The Evolution Myth

[sunwaiter]

why not the complete page:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html

no speculation in here.

[Robert Newman]

Its obviously impressed you Sunwaiter !

But you must ask yourself the simple question - is reality something that you want to know ? The reality is that Darwin knew less of species than the average high school biology student of today. He provided no mechanism for generating 'new species'. He knew nothing of heredity. He could not and would not define what species actually are. His 'Origin of Species' is really completely irrelevant and has been debunked by modern science. Over, and over and over again. No matter how hard it's still being pushed by ignorant teachers.

All the facts are on the other side. Evolution is failed pagan philosophy and its exponents have brought nothing, nothing at all, of benefit to mankind. Those are truths verified by its own sordid history.


Regards

[sunwaiter]

i don't try to get informed to be impressed. i don't look for spectacular or charming theories. i just try to display what i find about facts. i got the sentiment that you were fond of facts. i wrote earlier that Mendel (among other people, for sure), is not an enemy, as a researcher and man of science, of Darwin. first, darwin didn't have to know everything, because he was a naturalist, who worked hard on a certain topic because he wanted to know how life works. just like Mendel, and all the others. it's not a war of knowledge, it's about what we can all learn. everybody has agreed that he brought new things that permitted to establish the two fundamental laws of heredity. and it's great, because he made science go forward. but that doesn't mean that for instance long term mutation theory has to be cancelled.

i still don't know what you think about those cute little voles, and the little k.miller video. maybe you can show me why these examples are not relevant, or factual.

[greatcyber]

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/ww...ges/Stages.htm

Isn't that a tail?

[sunwaiter]

ahah thank you i almost believed it was a chimp. but i guess this won't constitute an interesting document for Robert. anyway i hope we will find other ways of discussing the topic.

i may be an atheist, but if there is a god, it is true that what he has accomplished is wonderful.

[Robert Newman]

i don't try to get informed to be impressed. i don't look for spectacular or charming theories. i just try to display what i find about facts. i got the sentiment that you were fond of facts. i wrote earlier that Mendel (among other people, for sure), is not an enemy, as a researcher and man of science, of Darwin. first, darwin didn't have to know everything, because he was a naturalist, who worked hard on a certain topic because he wanted to know how life works. just like Mendel, and all the others. it's not a war of knowledge, it's about what we can all learn. everybody has agreed that he brought new things that permitted to establish the two fundamental laws of heredity. and it's great, because he made science go forward. but that doesn't mean that for instance long term mutation theory has to be cancelled.

i still don't know what you think about those cute little voles, and the little k.miller video. maybe you can show me why these examples are not relevant, or factual.

Hi there Sunwaiter,

You are completely free to believe anything you like. You can believe life somehow came in to existence from stones, from river mud, from comets that struck the Earth, or anything you like. I would defend your right to believe all these things though I strongly disagree with all of them. You see, the simple fact is 'evolution theory' is being taught globally as if it merits being believed by innocent students when, in actual fact, it's contradicted at each and every step of the road by the actual discoveries of dozens of sciences. Is it just a coincidence Richard Dawkins, celebrated teacher of Darwinism, is today financially underpinning an atheist campaign here in the UK ? It's laughable. The emperor has no clothes. And the gullible lap it up. All I can say is that every civilization has its body of myths. So much so that civilizations are often defined by those myths. One of them is the old pagan nonsense of life 'evolving' from inanimate matter. Made even more laughable by pretending the fossil record and living nature supports this fiction. It does not. It never has. And it never will.

The scientific alternative to the 'evolution of new species' is the permanence of species. That's as simple an alternative as you can possibly get. Isn't it ?

But no, I'm not upset if somebody shrugs their shoulders to please their professors, or if they believe any sort of humbug. Again, we are free to believe as we please. I just hope the day finally arrives when this philosophical nonsense is finally outlawed from real centres of study having deluded people for far too long. It has nothing to support it from the entire history of science.

If there is a future to academic studies it is one where honesty and academic integrity come first of all.

