The Evolution Myth

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
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
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.
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 

sunwaiter

New member
"There are countless examples of animal forms no longer with us."

do you mean species when you write animal forms?
 
"There are countless examples of animal forms no longer with us."

do you mean species when you write animal forms?


No, Sunwaiter, I mean there are countless examples of animal forms no longer with us. The dinosaurs are one example, yes ? So too the Dodo, etc, etc. Nobody disputes this.

Regards

Robert
 

sunwaiter

New member
"Can you name a species of, say, animal, fish or bird, which has become extinct ?

I know this question may sound naiive but I'd certainly appreciate an answer, since you clearly believe many species are today extinct. But I believe otherwise. The same species we see today in nature have existed since the time when the very first fossils were formed. Or, at least, I believe the evidence strongly indicates so."

quoting one of the page i did posted earlier, in the hope they would be read:

"the thylacine is the only species of the marsupial family thylacinidae to have existed within historical times."

"It was the last extant member of its genus, Thylacinus, although several related species have been found in the fossil record dating back to the early Miocene."
 

sunwaiter

New member
wow, it's late...

i want to share these with you:

donnie darko original soundtrack: cellar door - Michael Andrews
http://www.deezer.com/track/54527

variations on the canon in D major by johann Pachelbel - Brian Eno
http://www.deezer.com/track/150307

angel of water (from illuminations) - santana and co
http://www.deezer.com/track/63349

agnus dei by william byrd - quire of voyces
http://www.deezer.com/track/1487038

peace, good night or day. i'm going to bed. well, i'm already sitting on it... see you.
 

jhnbrbr

New member
I just came back to see what happened to the passenger pigeon i released into this debating chamber! This has proved to be a fascinating discussion, and I greatly admire the open-mindedness of Sunwaiter, and the gentlemanly behaviour of all involved, but for myself I remain inclined towards the evolutionary view because to me it seems plausible, even if there are gaps in understanding the mechanism in detail, and also because there is a certain elegance and economy about it, it reflects the way nature is ruthless, amazingly wasteful, forever changing; whereas the creationist viewpoint advance by Robert and Andrew is, I think, the fruit of a religious mind-set which values permanence more than change. Their view has at least four assertions ...

(i) there's no such thing as evolution
(ii) there have always been a fixed number of permanent species during the history of the earth
(iii) any mutation must inevitably be for the worse
(iv) there's no such thing as extinction of a species

I sincerely believe all four of these may be wrong, but (iv) is surely the most demonstrably wrong of the lot! Faced with with all the perils and incertainties of life, why on earth shouldn't species become extinct? The only way to prevent it would be to have some sort of continuous divine intervention. The passenger pigeon is a good test case, because, unlike the Dodo, it became extinct quite recently (almost in living memory), and as well as the famous stuffed specimen, photographs also exist. I can't believe that 19th century observers were total fools - they were in no doubt that it was a separate species. It used to exist in vast numbers and now it is nowhere to be seen. This seems to me to be a clear case of a species becoming extinct! The counter argument is really based on an extraordinary sequence of logic

- we do not believe in extinction of species
- the passenger pigon is extinct
- therefore the passenger pigeon was not a species

and likewise for the Dodo, the Mammoth, and so on. The jury will take some convincing on this one ....
 
I just came back to see what happened to the passenger pigeon i released into this debating chamber! This has proved to be a fascinating discussion, and I greatly admire the open-mindedness of Sunwaiter, and the gentlemanly behaviour of all involved, but for myself I remain inclined towards the evolutionary view because to me it seems plausible, even if there are gaps in understanding the mechanism in detail, and also because there is a certain elegance and economy about it, it reflects the way nature is ruthless, amazingly wasteful, forever changing; whereas the creationist viewpoint advance by Robert and Andrew is, I think, the fruit of a religious mind-set which values permanence more than change. Their view has at least four assertions ...

(i) there's no such thing as evolution
(ii) there have always been a fixed number of permanent species during the history of the earth
(iii) any mutation must inevitably be for the worse
(iv) there's no such thing as extinction of a species

I sincerely believe all four of these may be wrong, but (iv) is surely the most demonstrably wrong of the lot! Faced with with all the perils and incertainties of life, why on earth shouldn't species become extinct? The only way to prevent it would be to have some sort of continuous divine intervention. The passenger pigeon is a good test case, because, unlike the Dodo, it became extinct quite recently (almost in living memory), and as well as the famous stuffed specimen, photographs also exist. I can't believe that 19th century observers were total fools - they were in no doubt that it was a separate species. It used to exist in vast numbers and now it is nowhere to be seen. This seems to me to be a clear case of a species becoming extinct! The counter argument is really based on an extraordinary sequence of logic

- we do not believe in extinction of species
- the passenger pigon is extinct
- therefore the passenger pigeon was not a species

and likewise for the Dodo, the Mammoth, and so on. The jury will take some convincing on this one ....


