The Evolution Myth

[sunwaiter]

"Microevolution is of course a proven thing, and the general evolution is a pure abstraction" i quite agree.

one more excerpt from another book by Jean-Louis Serre; it's another genetics manual, a course book with exercises. JL Serre is a professor in the university where i work.

"i the beginning, with Gregor Mendel, en 1865 [...], the factors of which he had postulated the existence had an only theoric and abstract reality. they constituted a formalism allowing only to show the statistical modalities of hereditary transmission of morphological traits of the peas. it is by the way the ad hoc aspect of this formalism that was at the origin of the relative ignorance/misreading of Mendel's works."

so Mendel started out of pure abstraction and theory. his works made science go forward, as Darwin did in another way, and earlier. people who say that evolution theory is only a theory and therefore has no legitimacy behave just like those who chose to ignore Mendel's theory.

we have to leave room for any theory that makes some sense.

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, a confusion between words. So let's be as clear as possible on this issue.

Evolutionists are confused. A mutation is not an orderly phenomenon. It is an error in the transmission of genetic information which has deleterious effects on those which have them and even, often, on their offspring. The evidence overwhelmingly shows mutations confer no advantages on a creature or on its offspring - only disadvantages. Mutations are caused by such things as exposure to toxic environments, other hazards such as radiation, etc. etc. And many illnesses which are inherited are due to mutations.

Thus, mutations (as defined above) are the very opposite of supposed 'evolution'. They cause 'devolution' as is clearly shown in the evidence of their effects.

Furthermore, the deleterious effects of mutations are able to be neutralised by nature itself. By this process of 'reverse mutation' (as previously indicated). This too is clear evidence mutations are irrelevant in bringing any advantageous changes to a species. The only people who believe and teach the opposite are 'evolutionists' whose theory requires as a holy relic a mechanism for the supposed 'evolution' of new species.

You write -

'If, on a (long) period of time mutations occur, an animal can 'turn' dramatically, into another one, it seems'.

In reply, there is no evidence that if mutations occur over a long period of time that can 'turn' dramatically into another animal'. Where is your evidence ? What is the proof of this ? For, if mutations occur over a long period of time they would of course be more and more harmful to such a population and would eventually destroy the population. If a population was to live, for example, next to high radioactivity over generations it would suffer more and more from the radioactive contamination, yes ? But that source of hazard would not produce another creature. It would (instead) produce only more and more damage on that population. Isn't that obvious ?

So, where is evidence mutations over any period of time create entirely new animals from their ancestors ? It's this story we wish to see proved, one way or the other. It's surely clear that if a population is living in a hazardous environment it will suffer from that environment and will deteriorate. How on earth can this hostile (and mutation causing environment) create a new creature ? Such a thing would surely be 'devolution', the breakdown of the population. Common sense tells us so.

You also say -

'It has been observed that the in-breeding between two kinds of sunflowers identified as distinct species produced a descendance that couldn't breed with ancestral sunflowers, thus making a new species. This experience has even reproduced in a laboratory. i'll try to find some page about it. for now, as usual, i'm outta work! good night or day, take care'.

You are saying that new species of sunflowers have actually been created in laboratories, aren't you ? Because you are saying 'It has been observed'. These are your own words. So you believe this 'new' species has been created very quickly. It was created and seen by scientists. Isn't this what you are saying ?

You say this 'new' sunflower species was the result of 'in-breeding between two different species of sunflowers'. And you say this 'new' sunflower species couldn't breed with either of its ancestral species. Thus, you say, 'it's a new species'.

No, that's not correct. It's not correct for at least 4 different reasons.

1. What evidence do you have the two sunflower species were really different species in the beginning of the experiment and not simply two varieties of the very same species ?
(The history of 'evolution science' is filled with examples of different varieties of the same species being falsely described as 'different species' when, in fact, they later proved to be merely two different varieties of the same species).

Please therefore tell us the name of these two different species.

2. In my earlier letter here I described the fact that all species (including sunflowers) belong to a particular genus. Sunflowers belong to a genus also. But the genus to which sunflowers belong contains many species. Not just sunflowers. Within this genus there are therefore many species. And the ability/inability to cross between two species is restricted by the genus. In fact it is determined within the genus by the relative position of a particular species (in relation to all others). This is why some crosses between species of the same genus are possible, and others are not. It explains what are known as 'clines'. The most famous example of 'clines' being the various seagulls which interact with each other around the globe. Once again, determined within the single genus to which they all belong and their relative position which each occupies within it.

