Wednesday, July 09, 2008

The Three Fatal Flaws in the Theory of Evolution

 
Thanks to PZ Myers for finding an important new website called Darwin Conspiracy. It highlights the three faltal flaws in the Theory of evolution.
You have never read about any of these fatal flaws before. Evolution scientists know about these flaws, but they have successfully covered them up with the help of a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the fact that Darwinism is not scientific but just an atheist doctrine.

We have discussed the three fatal evolution flaws with scientists and doctors we know and they have all agreed we have found real flaws in the Theory of Evolution.

Each of the three fatal flaws revealed on this website proves that Darwin was wrong.
Wow! Scientists and doctors agree. I'll have to change my position on evolution after reading about these three fatal flaws.

Here they are ...

Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
Sometimes I think the term "IDiot" is being too kind.


70 comments:

  1. "Fatal flaws" number 1 and 3 seem to be simple to solve, but what about number 2? there is any kind of process or mechanism that the result is adding or amplify the number of genes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. obviously you have to start somewhere and to add a gene the only mechanism would have to be acquiring it from a separately formed organism which is neither consistent with the common ancestry theory nor the spontaneous creation by chance.The randomness theory alone is in fact so absurd only those ignorant of the amount of necessary events that had to take place would accept a due-to-chance model. The even of creating life from molecules was no more random than the creation of Jesus PBUH in the womb or the turning of Moses' staff into a snake. when such extremely extremely improbable events happen, that's the definition of miracles, and life on earth is a miracle. Water-clay interface alone on earth is a miracle (both extraterrestrial) let alone life coming out of it. essentially God innoculated the earth (egg in womb) with the material for making life from meteorites (sperm). such is his glory he has a very distinctive and patterned Modus Operandi.

      Delete
  2. ariel g,

    Assuming you're not being facetious, yes. We know of multiple processes that result in new genes.

    Here's a link to a discussion of a recent article that even attempts to determine the relative importance of different routes for new gene creation:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/more-on-the-ori.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sometimes I think the term "IDiot" is being too kind.

    Well, yes, on occasions like this it seems much too kind. As another recent example, have you seen Denyse O'Leary's reference to "An article that uses the design concept effectively?", referring to an article that she appears not to have read beyond the title. Design is mentioned just twice, once in the title "1-cis- and All-trans-Retinols Can Activate Rod Opsin: Rational Design of the Visual Cycle", and once in the very last sentence. There is no reference to or discussion of Intelligent Design, and no understanding in any of DO'L's posts that the objection that scientists have to the concept of Intelligent Design is not to the word "design" but to the word "intelligent".

    ariel g. said what about number 2? there is any kind of process or mechanism that the result is adding or amplify the number of genes?, to which any decent modern biochemistry or molecular biology textbook will give the answer immediately: yes, there are well established mechanisms. The simplest and most obvious is gene dupication, when a second copy of a gene is accidentally incorporated into the genome.

    More complicated things, like duplication of an entire chromosome, occur frequently in somatic cells, and occasionally in germ-line cells (which have more stringent checking mechanisms). Every time a trisomic child is born we have an example of chromosome duplication.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although these 'flaws' are... depressing, I'm not really surprised by the fact that they're being presented as such. I recently had a conversation with an old friend whose interests have never taken him into the realm of science, and he asked me some questions about evolution. Any skepticism he held about evolutionary theory was based on very basic, fundamental gaps in his knowledge of the subject. Simple concepts such as mutation and the multiple mechanisms of gene duplication, can seem like massive stop-gaps to people who don't know about them. It's the argumentum ad ignorantiam, though not necessarily always with malicious intent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is gene duplication the same thing as adding an altogether new/original gene. From a semantics perspective it appears not? Although completely ignorant in this area and happy to be informed

      Delete
  5. There is so much fractal wrongness here, that I don't seem to get the logic behind the 3d point. Wouldn't old age be at least as good an example for his purpose, as that is also an effectively infertile period?

    Actually I think by his argument any organism that isn't currently engaging in procreation is less fit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. more important than the IDiocy of the Darwin Conspiracy is, "tell us about that great dog photo on the top of the page"

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would first like to say that I am fifteen and in the middle of a AP Biology course. We have not yet finished studying evolution and genetics.I can still refute all three, but if I am wrong in anything, please do correct me.

    1. Hello. Meet the Hardy-Weinberg theorum. It basically proves evolution because it does not hold true in practical situations due to the requirements for it to work, including no selective mating.

