Science Disproves Evolution

[pahu (deleted)]

Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a). There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwins ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“Its one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happenedâ€â€Âfrom photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbitsâ€â€Âby drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit. Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies, Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isnt a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas. However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fishs] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwins] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is usefulâ€â€Âand not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose? Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

(removed)

[pahu (deleted)]

Distinct Types

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a that of a duckâ€â€Âa bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group {a}. Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field. Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation. Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution, Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution. Denton, p. 132.

b. “... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature. Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

(removed)

[pahu (deleted)]

Altruism 1

Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save anotherâ€â€Âsometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals. How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?

a. “... the existence of altruism between different speciesâ€â€Âwhich is not uncommonâ€â€Âremains an obstinate enigma. Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionists point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individuals young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well-known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone elses. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order. Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox, Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have petsâ€â€Âa form of adoptionâ€â€Âespecially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:


“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do not appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives. Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates, Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

(removed)

[picco]

`Since almost 100% of biologists currently teaching at any major universities believe in evolution, your amazing statements above would no doubt win you the Nobel Prize.

But of course, it's just a load of nonsense that you cannot sneak past any respectable peer reviewed journals. So you come to this site and pollute it with your garbage.

Talk to some real scientists and biologists.

[pahu (deleted)]

picco wrote: `Since almost 100% of biologists currently teaching at any major universities believe in evolution, your amazing statements above would no doubt win you the Nobel Prize.

But of course, it's just a load of nonsense that you cannot sneak past any respectable peer reviewed journals. So you come to this site and pollute it with your garbage.

Talk to some real scientists and biologists.



I haven't posted on this site very long, so you probably haven't noticed most of the scientists being quoted are not creationists, but the facts they have discovered disprove evolution. Here are some of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. ORourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews

[beelzabub (deleted)]

This is from Scientific American April 2006
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." So declared geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973. Today's scientists agree: evolution is without a doubt the cornerstone of modern biology. Yet in school districts across the U.S., proponents of creationist ideas such as intelligent design are attempting to introduce their nonscientific alternatives to evolution into curriculums.

Spurred by this worrying state of affairs, we have put together a collection of some of our favorite articles concerning the history of life, starting with a firm refutation of creationist arguments by Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie. Riveting accounts of what scientists have pieced together thus far about the evolution of earth's creatures follow. Learn how four-legged land animals evolved from fish, how birds descended from dinosaurs and where whales come from. Explore the origins of early animals, and retrace the steps of paleontologists hot on the fossil trail of the earliest human ancestor. Also, discover how the application of evolutionary biology to medicine is informing medical research.

We hope you find these articles and the others in this exclusive online issue as thought provoking as we do.

Sounds like these so called scientists Pahu is quoting are bonehead christians with an agenda passing themselves off as scientists.

[beelzabub (deleted)]

Nobody has disproved evolution. Some have crackhead theories that they pass off as facts. Hey Pahu, put the crack pipe down & take a few steps back & join us in the real world.

[beelzabub (deleted)]

Self sacrificing behavior is something that helps our species. It is one of the many things that has helped us EVOLVE. This guy's stupidity is off the freakin' charts!

[aur]

`Aha, Pahu, tenthirytwo got ya. To everyone arguing against this guy:
Don't bother. He doesn't listen.

He posted this exact same thread on another site (Atheists Toolbox) and two pages later. He's just as idiotic as ever. Seriously, just ignore any thread that Pahu puts up. And if you don't believe me, just look here to see exactly how arguments with him go down:
(removed)

[pahu (deleted)]

Altruism 2

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).

c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic actsâ€â€Âproviding benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donorâ€â€Âcan seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currencyâ€â€Âreproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population. Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play, Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individuals clan that carries a few of those genes. This hypothesis has five problemsâ€â€Âthe last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism. Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives, Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual Xs altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individuals brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

From an evolutionists perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position Id taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What Ive done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolutionâ€â€Âthey cant recognize kin like that. Theres very little evidence that theyre determining whos a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin. Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview, Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

(removed)

[pahu (deleted)]

Extraterrestrial Life?

No verified form of life which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a).

Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades, Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

(removed)

[classicsfan]

`Sure anyone can cut and paste, however anyone who takes the time to logically think these concepts through cam easily find the faults in all of them. I"m not going to waste my time with this guy though. He won't debate, he just cuts and pastes.

Oh, for the DOS days and everything had to be typed.

[romeoabc_PREV (deleted)]

"All species appear fully developed, not partially developed." You are kidding me, right? You do know about the different stages that a baby goes through during the mother's pregnancy, right? That right there makes evolution a very logical theory. Hell, that's probally where Darwin got the inspiration for his evoloution theory in the first place.
Belief is the opposite of thinking! Read 1984 and Brave New World Revisited. In Brave New World Revisited Huxley ( I'm still tryint to track down the book that he recommened.) refers to a non-fiction book written in the 1930s that explains how a baptist preacher used pavlovian conditioning to get people to believe in Christianity and give money to his church (donations). In 1984 If the party says the 2+2=5 and I as the head of the party say that if I snap my fingers then I can fly, then can I fly ( pavlovian conditioning). Thinking, reasoning, and science are all opposites of believing. Some homeless guy once told me that God spelled backwards is Dog. I wonder what he meant by that.......

There are two types of Christians.: The greatest marks and the greatest con artists.

Brave New World Revisited
Brave New World Revisited
Brave New World Revisited
Brave New World Revisited


"Please to meet you,
Hope you guess my name. " [/i]

[arksaapocrypha]

`Partially developed feathers have been found on dinosaurs.That alone debunks your creationist fueled tirade from your first post in this thread.For all your attempts to seem intelligent and learned,you choose to believe in mythology and use poor data to back up your claim.Gravity was a theory once.It's now a fact.Being able to construct nano technology was once a theory...you guessed it(well maybe you didn't) it's now a fact.
Your group of medieval curmudgeons wants to bring back the inquisition and bury any truth that debunks your position.
Intelligent design?Pfft I could design a better race,world and a "god" image then the one that amazes your tiny excuse for a brain.Posting this sort of drivel on an atheist site is akin to selling sugar burgers to diabetics.
I.E. nobody is ever gonna buy it.
Want a good suggestion?Kill yourself and prove your theory...you could chunk fully developed angel feathers at us in glee!

[obscureatheist]

Hey here is a site for atheist to meet each other not a church or mosque or... to advertise these .... even if anyone wants to argue with some atheists i think here is not right place!!! can you you understand ?!