Again, a horse and a donkey are two different species though they belong to the very same genus. This is why they can cross. The result of their cross is what we call a mule. But the mule is not a new species. It's a product of that cross between two different species which belong to the very same genus. The outcome of such crosses is also predtermined by their respective positions within the genus. And such crosses are possible because these two different species are 'consonant' within the genus while other crosses within the genus are not consonant. Other species within the same genus cannot cross because they are not 'consonant' (as described in my earlier post). Please, therefore, tell us the scientific name of the two sunflower species which, you claim, have, merely by breeding, produced an entirely new species.

3. You are effectively saying two different species can produce a third and completely new species which is incompatible with either of its parents, aren't you ? But this claim is completely contrary to the Laws of Inheritance, isn't it ?

4. If 'new' species can be formed simply by crosses between two different existing species you are saying new species may be created all the time in nature. Aren't you ? And so quickly they have been seen by scientists in laboratories. Sorry, but this is wrong.

How does this equate with your idea that 'new' animals take a long period of time (with mutations) before they come in to existence ?

You seem to be arguing in two different directions at the same time.

I know in adavance your claim (sincerely made here) is wrong. But let's please see the actual and specific evidence.

As far as Darwin's theory it remains highly theoretical. But that of Mendel is a demonstrated fact. So much so that it is able to predict accurately. And Mendel's Laws are today beyond theory. They are a vindicated, proved and universally valid fact. So much so they are Laws. There is no higher vindication of a theory than it becoming a universally accepted law.

One example of the massive disavantages caused by mutations is sickle cell anemia -

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk

Can you show us even one mutation which has been proved to be beneficial to even a single species in the entire world ?


Best wishes

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

we have to leave room for any theory that makes some sense.

Hats off to your optimism and sense of humour, Sunwaiter!

The Earth is a big round plate which rests on the back of a giant turtle. This giant turtle stands on another one, which is bigger than the first one. This second giant turtle stands in turn on the third one, etc - so that , in fact, the Universe is filled with the giant turtles from bottom to the top!

What about such theory?

[sunwaiter]

i really think you're remembering only what you want to remember, and read what makes
your certainty even more certain by what yourselves call rethoric. it's a sort of... selection! i didn't practice any form of humor or any optimism. since it seems useless to try to concede things to make you take in consideration everything, i won't bother anymore... until the day my will and my...optimism come back. maybe tomorrow

i'm exhausted... my bed winks to me.

see you Robert, and Andrew, then.



ma

[Robert Newman]

Thank you Sunwaiter. I admire the fact that you are at least prepared to hear the opposite view, as I am from you.

Best wishes

RN

[sunwaiter]

"The Earth is a big round plate which rests on the back of a giant turtle. This giant turtle stands on another one, which is bigger than the first one. This second giant turtle stands in turn on the third one, etc - so that , in fact, the Universe is filled with the giant turtles from bottom to the top!

What about such theory?"
well, of course, we already mentioned this famous issue. and the fact is that when people first heard the "round earth" version, they did not even took it as a viable one, because people who said that were to be dying in flames, or something of that taste. it took some time for people and then even a longer time for the church) to accept the fact that the earth was round like a soccer ball.

now, in regards to the quotations i have made from people who are legitimate in their field and who represent quite well their colleagues all over my country and naturally way beyond, i guess you will say that all the students, hence all the biologists, doctors, all these people are tought lies, and do their work on erroneous basis.

if you do, without even questioning yourself, i will miss ammo, because there will never be enough. it feels like a blind chatting with a deaf. but again, there maybe a use in trying. here is what Andrew would call sarcastically "optimism".

[Robert Newman]

The most spectacular fiasco in the history of science, 'evolution theory'. Resulting in the dumbing down of students worldwide and yet presented to us in countless books, television programmes and in classrooms as if it is 'an established truth'. Consider the fruits of this deception -

Two examples of this falsehood -

1. The acknowledged fakery of Professor Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), early disciple and promoter of Darwin's theory in Germany, who was employed for almost half a century as Professor of Comparative Anatomy at the University of Jena and whose falsehoods on fossils and on the history of life were taught to generations of students. Who falsified and published over 100 images of embryos to 'prove' evolution theory. And whose images and influence was massive during the whole of his life.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=uk

2. Thielard de Chardin (1885-1955). Philosopher and Jesuit priest. Involved in the 'Piltdown Man' hoax and in other fossil hoaxes such as 'Peking Man' and a well known teacher of evolution theory.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=6&gl=uk

Countless other cases can be presented.