Best regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

i understand that it could be an alternative, so why refusing any other? i still don't think what i've seen, read and heard until now, from both views, has put an end to the reflection. i never thought permanence of species was less credible than any other kind of life's organisation. but what i've found in my very modest researchs about fossils doesn't sound like a lie. the video i sent you seemed quite honest to me. and you sure understood why i quoted its author, when he mentioned God (in the flagellum article). i was not doing bad humour when i said that if there is a god, what he has accomplished is wonderful. well, let's leave this aside, because i'm not talking facts here. but you get the idea. you did not show me, if that ever was your intent, why long term mutation was not to be considered as a theory to be studied.

and you did not tell me what you think of these cute little voles.

[sunwaiter]

well, for now i'm going to eat a chicken legs and rice of average quality, and then go to sleep. so, see you very soon, and don't forget i will also defend any other belief, as long as modesty, curiosity and openness rule the game.

wow i'm exhausted. but i'm happy my english is getting better, i believe.

have a nice evening Robert, and anybody reading this.

[Robert Newman]

The reason we refuse alternatives is rather simple. The alternatives fail to provide any support. The 'evidence' in favour of evolution theory is and always has been highly subjective. In fairness, such a dogma should not be taught when, in fact, its critics have literally masses of contrary evidence from all the historical sciences. In a fair and open debate on the actual evidence from nature there is one and only one winner. And it's not evolution theory.

Enjoy your meal Sunwaiter ! Yes, your English is good.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hello Robert. thank you for your last post.

i don't think it's about losing or winning. you did not tell me why long term mutation cannot be considered as a valid theory, and i still don't know what you think of those cute little voles. it seems we're going in circles here. but i thank you for all that you have shared.

some music for you and whoever wants to hear it:

venus, the bringer of peace -gustav holst (wiener philarmo****r)
http://www.deezer.com/track/140609

the earl of derby, his galliard - john dowland (from an album by former Focus' guitarist jan akkerman)
http://www.deezer.com/track/737538

valley of the shadows - bob james
http://www.deezer.com/track/17159

[Andrew Roussak]

I can tell you very simply why the Bible is not an authority on scientific matters -scientific truth is expressed in the language of mathematics while the Bible is largely narrative. I don't have the exact quote to hand but I think Lord Kelvin said somthing along the lines of "If my knowledge of something cannot be expressed in numbers, that knowledge is of a very superficial kind." Now, I suggest you would have to read the Bible for a very long time before you discovered the inverse square law of gravitation!

Sorry I can not actively take part presently as I have 38C, coughing, headache etc. - a wonderful start for a new year! Well, but I can second Robert on that, at least -

First, any textbook on history is the same narrative.

Furthermore, the Bible was definitely written in a way that the vast layers of people - from a shepherd to a professor - could get the message. Do you think that Moses would sound more convincing if he taught that "God had created the matter using a method which will be in 6 thousand years from us described as a Big Bang"? How could one even formulate such terms as thermonuclear reactions or DNA in old Herbrew? Who could understand them ? Seen like that, a simple statement ( God has created Earth, life... ) would definitely do better. The main thing was, the Book had to survive unchanged through thousands of years. It did.

And, the Bible had delivered to us huge amounts of historical facts which were up to 19C thought to be a fairy tale, and now they are proven to be true - only think of all those sites and ancient kingdoms in the Middle East ( I refer to the post of Robert, and you know that the list is actually pretty long ). The Bible gave the archeologists a hint, where to search for them.

The same goes for the New Testament - Pontius Pilatus, king Herod, Peter, Paul are known and proven to be historical figures, they were mentioned in Roman Chronicles etc . , that is, in various "independent" sources. All the sites mentioned in the New Testament are undoubtedly historical. The historical reliability of Jesus as a real person is not being discussed anymore as well - no more than that of Aristhoteles or Sokrates.

Ok, was kinda too much for me now - off to a bed!
Keep yourself fit!