    2. Plasmids in bacteria. And as athel said, duplication. Duplication happens most often in meiosis and results from the sister chromatids not separating. Also, if the 'stop' codon is late or something and extra codons are added before the DNA is finished, and this does not prove to be fatal in the development of the embryo, extra genes can be added, though it would take quite some time to produce a trait that produced viable offspring and was actually helpful, which is why evolution takes such a long time.

    3. In humans, if the baby was any more developed, it wouldn't fit through the birth canal. The "fittest" part comes in with the parenting skills. Those without those instinct cannot protect their young, meaning those with the instinct will be better able to protect their progeny, which will then survive, and having learned/inherited these skill sets, will then most likely proceed to pass them on.

    Again, if I'm wrong in anything, please correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would first like to say that I am fifteen and in the middle of a AP Biology course. We have not yet finished studying evolution and genetics. I can still refute all three, but if I am wrong in anything, please do correct me.

    1. Hello. Meet the Hardy-Weinberg theorum. It basically proves evolution because it does not hold true in practical situations due to the requirements for it to work, including no selective mating.

    2. Plasmids in bacteria. And as athel said, duplication. Duplication happens most often in meiosis and results from the sister chromatids not separating. Also, if the 'stop' codon is late or something and extra codons are added before the DNA is finished, and this does not prove to be fatal in the development of the embryo, extra genes can be added, though it would take quite some time to produce a trait that produced viable offspring and was actually helpful, which is why evolution takes such a long time.

    3. In humans, if the baby was any more developed, it wouldn't fit through the birth canal. The "fittest" part comes in with the parenting skills. Those without those instincts cannot protect their young, meaning those with the instincts will be better able to protect their progeny, which will then survive, and having learned/inherited these skill sets, will then most likely proceed to pass them on.

    Again, if I'm wrong in anything, please correct me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, duplication does occur, and correct me if im wrong, but only in single sex bacteria; thus creating another almost identical organism. in a human for example, evolution would only succeed in another pair of eyes, or a second mouth, per se. it is effective in the reproduction of a single sex bacteria, but not on a macro-evolutionary level.

      Delete
    2. You have confused duplication of organisms (binary fission) or duplication of physical features (metamerism) with duplication of genetic material, which most often results in nothing — one of the duplicated pair is eliminated by drift — but sometimes results in something new, as in the twice-duplicated Hox clusters that help make vertebrates different from other animals.

      Say, do you realize that you're responding to a comment from 2009?

      Delete
    3. You're wrong. Gene duplication occurs in eukaryotes, including animals and plants.

      When an organism has two copes of a gene but needs only one, mutations in one copy are harmless. Often one copy mutates to the point where it cannot function, but it may mutate in ways that produce a protein that is somewhat different from the protein produced by the "normal" copy. A lot of the biochemical diversity within organisms arises this way, both from duplication of single genes and from polyploidy.

      Delete
    4. You did not get it. These guys are talking about gene duplication, not cell duplication.

      Then, if they were talking about cell duplication, of course we get cell duplication. How do you think the zygote develops into a baby? how do you think we heal scratches? How do you think our bodies work at all? This is not part of the evolutionary process, but I'm still correcting you on this regard so that you realize that you have a lot to study and understand before you can even start complaining about evolution.

      Delete
    5. Nope. Not just in "single sex bacteria".
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

      Delete
    6. If Jesus is indeed alive in us all, then we have duplication of a lot more than a single cell.

      Delete
  9. the same argument ive read everywhere else appears here: "if you only study more, you will get it". Thats what evolution hangs on, faith. and please, there are plenty of evolutionists who do not support darwins version, but support another version of evolution, which is strikingly similar to what creation has taught all along.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ anonymous and please, there are plenty of evolutionists who do not support darwins version, but support another version of evolution, which is strikingly similar to what creation has taught all along.

    Please...PLEASE supply us with this other version. This blog is crawling with "evolutionists who do not support [only] darwins version". We would love to see how our supported theory sounds like "creation original".

    Hint - the absence of any god-like creator(s) in the theory, for one, should set quite far from any religious creation story you can find.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lets just face facts. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. Even when science proves something is probably, it doesn't mean it therefore happened.

    Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, or any instrument to test back as far as 9 billion years, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red.


    When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data.

