The Evolution Myth

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
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
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

New member
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.
 
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

New member
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 philarmoniker)
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

New member
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:)
 
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 philarmoniker)
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
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
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 philarmoniker)
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.
 

sunwaiter

New member
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!​
 
Hi there Sunwaiter,

Yes, we see that the White Lion is white in colour because of a mutation. And we see in the same article that -

This coloration gives white lions a distinct disadvantage in nature because they are highly visible.

A clear example of the well known fact that all mutations (being errors in the transmission of genetic information), are not advantageous.

The same article says -

White lions remain rare in the wild and only occur when two lions carrying the mutant gene are mated together

Thanks for the article entitled -

"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."
Yes, yes ! But the author of that article has made a serious mistake. It's very clear that this organism benefits a great deal from having the ability to live in the dark of its environment. In fact, the title of the article clearly says this is not 'evolution' at all. Nor is it due to 'mutation'. Instead, (as the title of the article itself indicates) it's a clear case of a species ADAPTING. Not mutating. The species in question is rapidly adapting to its unusual environment. But it remains, of course, the same species. These remarkable changes to new environments happen all the time in nature. They are part of what species do all the time. There are many, many examples of marine creatures adapted to living without light, for example. Species can and do adapt in amazing ways. But, again, this adaptive ability has been known for thousands of years and has nothing to do with 'mutations' (i.e. with errors in the transmission of genetic information). It is by the laws of heredity that these populations in these environments can and do adapt to such environments.

Notice how the author still says -

'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."

Again, this is wrong. He is confusing adaption with mutation. The ability of this algae to quickly adapt to its environment has absolutely nothing to do with mutations. This is a clear case of orderly and always beneficial adaption. In this case, adaption to an environment without light.

(By the way, algae are presented in many Darwinian textbooks as being the 'simplest' and most ancient 'ancestors' of many species. In actual fact algae are amazingly complex and are a clear example of how the very same species we see today in nature existed even at the time when the first fossils were formed. The little algae show us this clearly. Fossils of many algae are as you know found in even Cambrian and other rock formations worldwide. No 'evolution' there ! The very same algae species are alive and well today everywhere in the seas of the world. A more clear example of the permanence of species would be hard to find).


Regards
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
I think the following quotation matches very good with the last post of Robert -

taken from an article 'How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution' published in Washington Post on 08/01/1998, under an authorship of Mr. Boyce Rensberger, the editor of The Horizon section.

I have read the article and the critique of it. The peppered moth is an argument really often used by the evolutionists in debates -

> Strictly speaking, evolution is simply a change in
> the frequency with which specific genes occur in
> population. By this token, there is the well known
> example of the peppered moth of Britain.
> In 1848, 98 percent of these moths were gray, a color
> that hid them from birds when they perched on gray
> lichens that covered tree trunks. Darker winged variants
> were rare and tended to be eaten by birds. then as the
> Industrial Revolution's smokestacks killed the lichens
> and darkened tree trunks, the gray moths stood out and
> were eaten while the darker mutants survived.
> Gradually, the moth became a predominantly
> darkwinged species and, by 1898, gray individuals were
> less than 5 percent of the total. Now that air pollution
> controls have taken effect, lichens are growing back, and
> the peppered moth again is becoming a chiefly gray
> species.
> In that case, evolution by natural selection
> occurred but did not create a new species. Grey moths
> still could interbreed with black moths, proving that
> they belonged to the same species.

As you see, the author postulates himself in the last sentence that the general evolution did not take place here. I cannot imagine that mr. Rensberger is not an expert in his subject - then, why does he obscure the matter?
 
Yes Andrew,

The famous 'peppered moth'. Propagandists portrayed this too as an example of 'evolution'. Once again, it's a clear case of adaption. The same moths reverting back to the colour best suited to their environment when the black soot of pollution was reduced. And, once again, the confusion is seen in using the term 'mutants'. Such things are really not examples of mutation.