Andrew

[Robert Newman]

hello Robert. thank you for your last post.

i don't think it's about losing or winning. you did not tell me why long term mutation cannot be considered as a valid theory, and i still don't know what you think of those cute little voles. it seems we're going in circles here. but i thank you for all that you have shared.

some music for you and whoever wants to hear it:

venus, the bringer of peace -gustav holst (wiener philarmo****r)
http://www.deezer.com/track/140609

the earl of derby, his galliard - john dowland (from an album by former Focus' guitarist jan akkerman)
http://www.deezer.com/track/737538

valley of the shadows - bob james
http://www.deezer.com/track/17159

Hi there Sunwaiter !

Thanks again.

You ask why 'long term mutation' is not a valid theory. Perhaps you think I am avoiding giving you an answer. ? No, I'm not.

Let's start at the beginning. If I repeat myself, apologies. I don't mean to 'lecture' you. But I want to clarify my position.

Let's start with the fact that, almost always, the laws of inheritance explain the offspring and history of living things. As everyone realises. Perhaps you too agree ?

Let's add another fact. Charles Darwin did not know anything about the laws of heredity. He knew nothing, nothing at all, about mutations, as you yourself will readily agree. Thirdly, we know today that mutations are really nothing more than genetic errors. That is, they are errors in the transmission of genetic information.

Now, imagine, in a wonderfully complex and highly orderly thing such as life there is an error or a series of errors in the transmission of such highly complex genetic information. Imagine, if you will, a part of these very complex genetic codes is, in some places, garbled or plain wrong. Imagine that mutation happens during the transmission of this complex genetic code. Well, such an event as mutation is fortunately (as everyone knows) extremely rare. But mutations do happen, once in a while. We know when mutations happen they always create bad ('deleterious') and chaotic results. So says more than a century of detailed study on mutations. There are no exceptions. For example, many inherited illnesses are entirely due to mutations which are inherited by offspring.

The error in transmission of huge amounts of data (such as DNA) can have major consequences. Illnesses such as sickle cell anemia are due to mutations. In fact, there's a long list of inheritable illnessses that are due to mutations. As everyone knows.

In the entire history of those studies nobody has ever, not even once, found a mutation which is actually beneficial to an organism. Not even once. As said, they are ALL bad news, without exception.

The evolutionist, already faced with the collapse of his theory by having no mechanism, is now faced with an impossible situation. He realises the laws of inheritance (of heredity) actually preserve the species down the ages. And this itself is not good news for evolutionists who need something to 'explain' what they believe are emerging 'new species'.

So what happens next ? Well, the evolutionist now grabs hold of the idea of mutations being sometimes beneficial. They say sometimes mutations may be inherited which are actually beneficial to species ! This is completely false and lacks a shred of evidence, but you can understand why evolutionists are forced to argue in this way. Mutations are now presented as being vehicles of 'evolution'. Incremental and sometimes beneficial changes are made by 'mutations' say these evolutionists. And these incremental and beneficial changes are inherited by others within the population. Thus (they say) 'evolution' occurs by small, incremental, inherited, mutations, which, although very rare, happen.

The first answer to this scenario is really simple. If some mutations are beneficial let us admit that the overwhelming majority are NOT beneficial. Yes ? If 'evolution' works by mutations then the world must be filled by mountains of mutated species whose mutations are NOT beneficial. But it's not.

If monkeys can eventually type the sonnets of Shakespeare after millions of failed attempts we should expect to see a universe filled with the paper from those failed typing attempts. But we don't. Similarly, if species 'evolve' by favourable mutations we should expect to see a universe filled with unfavourable mutations. Shouldn't we ? The failures should vastly overwhelm us, not successes. But we see no such thing. We see the opposite. For, as said, the stability of the species is phenomenally obvious. Mutations are as said very, very, rare. And they are NEVER beneficial. All of this is further bad news for evolutionists.