Thanks for your post Jhnbrbr,

I'd like to repeat (just in case you haven't read it already) that nobody here is trying to 'prove' creation has happened. I, Andrew and others here have said repeatedly that creation is of course an act of faith. May I repeat this once again ? Our argument is quite different. We are saying the pagan myth of organic evolution is a persistent error of our civilization and that the falsely named 'evolution science' is today so riddled with contradictions, paradoxes, huge gaps in its rhetoric and downright errors (these at odds with the discoveries of science itself) that it should no longer be taught in our schools and colleges. A fair and honest appraisal of the subject by anyone would conclude that Darwinism and 'evolution' as a whole is a baseless invention and a completely false dogma of philosophy. Having eliminated this error we would be left with no alternative but to accept that life is truly miraculous and that the history of living things is NOT the result of fortuitous accidents, but is the result of Order, this reflected in all we know of it.

My second point is this. Darwin himself believed life here on Earth had been divinely created. You can read this for yourself in the final pages of his 'Origin of Species'. He wrote -

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

(Charles Darwin - 'Origin of Species')

And there are today even those who call themselves 'creationists' who believe in evolution.

Since all of the above are true it's clear that I am not trying to 'prove' creation. That would be scientifically impossible. But the confusion and misunderstanding on this subject is largely due to falsehoods being taught as science. Chief of which is the so-called 'theory of evolution' itself. In almost every single respect.

Evolution, you see, is really NOT a theory. It's a paradigm, a view of living things and their history born of a dogmatic philosophy. 'Evolution', they say, MUST have happened. Therefore we, as 'evolutionists' will win brownie points to show that a mechanism for species evolution exists. Such is their argument and it is of course entirely circular. The neutral reader can judge from themselves whether evolution 'theory' is true. And that's just fine. But the facts of science and the discoveries of scientists are clear enough and they are here under discussion.

You list 4 assertions -

(i) there's no such thing as evolution
(ii) there have always been a fixed number of permanent species during the history of the earth
(iii) any mutation must inevitably be for the worse
(iv) there's no such thing as extinction of a species

Thanks for doing this. Yes, they are a fair reflection of what is being said, except for the first. Perhaps you can change the first one to say there is no such thing as the evolution of species. But that species can and do change their forms and may simultaneously exist in countless varieties is, of course indisputably true. Nobody doubts this and this has been known for thousands of years. But there is no such thing as the 'evolution of new species' and no species has evolved from any other. For the evolutionist still cannot tell us about this alleged process of 'evolution'. He simply insists there is one. And thus they go round and round in circles without ever giving us the grounds on which they believe in it. Nor has any evolutionist managed to produce survivable evidence that 'evolution' has even happened. In short, the dogmatism comes not from the critics of evolution theory but from evolutionists themselves.

Anyway,

Yes, I maintain (and the facts support it very well) that the number of species in the world is really the same today as when the first fossils were formed. I also believe the number of chemical elements we see today in nature is the same as it has always been in nature. So you see that here too in the Periodic Table of the elements is a fixed system of order with countless examples of variety of forms. On which the science of Chemistry is based. The same is true of biology.

To suggest there is a mythical system occuring in nature called 'evolution' requires us to believe in a force acting in nature for which there is not an actual shred of evidence. After 150 years of Darwinism nobody can tell us what this force is, nor even how it supposedly operates. For, at the present time, they say it operates through mutations - rare events which are, without exception, deleterious on species and which even nature reverses. The verdict of science on 'evolution theory' is loud and clear. It's nonsense. And it was nonsense even in the 19th century. Blown to pieces by the discoveries of the Laws of Heredity, by genetics, by close study of the fossil record and of living nature.

So, yes, nature consists of fixed and permanent species in this world, these interacting in wonderful ways with each other in a marvellous and orderly system of nature and being, to some extent, dependent on one another. The evidence for which is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone who looks at it. The evidence new chemical elements are being 'evolved' and made 'extinct' simply does not exist. Nor is there evidence that phenomenally complex living beings, species, are continually evolving and being made extinct.

3. Yes, mutation is disadvantageous to organisms, to species. Any error in the transmission of genetic information is, obviously, disadvantageous. It is almost ridiculous to argue otherwise. For the 'message' being transmitted is amazingly complex and we have no evidence from science of any 'advantageous' mutation. The entire evidence suggests otherwise. Furthermore, we have plain evidence of a system existing in nature to reverse mutations ('reverse mutation'). So, even this desperate idea is reduced to shreds. 'Evolution theory' is false. Neither living nature nor the fossil record supports the dogmas of evolution theory. There is NO mechanism of evolution. It doesn't exist. It has never existed.