    ReplyDelete
  12. theres a couple more flaws: the bible clearly states "so God created the great creatures of the sea with every living and moving thing with which the water teems,EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS" now another:"God made the wild animals, EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS" wow its like God knew 7 to 10 thousand years before people started doubting

    FUTHER MORE do you know why on the moon landing there were padded legs on the spacecraft? well evolutionists said if the universe were really 20 billion years old, like they think it is, there would be 5-6 feet of dust from the big bang. well... have you seen the picture of the footprint? that's about and inch and a half they calculated that using th formula the evolutionists used and it said the earth was probably only 10,000 years old wow take that evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  13. In science, everything tends towards randomness (ie; entropy), so why would nature suddenly organize itself? It doesn't make sense why hominids would suddenly evolve by incremental degrees until reaching a level of mental supremacy. Evolution is too organized to be so widely recognized as such a truth. Darwin even said that if there were no transitional species found in the present world then his theory would not be true. I don't see any lower forms of Homo Sapien in existence today.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Number three is not fatal, it is idiotic. Popping steroid poppers would make no sense, as that would eliminate the notion and natural state of GROWING. A tree, for instance, starts off as a puny little seed and becomes a weak little green plant, but GROWS to become the mighty tree able to withstand decades of seasonal wear and tear.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I sort of agree with the last person who said three was idiotic, though I don't think it's that. But it's a weak point, imo.

    Anyway, I agree in general with the whole thing. Evolutionists basically throw these valid points off as "you haven't studied hard enough" or "you see what you want to see". Do I really?

    Because it's not me imagining the world creating itself through the big bang that was, apparently, started by nothing and used nothing to explode and create everything.

    Can someone give me a completely natural explination for how matter, time, and space came to be? Unless of course you think the universe is God, which then you still have a God in your life and therefore are a theist.

    I have no problem with believing in evolution AND God, I just have a problem believing evolution could happen (macro).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Duplication of genes creates THE SAME GENES, not new ones!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except if the duplicate is flawed... Checkmate Einstein

      Delete
  17. Anonymous said...

    Duplication of genes creates THE SAME GENES, not new ones!


    Once again, an F- on your basic biology knowledge...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

    ReplyDelete
  18. The theory of evolution has many more flaws. For example, the theory ties to the big bang theory. The first rule of thermodynamics is matter cannot be created or destroyed. The second rule is of entropy,in nature all matter and actions of the universe all tend to steer towards chaos. It's supposed to take tens of thousands of years for evolution to take place in a species. Whether genes duplicate or not is irrelevant. Duplication of an existing gene is only the creation of the exact same gene. That's what duplication means, this is not a new gene with new "evolved" characteristics. You can get technical all you want, you cant turn gold into silver or turn an apple into a banana anymore than you can turn an ape into a man. The author of this page is 98% right. You see back in his time, people of little religious belief and interest in science had concluded that man evolved from animals. He just put some spice into a widely held belief. Belief. Theory. Neither of these words mean true IF YOU BELIEVE IN DARWIN'S THEORY...GUESS WHAT....The WORLD IS ACTUALLY FLAT...at least for you, now.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Come on Lance. At least read the link before spouting. F- to you as well, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Can't find any scientist responses to the three fatal flaws in evolution. Are they just discarding it? I'm writing an essay and I wanted to get the responses of the evolutionist. Silence must mean they've got nothing. You'd think they'd at least try to bash the three fatal flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Seriously???

    Are you serious? There was no reply because this was as idiotic as a "the world is flat" statement.

    1) Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula

    Check out the names Haldane, Fisher, Wright, Felsenstein etc etc etc. Buy a book on "population genetics". The math is there. It can make your ears bleed at times.

    2) There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution

    Again, there is an entire field called "population genetics". It is about the genetic mechanisms of evolution. "Darwinian" and other forces.

    3) Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

    Nope. There is no fitness cost to a "helpless baby" if there is parental care, and having a smaller, "helpless" baby is argued by some to increase maternal survival (so she can have more babies...). This is the classic over-importance given to the poorly phased "survival of the fittest" analogy.

    Seriously?? these "issues" were all dealt with, probably before you were born. Since you never bothered to read anything not sactioned by the Discovery Institute before posting, I have to give you an F- as well.