And so we come 'full circle' with the evolutionist now defining 'evolution' as 'adaption' - the two terms synonomous ! But adaption is not dependent on errors in the transmission of genetic information.

Regards and thanks

Robert
 

sunwaiter

New member
hi again.

i had never heard of mr Rensberger. i guess he'll be on my "research list "too!

"This coloration gives white lions a distinct disadvantage in nature because they are highly visible.

A clear example of the well known fact that all mutations (being errors in the transmission of genetic information), are not advantageous."

why "all"?

and, does that mean that this animal is condemned? i don't think so. to say that the white color doesn't help camouflage doesn't mean he won't eat at all! to say what is advantageous or not is just a judgment we make following our criters and what we've seen of this animal until now. what I think is that the white lion can... adapt to this color. do you think this lion will starve because it's white? i've read this article before posting it, so i had noticed this particular point (the camouflage thing) and sent it especially because of this, in addition to the fact that it is a clear exemple of a non-nefast mutation.

"White lions remain rare in the wild and only occur when two lions carrying the mutant gene are mated together"

does this mean that the white lion has no chance at all to spread in greater number on earth? or can it happen only on a long term?


"(By the way, algae are presented in many Darwinian textbooks as being the 'simplest' and most ancient 'ancestors' of many species. In actual fact algae are amazingly complex and are a clear example of how the very same species we see today in nature existed even at the time when the first fossils were formed. The little algae show us this clearly. Fossils of many algae are as you know found in even Cambrian and other rock formations worldwide. No 'evolution' there ! The very same algae species are alive and well today everywhere in the seas of the world. A more clear example of the permanence of species would be hard to find)."

i never understood evolution as meaning death of all animals, once the use-by-date is passed. animals are not cans of beans. a creature that has what it takes to exist in a certain environment will continue to exist. we know about crocodiles already, and other well-built organisms, that were here before us, of course, just like the algae.

it's true that this article is not specific enough. but the author says that mutations can help adaptation of a creature to a new environment. that's why he used the verb adaptation. we can't allow ourselves some wordplay. i will try to find other more precise and better-written document anyway.

(by the way, you know the algae we're talking about has "flagelles". it remembers me you didn't tell me what you think exactly about the falegellum thing, that ken miller describes in the video i posted. i'm sorry to go back again on it, but it's true that i found it very very interesting. if i understood it properly, the flagellum was supposed to be of an irreducible complexity, but mr Miller sounds legitimate when he demonstrates it is not).

i'm always scared of getting confused, and it's late here ;) so i will just post one more link where we can find a recapitulative text about adaptation.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5dQualifying.shtml

please, let me know what you think about the vole. i still don't know exactly what to think about this cute little rodent.

g'nite or g'day!



music to go to bed:

symphonie gothique - widor
http://www.deezer.com/track/1272329

naima - lonnie liston smith
http://www.deezer.com/track/1047253

pahari dhun - unknown to me
http://www.deezer.com/track/1938751



www.myspace.com/olivortex
 
You ask why mutations are disadvantageous. Here's the short answer.

Mutations are disadvantageous in the same way that traffic accidents are disadvantageous. Again, hand grenade explosions within confined spaces are disadvantageous to those living in proximity to them. Bullet wounds are disadvantageous to those who may receive them. There may of course be people who speculate otherwise but they have difficulty learning anything ! And all mutations are disadvantageous to organisms which have them. Because mutations are (as said before) errors which have occurred within a very complex code of genetic information. They are deleterious, harmful and bad news. Nobody in the entire history of science has ever found one which is advantageous. And nature knows a lot better than evolutionists - it even has a system of getting rid of them. Consider that !! It's called 'reverse mutation'. I guess that's called 'check-mate', yes ?

So says science. But if you want more examples or analogies, just ask. We should leave evolutionists to speculate on mutations and on 'evolution' while the rest of mankind (and of science) gets on with reality. We should even allow them to build schools and colleges. And they have done so ! LOL !!! Can't get more tolerant than that, can we ?