In the late 1950's here in London the BBC (after receiving countless protests from highly qualified scientists about biased broadcasting on this issue over decades) finally and reluctantly agreed to stage a much anticipated debate on evolution theory live on radio between evolutionists and non-evolutionists themselves - the first ever broadcast. It was cancelled minutes before it was aired. To this date and more than half a century later not a single programme (either on radio or television) has ever been made against Darwin's theory in the British media. Nor are there any plans to remove it from schools and colleges.

Frequent invitations have been made to leading teachers of evolution theory to debate this issue in a fair, open and public fashion here in London using only the discoveries of science. All were declined. And yet evolution theory continues to contaminate the education of biology students worldwide. Is that 'science' ?

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi again! nice sunny day in Versailles.


"As far as Darwin's theory it remains highly theoretical. But that of Mendel is a demonstrated fact. So much so that it is able to predict accurately. And Mendel's Laws are today beyond theory. They are a vindicated, proved and universally valid fact. So much so they are Laws. There is no higher vindication of a theory than it becoming a universally accepted law."

once again, because i can't help but keeping this in mind: "one of the urgent epistemological motives to teach is that in sciences there is no facts without theory around it" (quoting a document stemming from the CNRS, the national scientific research centre). Once Again, Mendel started out of theory. He could have been overlooked much longer, though it is obvious that the principles he described would have been known anyway. that's why i said that all theories that make some sense has to be considered and respected. and the evolution theory is as much respectable as the intelligent design theory can be.


concerning what is called microevolution: why a long... long... yes, long indeed, succession of microevoluiton would't be the evolution process itself?


"'It has been observed that the in-breeding between two kinds of sunflowers identified as distinct species produced a descendance that couldn't breed with ancestral sunflowers, thus making a new species. This experience has even reproduced in a laboratory. i'll try to find some page about it. for now, as usual, i'm outta work! good night or day, take care'.

You are saying that new species of sunflowers have actually been created in laboratories, aren't you ?"

No. if you read me again, i precise that it was reproduced in a laboratory, implying that it was not observed/see/watched/looked at in a laboratory the first time. i'm sorry if my translation failed to be accurate enough. (still practicing my english )

"You are effectively saying two different species can produce a third and completely new species which is incompatible with either of its parents, aren't you ? But this claim is completely contrary to the Laws of Inheritance, isn't it ? "

that's precisely the reason why i've mentioned this. it questioned me because it is obviously an exceptionnal thing. but once again: i did not find the proper document to provide a sharper description of the sunflower story. so i hope later i will.


"there is no evidence that if mutations occur over a long period of time that can 'turn' dramatically into another animal'. Where is your evidence ? What is the proof of this ?"

you may not take it as an evidence, and i understand why, but fossil animal discoveries are quite a good clue as for how animals "turned" into others, along the years. Andrew mentioned microevolution: why a long... long... yes, long indeed, succession of microevoluitons would't be the evolution process itself?

"You seem to be arguing in two different directions at the same time."

why not? i mean, i know this sounds fanciful to you, but actually what i'm trying to do is look for explanations. not as a scientist would do, of course; i don't have the time or the vocation. but you get the idea.

thank you for your answers, and for the time you take to provide them.

i will go on digging when i have the time.


some music:

music from reunion island artist Danyel Waro:
http://www.deezer.com/track/244616

original soundtrack to french animated feature "la planète sauvage", by A.Goraguer
http://www.deezer.com/track/15007

original soundtrack to "blade runner", by Vangelis Papathanassiou of course
http://www.deezer.com/track/908463

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

Having just posted here two examples of major frauds involved in teaching 'evolution' I can only hope the mass of factual evidence against it will one day convince you.

Andrew was very clear in saying that changes occurring within an organism do not produce any new creature. This is completely correct.

But please feel free, at any time, to produce evidence in favour of your arguments. As already requested.

Best regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

concerning what is called microevolution: why a long... long... yes, long indeed, succession of microevoluiton would't be the evolution process itself?

Well, Sunwaiter, it's a core of a matter. You can as well leave all other details and concentrate only on this one. All I ask you is to show how this mechanism can work, or how for example Darwin thought it could work.

Are you ready to go further in this direction? Just saying long...long...enough is too common. What could have actually happen in all these long years? What was the mechanism which transformed a fish to a frog?

[sunwaiter]

yes, that is the question, and that is what i'd like to be told, without avoiding any eventuality. not having an undoubtful evidence doesn't mean that we don't have the right to go on searching.

Robert: "Having just posted here two examples of major frauds involved in teaching 'evolution' I can only hope the mass of factual evidence against it will one day convince you."

that's the point: you sound convinced and satisfied, when it seems more discoveries can be made. and most of all, though you did not write it openly, you believe all the professional fields involved in biology, or related to it, are tought lies. i don't believe this.