    Three idiotic comments on the topic. Perhaps you now see why we normally don't bother to reply? JUST READ A TEXTBOOK and you will find most of the answers to these supposed flaws, with references dating back before the 70's.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm interested.
    My father once said "if evlution is true, why arent any species still evolving?"
    "It's by chance," some may say.
    Why did this chance only take place once in the histor of all the earth?
    Like one had said, wouldn't it have to continue evolving from ape to half ape to unknown to half known and what you and I are today?
    How much information did this one cell contain? the whole history of the univerese?
    I am made of the same cell as a frog and an elephant and a rabbit and all that has existed and is to exist?
    "Information cannot be created nor destroyed," said a close friend.
    I was not counciously present when everything that is came to be, who really knows?
    Like the discussion states science can only prove what is seen, so how do you prove an activity that took place "without" a witness?
    "There is evidence." Does the same evidence that proves evolution correct also prove the existance of another theory that contradicts evolution?
    Officially, what is the main point of evolution? Is it an aid from to past to discover the end?
    Did Darwin not state on his death bed, "my book on evolution was the foolishness of my youth."
    I would preffer to study evolution further, to really prove my argument and personally answer my own questions, but if you have a rebuke please don't hesitate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @maria.p.m
    your father REALLY thinks species aren't still evolving?
    Everything is evolving. All the time. Even scissors evolve, because there was a flaw in the way they were made. Some stupid kid decided to cut their finger off- boom! Safety scissors were invented. Safety scissors couldnt cut through 1ply toilet paper? They made them slightly sharper!

    Fish tried to swim up stream but the current was too heavy? They tried to anchor themselves to the ground but couldn't using fins. They kept trying, and trying, and trying, and their fins grew adjusted to grappling the ground over a long, long time. Eventually then grew separate limbs of their developing fins to grab hold of the ground and pull themselves forward. Fingers. But soon they began to venture, winding up on land, but couldnt breath. But enough time on land gave them the ability for their gils to support O2, and eventually their gils developed from only being able to draw the oxygen from water to supported gaseous dioxide in the air out of the water. Do you know what just happened?

    Evolution of a basic fish, into a form of reptile. Or as simple minded people may only know them as, a lizard.

    Thats a sample of how natural selection, and evolution work. It doesnt happen in a single generation. It happens over hundreds. And a new generation wont just be born with legs. But it takes them needing to have a certain trait to perform an action, and they work and work at it. A guitarists fingers may at first be stiff, unmoving sticks. But from personal experience, I have worked them into limber little tiger fingers because I worked at it, and needed it to happen. I'm sure those fishies needed to grapple enough to work towards development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you try to fly and if you try hard enough you might grow wings? if a species can't do something it just can't do it. a fish that got out of the water died. 10 fishes that got out of the water= still dead. from how you worded everything it would sound like fish won't exist to this day because they will still be trying to grip to the ground and breath air out of water. that's just rediculous. Species don't consciously choose abilities to developer over time neither is there a force that goes "oh crap this fish better be able to grip onto something so tadaaa let's change its whole genetic makeup" .

      Delete
    2. Kevin, your explanation of scissors actually works to prove creation, not evolution. Think about it, what was the origin of those scissors? An intelligent being made them for a purpose. When this creation did not perform its intended duty, the creator scrapped it and started over. It takes an intelligent being to create something with a purpose. This doesn't prove the creation-evolution cross theory, because that being had to personally intervene to make and change the scissors. Nature is the creation, not the Creator.

      Delete
    3. Yes but this "evolution" is of a NEW creation! The scissors DID NOT physically morph into a slightly altered version.

      Delete
    4. Evolution is based on the idea of inheritance of genetic mutations that make an organism better fit to its environment, not on the inheritance of acquired characteristics - see Lamarck's theory - not a true theory... Once we understood the genetic basis for inheritance, evolution makes more sense. I can't workout enough to become a body builder and then have children who have giant muscles. It has to be something in my genes that can be inherited.

      Delete
  24. dr albert sze wei tan
    switchyourjob.com


    altruistic behaviour in human can be proved in human hospitals
    blood donations

    strangers help strangers ,,, eg jump into a lake to help others

    or , you can conduct your own behaviour study

    eg pretend you are sick on the street, and see what would strangers do/......

    ReplyDelete
  25. Flaw 1. Where did you get the information that EVERY other theory has a formula? Also, who says natural selection / evolution hasn't got a formula? Formulae are needed to work out the probability of things in natural selection as it is based on chance. In fact a lot of formulae are needed...

    Flaw 2. Who said that the origin of humans was Earth? There are two scientific theories to where life began. One is that all the proteins came together in a primordial soup on Earth and the second is that life had already started as bacterial life form on a rock that hit the Earth and the impact caused mutation in the small life forms. Gene duplication may have played a part in this and the duplicated or original genes altered due to damage or mutation.

    Flaw 3. Darwin stated as a major part of his theory, there is variety in ALL offspring and another thing that plays a big part is the environement, there is more than one factor that effects birth. Disease, radiation, alien chemicals introduced into the parents' bodies, I wouldn't list all other factors... So of course not every baby is fit and healthy or helpless and struggling.