4. Yes, there is no such thing as the extinction of species. What DOES occur, from time to time, however, is the extinction of certain populations of these species. Of certain varieties or forms. But not of the species itself. This too is very simple to understand and even an 'evolutionist' can do so. The species belongs to a genus. The genus itself is phenomenal. It consists of member species who interact with others of its own kind (i.e. of its own genus).

So, in answer to your point, yes, the evidence indicates nature has today the same species as it has always had since life appeared here on Earth. These now living in countless local and regional forms. But no species has been made extinct and no 'new' species are being formed. And, yes, the evolutionist once again flounders (as we have already seen) to define what 'species' actually are. We should move him, his furniture, and his lecture notes to the Philosophy Department and let scientists get on with the realities of nature.


Regards
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
i have tried my best to put my modest input in this thread (eg my latest posts), but you are right, it is completely useless. i quit, since nothing seems to be receivable for you. i thank you for the time you took, and for what i have learned.

i want to make my last post on this thread a musical one:

eric clapton and consorts
http://www.deezer.com/track/2185664
 
Thanks Sunwaiter,

We are still waiting for you to suggest a way in which new species evolve. A mechanism.

Both our inputs on this thread have been modest and nobody is being dogmatic. But the fact is neither you nor evolutionists can give us an answer on the actual issue. We also asked for evidence of the genome being able to receive more information by 'evolution'. Once again we've not had any answer from you. And yet you say there are 3 different examples of this. What sort of argument is that if you can't produce a shred of evidence in support of it ?

Shall we agree that evolution theory is really not a theory at all ? It's increasingly obvious that it's a dogmatic philosophical paradigm. It lacks any evidence. In fact the available evidence is overwhelming in support of the fact that laws exist in nature which explain the heredity of all species and their ability to survive generation after generation in various forms. All of this without the 'evolution' of new species.

Regards

Robert
 

sunwaiter

New member
ok, here we go. i don't even know why i'm answering right now, since you don't even read all my posts. but for politeness' sake... i did not say i knew three different examples of getting more information, but, i've tried to satisfy my curiosity:

"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."

and one of the always refused examples of beneficial mutation, when shown to any id/creationist/whatever:

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/3/1113.abstract?sid=543ef565-baa2-4d0b-a4f4-fb5756f07b1a

PNAS publishes peer-reviewed articles. in case Corno passes by. i know, creationists got their own peer-reviewed press. so why keeping on digging?...

each time i'm ignored i tend to feel a little tense, you know what i mean. now whenever i feel this way, i know the best way to chill out is to laugh a bit. i know the folowing is not serious, but i found it quite funny:


"APATOSAURUS
(uh-pa-tuh-sawr'-uhs)The Apatosaurus is a member of the giant, plant-eating dinosaurs. It may still be better known by the misguided name Brontosaurus. Apatosaurus and other giants such as Diploducus and Brachiosaurus roamed the swamps of the western United States in a bygone era. Weighing up to 32 metric tons (35 U.S. tons), it is likely the creature described by Job (the oldest book in the Bible) to be the largest animal of all--"Behemoth". Not only is there good historical evidence that these dinosaurs have co-existed with man (see the Exhibit Hall), but stories from Africa suggest that some of these famous creatures still survive in remote areas!"

the behemoth must be a camouflage genius!

the site where i found this and other gems:
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/park/park.htm

i never was obtuse, or unable to share. but now, i can't see the use of trying talking to a wall. but you still have my sincere gratitude, because now i feel a little bit less ignorant. i really mean it.

as usual, some music for you all:
http://www.deezer.com/track/912363
 

sunwaiter

New member
and you can have the last word, since you created this thread.

after all it is called "the evolution myth".
 
Sunwaiter,

Thank you for your contribution. In reply -

The bankruptcy of evolution theory and of pro-evolutionary propagandists is today more widely known than ever before. The evidence of such bankruptcy is today available to anyone genuinely interested in the discoveries of genetics, biology, zoology, botany, and fossil studies (palaeontology). It (the falsely named 'theory of evolution') has dominated schools and colleges for well over a century but it's been found to be lacking in evidence. Its dogmas, its suppositions, are (and always have been) the product of men amazingly ignorant of nature and are contrary to the laws of genetics and the facts of heredity. The theory of evolution is simply not supported by the facts of fossil research. Nor by zoology, biology, botany, insectology or by genetics. The theory of evolution is, in truth, fraudulent and I advise you not to waste your time in such baseless and overwhelmingly false speculations.

Its bankruptcy has even influenced your own impartial words even on this thread.

