history. His ignorance of genetics was, of course, the reason.

The idea that 'mutations' are the mechanism of the supposed 'evolution' of new species from existing species is really nonsense. Mutations (even those which are inherited) can certainly cause changes in a species or in a population but these mutations are caused by errors in the transmission of genetic information within a species and are inevitably reversed by further breeding with unaffected populations. The results of mutations may be reversed. Even by nature itself. But they are never, ever, vehicles for permanent change.

This is all bad news for 'evolutionists'. In short, there is no evidence of 'evolution' from mutation (and certainly none for 'evolution of new species by incremental mutations) but only of the permanence of species and of their ability to adapt to changing environments.

Even the article on Mendel found on Wikipedia says -

'Mendel's conclusions were largely ignored'

In saying, 'Welcome to reality' I am of course saying the laws of heredity are the real knockout blow for evolution theory. From science itself. In the same way the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun (rather than vice versa) was a knockout blow to the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is real, true, that, in fact, species exist and are fundamentally permanent and unique living entities within nature. Obeying the laws which relate to themselves. The laws of heredity.

Have a nice weekend also !

Regards

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Robert,

thank you for taking time and explaining the issue in details!

For my 5 cents here:

Take just one example. In the Soviet Union evolution theory was dogmatically taught as 'fact' in countless universities and schools and Mendel's discoveries of the fundamental permanence of species were outlawed. A professor could lose his job if he taught them. The new science of genetics was laughed at but is now based on irrefutable, verifiable evidence.

I can second that. The portraits of Lysenko were a common thing in every agricultural institute or university in the USSR , together with those of Stalin and Darwin, btw.
Until the Stalin's death ( well, to be more precise on that - until Chruschev put an end to the cult of Stalin in 1956 ) genetics was vorbidden. A professor or lecturer who worked in this field could not just SIMPLY lose his job - he could very well CHANGE his occupation to another one , in one of the working camps commonly known as GULAG system.
Why am I so damned sure about it? My grandmother ( 1916 - 2004 ) was a Ph.D. for microbiology and had worked in a closed military institute for vaccines after WWII. No , she personally was not imprisoned. But some of the family friends and her colleagues actually were. My mother still remembers the names of these people.

Ok, it was a rather sad note. Have a great weekend, guys!

Regards
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Corno:

concerning the global warming thing, i took some time lately to gather all sorts of documents on the thread reserved for this topic. i don't have much time now but i hope i will later. i hope you take everything people can bring in consideration. i'm CERTAIN i do not have the amount of "information" you have. but once more, we often choose to read or listen to what we decided was the right thing to read or listen. that's why i picked info on various internet pages (of various reliability, of course), to try to be as inpartial as possible, and learn things. i can't allow myself to say "i'm right, you're wrong", since it's not the point. and we do share this way of seeing things, don't we?

robert:

what allows you to affirm that man cannot influence cycles of nature in a definitive way?

Sunwaiter,

I just saw your question (above) so apologies for the lateness of the answer.

You ask what allows me to affirm that man cannot influence cycles of nature in a definitive way.

Well, multiple evidences say so. But let's first define our terms.

a. What do you mean by 'influence' ?

b. What do you mean by 'in a definitive way' ?

It's obvious that man CAN influence nature. He can take advantage of nature and of course he does so. Every natural cause has an effect, sure. But man is not greater than nature and it's absurd to suppose he can alter the forces of nature themselves. Common sense (and observation) says man loses every time he tries to make war with nature and every time he fights against nature. The forces of nature are stronger than anything man can devise. We are simply not able to win against them. The best we can do is to be good stewards of nature. Not its perverters.

b. Man cannot alter the fundamental cycles of nature. No matter how much he may try. The seasons, for example. These are fundamental to the existence of the world we live in. Crazy scientists and polluters may temporarily wreck the effects of the seasons but they (the seasons) will always, inevitably, reassert themselves. Even if, sometimes, their reassertion is violent. For example, man can pollute the atmosphere and chop down all the trees. But the effects of doing so would cause nature to reply, to re-assert itself.

Nature is more reliable than wayward mankind.

Mankind is the steward of nature. Not its lord. And science, real science, learns from nature.

Do you suggest man can permanently change the seasons ? I do not believe it. There is no evidence for it. So, no, he cannot 'definitively' change the seasons. They are here for as long as mankind is here.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

thank you Robert! i'm back in the shack.

you spared me some reading i guess. but anyway i had understood these arguments before (earlier in this thread, maybe, i dont know anymore).

"Of course a species can and often does change its form in response to changing environments. It can adapt, morphologically. It can even exist in many varieties. But if those environments are themselves changed the species can respond to those changes. By ways that are completely understood. Yet it always remains the same species".

i guess we agree on that, because "evolution" as i was more or less told (no one did any sort of "evolutionist propaganda" in the schools i frequented), to me, has never precisely meant that i was the super-grand-son of a fish. certainly because when "evolution" was evoked, it was mainly to talk about the "homo" family, man and his ancestors (you know, the famous poster that displays a certain number of variably hairy individuals, the far-left one almost creeping, and the far-right one walking straight). i suppose that you agree to say that we humans are of the same family that contains great apes (if you do, i won't consider you as an obtuse creationist at all (and i already don't, because you're well informed). on the other hand, i think the theory that says life was first born in water doesn't sound more far-fetched than the other that implies that animal species came out of "we don't know where". both sides are trying to dig more, i hope. and here is what i've always been about: i never said Darwin and his theories were to followed as holy book, but i hardly can believe we came out of nowhere, even if at the start we looked a little different, with shorter necks and foreheads for instance. no matter haw far-fetched our reflections are, and how many mistakes we make in our judgments, measures, and deductions, we just can't be satisfied, saying that species were simply made by intelligent design. intelligent design sounds to me as hard to believe as darwin's theory can be to intelligent design partisans.

about the bonobos: http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html

to me the difficulty to accept THIS view or THAT view could be due to the kind of vertigo provoked by the blanks that are to be filled. evolution theory has been described as fanciful, and intelligent design (some people say it's not exactly creationism) sounds as fanciful to others.


"Man cannot alter the fundamental cycles of nature. No matter how much he may try. The seasons, for example. These are fundamental to the existence of the world we live in. Crazy scientists and polluters may temporarily wreck the effects of the seasons but they (the seasons) will always, inevitably, reassert themselves. Even if, sometimes, their reassertion is violent. For example, man can pollute the atmosphere and chop down all the trees. But the effects of doing so would cause nature to reply, to re-assert itself."

is there any evidence to prove this? can we read the future? here again i believe precaution (even in error) is better than some faith in nature.

"Mankind is the steward of nature. Not its lord. And science, real science, learns from nature"

you sure know the story about the slave and his master... but i agree with you, science learns from nature. and i believe lamarck, darwin, mendel, whoever, have all tried to watch nature as hard as they could.

as for the "laws of heredity", i'm still not convinced they are a "knockout blow" for evolution theory. but maybe i'm not informed enough yet. so i'll keep on looking good documentation.


now: this has nothing to do with the above. maybe your mentioning russia has inspired me to listen to this:
http://www.deezer.com/track/1233202

thank you again! see you.