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

You don't believe all the professional fields taught in biology or related to it, are taught lies ? Well, I've just given you two famous and indisputable examples of lies being taught on supposed 'evolution of species' for decades worldwide. Haven't I ? Shall I give you a dozen more ? And I've just explained these lies, these falsifications, are never publicly challenged or given a chance to be refuted, by plain evidence from science itself. How much more clear can it possibly be ?

You say you must go on searching. Fine. Let me share with you the fact that to enter a room or leave it you must go through the door. Search as much as you like. At the end of the day evolutionists must accept the facts of science and the track record of their own fables.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

"Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer and Dr. Morris pointed out that the theory of evolution, with its idea of "the survival of the fittest," was the viewpoint behind both Fascism and Communism. Darwin's ideas induced Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews in World War II. Darwin's theory was also the philosophy in back of Communism's slaughter of millions - including the killing fields of Cambodia and the genocide in Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union. Dr. Morris and Dr. Schaeffer pointed out that Darwin's theory is what produced the mindset that abortion is a woman's "choice." Forty-two million babies have been killed in America alone as a direct result of a belief in evolution."

if you support such assertions i will have to find even larger resources of patience and openness in this discussion. darwin->hitler, etc = shortcut.

about Haeckel's fakes:

"It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves."

Haeckel, and de Chardin were not worth the trust, that's the least we can say. and so what? did they represent the whole scientific community?

these exemples do not bring anything new from my point of view.

"Evolution is a lie, based on frauds and hoaxes. The Bible is the truth, sent from God. Believe the Bible and turn to Jesus Christ, and believe totally in Him. Jesus will save you from sin and from judgment. He died to pay for your sins. He arose physically from the dead. He ascended into the third Heaven, where He is seated on the right hand of God. Jesus will save you. Receive Him now! "

Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr. makes a generalization out of the examples of his choice, and he was obviously convinced of the existence of a intelligent designer way before he had to bring prooves.

personal note: no one will impose me any god /godess, unless one day i meet him/her.

my turn.
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

actually i don't like this kind of game, because the point is not to make a "fake count".
and i would add that it is really hard to be fair and sure of what we assert, since on both sides there are people who are not reliable.

as for messieurs Russell and Serre, i am truly confident in their knowledge, honesty and humility, since they keep up their research work.

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Sunwaiter,

yes, that is the question, and that is what i'd like to be told, without avoiding any eventuality. not having an undoubtful evidence doesn't mean that we don't have the right to go on searching.

if it was your answer, then sorry, I don't see what you mean.

I think this :

concerning what is called microevolution: why a long... long... yes, long indeed, succession of microevoluiton would't be the evolution process itself?

looks, at last, as a statement. Great, after this thread has got to the page 9,
I can finally see what your point is.

That is, you say - if microevolution is ok, then the same mechanism could work as general evolution given enough time - millions ( or more ) of years.
Is that your point?

If your answer is YES, then could you at least in general terms ( even leaving the heredity laws, genetics etc. alone ) , try to describe how do you see or understand the transformation "fish-amphibia" , for example? Too common answer ( like "you insert fish --- 10 mln. years --- you get frog" ) will not be enough.

You see I have stressed two questions here - so, I ask you to answer/ confirm the first one, and to give an answer / explanation to the second.

Regards,
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

Of course this discussion began with agreement that creation cannot be scientifically proved. Because creationism requires faith. All of us agreed about this. So why do you insist on describing it (creation) as a scientific alternative to evolution theory ? This is an error you are making.

The scientific alternative to evolution theory is a better scientific theory - for example, the theory of the permanence of all species. Since this is true is it possible, just possible, you will agree the permanence of species IS a rival theory to that of the supposed 'evolution of species' ? Will you therefore agree not to confuse these two rival theories by further reference to what are matters of faith, religion or irreligion ? The questions which must be answered of both theories are very simple. They are whether the theory of evolution is actually supported by evidence and whether it should still be taught in schools and colleges.

We have already explained the exponents of evolution theory have a long and grossly dishonest history of fakery and fabrication and show amazing ignorance of reality. Evidence of this dishonest record has been presented here and I'm glad you have added still more evidence of its dirty history in your own last post.

But we are still waiting for an answer to the question of the mechanism by which, under evolution theory, new creatures are supposedly formed ? And still we have no answer.

In the real world this is clear evidence that evolution theory is really a fantasy which has not a shred of support from any science.

Regards