Let me give a few examples of its impact on your thinking from your last post. I asked (several times) that you please show a mechanism for the supposed 'evolution of species'. But even here there's no real answer. The best you can offer is as follows -

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.)

So 'accidental' mutations are all you can offer as the start of a mechanism for the 'evolution of new species'? Accidental mutations which just happen to have 'favourable' outcomes ? Is that it ?

The truth is the laws of nature don't support evolution theory. But, evolutionists, desperate to find the elusive and mythical mechanism of species 'evolution' which nobody has ever proved actually exists are forced to appeal to mutations. As already said mutations are not beneficial to species and there is not a single evidence to say they may be. Not only so, but mutations may be reversed within the gene pool by the real and natural process of 'reversed mutation'.

Isn't it time to admit this industry of philosophy has run out of steam ?

But you end with -

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

In reply, yes. No new and advantageous genetic information is produced and inherited by mutations. So says over a century and more of evidence.

Best wishes. I hope you continue to exercise your impartiality.

Robert
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
Dear Sunwaiter,

I am really - without kidding - sorry if you feel that your posts are ignored, or smth. like that. Well, what can I say from my end - since yesterday I have my Christmas and New Year vacations over , I have to give as much as 30-35 hours of piano lessons per week, so it is only explainable that I can only follow the discussion, at best, and can not write the long and detailed posts as a week ago.

Still to some of your points - without quotations, but i hope you will know what I mean -

1. Your comment on episode how Dawkins was unable to give an answer to a question concerning a mechanism of the beneficiary mutations ( which bring the new information to genome ).

I don't think that Dawkins, a Prof. of biology, can be an amateur in his own field. I think rather that he, as an atheist, must defend an actually hopeless position, and was brought in a situation in which a direct answer was impossible for him. NOTE: Dawkins was asked about actually a grand mechanism of an evolution. Even if we suppose he is "not so good " as a biologist, the situation is still VERY strange. Imagine a teacher of physics who can not give an example of how the gravitation works.

2. Your link to an abstract of the article, describing an evolution of E.Coli :
first, it is of course a very special stuff, and I don't see a conclusion there - which evolution is meant there ? Does E.Coli evolves to smth. new? I have definitely read , and many times, that the fossils of bacteria found are pretty similar to the modern bacteria. Here a bit more on the subject:

Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."

3. generally on mutations -

Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

You have posted a scheme of a beneficiary mutation - I simply raise my both hands up here as this looks like a pretty special case for me and I am not an expert so far. I can't say whether it can work like that on practice or not; one thing which I know for sure is that the qualitatively new positive information can not arise without the participation of intellect - theory of information formulated in 50es by Shannon.

4. In summa -

the dispute about the ET will be almost always seen as the clash of the religion vs. atheism. It is true, but it is only partly true, because the existance of God can never be refuted/proved by any material science. It is logically impossible. Which means , in this case, if the ET finally collapses one day, its bankrupcy will not be identical to the "scientific" proof of God's existance. No. It will only mean that more facts described in the Old Testament have the real scientific basis.
In contrary, in case if ET will be ( miraculously ) proved to be right one day, it will not mean that "there is no God", as atheists like Dawkins claim ( or write on the buses in London ). It will only pose a question mark over the certain passages in the Old Testament, no more and no less.
Thus, the "ET case" does not necessary have a religious context. There are religious people who think God has created life on the way of evolution. There are atheist scientists who say the ET is wrong.

ET is simply a wrong theory, which is being still taught in schools and supported by propagandist methods, that's it.

Hope I have answered some questions, and hope to see you as soon as this weekend again,

Regards
Andrew

 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

I don't understand how you can say that you feel as if you were talking to a wall with Mr. Robert Newman. He is a consummate gentleman who has very patiently and methodically shared info that many never receive the benefit of. They are given no counterweight to the prevailing orthodoxy of evolution theory. Yet you still express sincere gratitude towards him.

And then you decide to smoothly share that creationists have their own peer-reviewed press. Evolutionists have also been feeding from the same trough of *their own peer-reviewed press*. As I am in Astrophysics, *The Astrophysical Journal* published by the University of Chicago is hardly a creationist press item, nor is the *Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy*. So please exercise just a little academic honesty before you imply things that you cannot defend from a scholarly point of view.

Best regards,

Corno Dolce :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:
 

jhnbrbr

New member
Shame on you Corno! Please stop picking on Sunwaiter! He has attempted something quite rare - to impartially review the evidence on both sides of the argument before taking sides! He does not deserve to be criticised or patronised - and why should the expression "peer-reviewed" be taken as an insult anyway? Sunwaiter is willing to concede that there might be points in favour of both sides of the argument - Mr Robert Newman "knows" that he is right. So who is the wiser ...?
 
Top