Can you imagine a restaurant whose new chef writes a menu for a new restaurant, one item on sale being - ''a special soup of my own discovery made from the shadow of a chicken'' ? Nor should we entertain the idea of beneficial mutations. LOL !

Thanks for asking about the vole. It has no relevance to the issue under discussion unless, of course, you can show differently.

Thanks for the musical tracks etc.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
Hi sunwaiter,

I believe there is simply a general misunderstanding here what the term "deleterious mutations" means. It doesn't mean they are killing. The core of a question is, the mutations as such can not bring any qualitatitively NEW genetic information. You have only the information you have inherited from your parents, they in turn from theirs etc.

In the context of this discussion, you would need a sufficiently NEW information that will give for example the lion some perfectly NEW quality ( simply changing the colour to white is not enough. Right answer would be, the lion gets wings and can fly ). This is an information which is necessary to make a transition like for example "fish-amphibia" possible. But genetics says you can only inherit or lose, not gain on this way.

You may want to google or to look in wikipedia for a "mitochondrial Eve"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
theory. It says , to cut it very short, that all of us people must have a common female ancestor ( who was evtl. called Eve ) and had to posess, in fact, the complete information. You may want to see the story in the Biblical context or not, as you like, but the common idea is, once again - the general informational trend due to mutations is downwards, not upwards.
 

sunwaiter

New member
hi Andrew! the mitochondrial eve theory is interesting, and has to be dug, as i found some press reviews about it, that merely said we shouldn't pass over it too quick. i also do believe i should read more about it.

Robert: once again, i don't believe it's about being check mate, three goals to zero, or anything like this. i know you said this as an image, but i find it too much "competition-like" to be included in a discussion about science (wether your interlocutor knows much about the topic or not).

another link. is it mutation? adaptation? no matter the word you will choose, i personnally accept the first one when it comes to this example:
http://www.uwyo.edu/krist/misc/sse_poster_june06.pdf

and here you'll find "une concession" and "un compromis". is it called "trade-off" in english? i guess i rejoiced too fast about my improving in shakespeare's language.

"Though Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and its picture of the long term process of evolution was widely accepted within 15 years, the mechanism of natural selection was not accepted for decades: Darwin could provide no evidence that such a mechanism could work. The field of genetics, which has provided a large portion of this evidence, was in its infancy at time Darwin was writing Origin. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, did not publish his famous findings on inheritance in pea plants until 1866, and even then he was largely ignored for nearly 40 years. However, once genetics began to move forward into its modern form, natural selection became a much more viable mechanism for evolution, though with new scientific knowledge some modifications needed to be made to Darwin's original idea. In the 1930's and 40's several major works on evolution were published, including Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Systematics and the Origin of Species by Ernst Mayr, and Evolution: a Modern Synthesis by Julian Huxley (brother to Aldous Huxley, author of A Brave New World). These bookst attempted to make sense of Darwin's theory in light of the evidence for evolution found in genetics and other fields (see Evidence for Evolution). The resulting theory of evolution became known as neo-Darwinism, the synthetic theory of evolution, or the modern synthesis. Below are the main tenets of the modern synthesis. Today most of these are still accepted, though some, most notably the gradual rate of evolution, have come under fire in recent years."

it was took in sparknotes.com, quite in support of the evolution theory of course.

time goes too fast, i don't have the time to put the finishing touches to this post. anyway i'll document myself and try to find and bring new things worth the reading, or observing, or hearing.

thank you, as always.


since it's become a habit, and it doesn't take much time, here's for you all:

http://www.deezer.com/track/26791

http://www.deezer.com/track/27606
 
Hi there Sunwaiter,

Surely the whole point of learning is to learn. Why would anyone waste their time on believing and teaching things which have no evidence whatsoever if evidence is really the deciding issue ?

Theories are based on facts. And it's facts which either provide support for theories built on them or they do not. The last century and more has delivered its verdict. 'Evolution theory' shows every sign of being constructed on completely false assumptions - the dogmatic assumption being made from the outset by Darwin and his disciples that the 'evolution of species' MUST have happened. Well, compelling evidence from many sciences, real science, says it didn't. Such evidence as we have is completely consistent with the view that species have simply not evolved from others.