But let's continue further. Geneticists have discovered something very amazing. They have discovered that if a mutation is inherited by offspring nature itself can, eventually, get rid of the mutation itself ! This little researched process (which evolutionists are almost entirely ignorant about) even has a name - it's called 'reverse mutation'. And this process of 'reverse mutation' is truly amazing - it does exactly what its name suggests - it finally cancels out the harmful effects of inherited mutations. Nature does this ! So, once again, mutations are shown NOT to lead to any changes. In fact, mutations are inevitably and finally REVERSED, eliminated, from the population.

You ask whether a mutation can remain for a long period of time. Well, the answer is again simple. The answer is that the population will recover from the effects of an inherited mutation when they interact with other populations who are NOT affected by that mutation. That is, if they interact within the 'gene pool'. And, when this happens, the mutations will finally be reversed.

(It's one of the reasons why 'in-breeding' over long periods is not a good idea).

Finally, some populations are isolated from other populations of the same species on islands or other difficult locations. In such cases the mutational form, or the propensity to fall ill from these inherited illnesses remains real. But, once again, interaction with unaffected populations of the same species removes the problem.

The mechanisms of 'reversed mutation' are still little understood. But they are very real. We can and should learn from nature in dealing with all kinds of inherited (mutational) illnesses. 'Reverse mutation' is nature's own way of getting rid of mutations.

So, you see, mutations are not evidence of 'evolution'. They are in fact the very opposite. They are harmful, deleterious, and even nature can eliminate them in its own way. Further bad news for the myth makers of evolution theory. Such changes as we see in nature, amongst species, such as adaption, are entirely due to orderly processes and not due to mutations.

Regards

[Andrew Roussak]

hello Robert. thank you for your last post.

i don't think it's about losing or winning. you did not tell me why long term mutation cannot be considered as a valid theory, and i still don't know what you think of those cute little voles. it seems we're going in circles here. but i thank you for all that you have shared.

some music for you and whoever wants to hear it:

venus, the bringer of peace -gustav holst (wiener philarmo****r)
http://www.deezer.com/track/140609

the earl of derby, his galliard - john dowland (from an album by former Focus' guitarist jan akkerman)
http://www.deezer.com/track/737538

Hey, lots of congrats to your tastes, sunwaiter!

You may want to check out a version of Planets recorded by Isao Tomita, if you are interested early electronic and synth music.
There was a wonderful version of Dowland's songs made by Sting and Edin Karamazov!! Check out too - The Journey and The Labyrynth.

Btw. ( back to discussion ) - why can't you simply start from the beginning and dig for the information on Abiogenesis - the current state of affairs? Without the explanation of how life could arise from chemicals, the whole building of ET would simply fall.

[Robert Newman]

Very true Andrew !!!

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi again!

thank you Robert and Andrew.

Robert, what you tell me is interesting. i had never heard about reverse mutation (an i'm not even an "evolutionist"! ). although it sounds like it still has to be studied to be understood better, it is a really important aspect of population genetics. my family roots are in Reunion Island and as you may know already, this island is a volcanic one, so there is mainly mountains there. one of the plateaux in high altitude has for a long time been the scene of inbreedings, with all the very bad consequences indeed. people often threw rocks on the mormons for this but lots of populations over the world have had this problem, and still has. by the way, Darwin married a cousin of his, i guess that was a sort of custom in families of his kind (eeeeww). in the case of in-breedings it is clear and obvious that the population in question is going nowhere fast.

here is an intriguing animal. its mutation has not given him better chances for camouflage, but does not condemn it to die either. and it's not sick. its descendance has no problem. this kind of newness in the animal world should make us think, i believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_lion

a little algae that's quite resourceful:

"Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light."

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae.

Concerning another point, I trust that you will tell me what you think about those cute little voles. this animal is, i find, very interesting too, even if it may not be interesting enough for you.

Andrew:

thank you. i have the record by tomita already. and also the pictures at an exhibition. i used to hate synthesizers, moogs, etc, but today i can have much fun listening to such works, along klaus schulze, tangerine dream, walter/wendy carlos, etc... thank you for the journey and the labyrinth. i will check it out.

...soon out of work! yes i took time on my work to write to you, and all who'll read this. thank you again.

see you soon!