After 150 years of this failed myth of pagan philosophy, of Darwinism and 'neo-Darwinism' dominating colleges and centres of learning isn't it time, isn't it really honest, that those who teach it 'ad nauseum' should throw in the towel and admit there is no factual basis for it ?

To now suggest Genetics has provided support for the 'evolution of species' is ludicruous when it has provided the very opposite. It was Genetics and the laws which apply to all species which were rubbished and suppressed for decades, by Darwinists themselves ! Really ! It becomes ridiculous.

There is simply no natural process to produce new species. It's simply nonsense. Sorry, but that is the plain fact of it.

I hope you will use, as the foundation of what you learn and even what you may teach, that which is already clearly and honestly established in these areas of study. Not as the conclusion to your studies but as their foundation.

Best wishes always, of course !

Robert
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
and here you'll find "une concession" and "un compromis". is it called "trade-off" in english? i guess i rejoiced too fast about my improving in shakespeare's language.

"Though Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and its picture of the long term process of evolution was widely accepted within 15 years, the mechanism of natural selection was not accepted for decades: Darwin could provide no evidence that such a mechanism could work. The field of genetics, which has provided a large portion of this evidence, was in its infancy at time Darwin was writing Origin. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, did not publish his famous findings on inheritance in pea plants until 1866, and even then he was largely ignored for nearly 40 years. However, once genetics began to move forward into its modern form, natural selection became a much more viable mechanism for evolution, though with new scientific knowledge some modifications needed to be made to Darwin's original idea. In the 1930's and 40's several major works on evolution were published, including Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Systematics and the Origin of Species by Ernst Mayr, and Evolution: a Modern Synthesis by Julian Huxley (brother to Aldous Huxley, author of A Brave New World). These bookst attempted to make sense of Darwin's theory in light of the evidence for evolution found in genetics and other fields (see Evidence for Evolution). The resulting theory of evolution became known as neo-Darwinism, the synthetic theory of evolution, or the modern synthesis. Below are the main tenets of the modern synthesis. Today most of these are still accepted, though some, most notably the gradual rate of evolution, have come under fire in recent years."

Hi sunwaiter,

fine..:) But I don't see somehow how a scientific knowledge can ever be a matter of trade-off, or fair deal, whatever...It works or it doesn't work. Yes, I know what neo-Darwinism is about, and you know my point of view - it is an ideology. Atheism needs a scientifical, or pseudo-scientifical basis to justify its existence , which means it needs an ET in the first line. I don't see - most frankly and honestly - any other explanation.

I would be actually very thankful, if somebody helps me to understand, how can fish evolve to amphibia. Or how can reptile evolve to a bird. I simply can't get it, and the evolutionists are of no help here anyway, because they don't offer more than airbrush pictures like those given in the school books. Btw - can you try to explain it to yourself, how the transformations of such kind may have happened ( even supposing we had no idea of genetics etc. ) ?

Cheers ant thanks,
Andrew
 
Last edited:
This is a rare discussion on 'evolution theory'. (Most discussions on this subject are suppressed on the media and in colleges).

Readers may not know much about these issues. That's OK. It doesn't really matter. The important thing is there IS and always has been an alternative to evolution theory. An alternative which can be demonstrated to be correct, over and over again. By science. Species are not evolving in to other species. They are in fact phenomenally stable and permanent features of living nature. Nor have they ever done so. No matter how long time we talk about it a given species will continue to exist as that specific species. Species are an integral part of the living world in the same way that the chemical elements are a permanent feature of our world also. They may change their forms. They may adapt to new environments. But each species belongs to its own set of other species, known as the 'genus', and every seed really does bring forth (only) according to its own kind - i.e. according to its membership of the genus. Truths confirmed by modern science. Confirming, once again, the wisdom of what has been known since early human antiquity.

Many thanks to Sunwaiter and to Andrew.
 
Top