    When you find flaws withing a theory or create a theory yourself what you MUST do is try to utterly destroy it. Find anything and everything you can that contradicts what you have found otherwise other people will find them first and throw the whole lot at your face.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry I made a few typos in my last post, it is obvious where they are so you can work out what they're meant to be.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stephen Barnes, it doesnt matter where life came from, thats a weak argument. Still doesnt show how life began. Watch the movie "expelled". Also, mutation still does not add genes. You may have a bunch of retarded amoebas, but thats about it.:)

    ReplyDelete
  28. first of all... There is a mathematical formula for evolution. It's called Price's equation. Google it and you'll find it.
    Second of all, there is a mechanism. But it's entirely random. For example the syndroom of Down adds genes. Furthermore there are syndromes like XYY chromosomes and XXYY chromosomes.
    Third of all, The helpless baby thing is one of the fundamental things of the theorie of evolution! What advantage would a strong bird have if his weak brothers also lives happily ever after? Nothing. Hence the natural selection wouldn't make sense. There are two important things with babies. First: Parents give birth to more babies than can and will survive. Second: This will automatically lead to the conclusion that only the stronger babies will survive.
    If you're asking why there are helpless babies, well evolution/mutation is a random proces. It tries everything. Every little change in a gene(s) of an extra gene(s) etc. Most of the time this leads to helpless babies because the changes create something that doesn't work as well as it did before. However, sometimes it does lead to a baby that's stronger than all the other babies. This one has an advantage and will get the most babies etc.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If were God, I would be forced to add evolution to the mix. If I stuck a group full of people on the planet in a homogenous state, and did not allow them to grow and learn, both mentally and physically, Id have a mindless slave race. Free will entitles evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  30. dear qetzal if there is any possible way to add a new gene this will prove creation theory not evolution theory because there must be a creator for that gene

    ReplyDelete
  31. to 'the other jim'
    F- for you in computer skills, Wikepedia is a NON-RELIABLE website. I could change it right now to say that the world was created by me and that People can control animals with our minds telapathically, if we say special words, which for the record is not true.

    Also, to Kevin, evolution cannot occur based on what organisms try to do during their life. If a couple of humans ran around all day flapping their arms, it does not mean their children would have wings. Another example, is that if two body builders had a baby, the baby would not be born with well built muscles.

    ReplyDelete
  32. please explain the Frilled shark, if your theory is true then surely this creature would have evolved, od, not, why?Hagfish,The lancetfish,Arowana,Sturgeon,Arapaima,Sawfish,Alligator Gar,Polypterus Senegalus,Coelacanth. Evolution did not apply to these creatures , why.Chacoan peccary,Monito del Monte,Laotian rock rat.And more. evolution failed in these cases.

    ReplyDelete
  33. question: lets say that I'm an animal and i lack particular physical characteristics to survive in a particular area, lets say it relates to food. if i die of starvation how is it possible for the next generation of species of my kind to know to develop the needed characteristics to facilitate their life. i cant possibly tell them, I'M DEAD. and you tell me you think it possible for dead organisms to pass on information to subsequent species whether genetic or otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Two words. Irreducible Complexity. Research that, believers of Evolution. Try to prove THAT wrong. Stop clinging to a choppy, ridiculously flawed THEORY (not fact). The problem with you people is that you act like all of this Darwinism stuff is fact. Even prestigious scientists admit there's nowhere near enough evidence to even begin THINKING about declaring it as fact. Whether you believe in a divine creator or not, at least have enough dignity not to be deceived by such a ridiculous claim such as Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @TJ Lane

    The problem with "Irreducible Complexity" is for the last 500 or so years, every example pointed to has been shown to be reducible after all.

    By it's nature, the whole idea is about shifting goalposts until that field is settled, then moving on to a new field. Behe et al are just repackaging and reselling an idea that was abandoned in astronomy, particle physics, etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  36. TJ Lane writes:

    Two words. Irreducible Complexity. Research that, believers of Evolution. Try to prove THAT wrong.

    Thanks for providing us all with a much-needed laugh, TJ! :-)

    Four words: Michael Behe cross examination. That would be in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (which you may have heard of, or maybe not, if you think irreducible complexity is something that still remains to be proved wrong.) It's freely available on the Internet, and has been described as a textbook example of a cross examination that absolutely destroyed the credibility of the witness.

    During the cross examination, Behe had to agree that if Intelligent Design is science, then astrology must be, too.

    And speaking specifically of irreducible complexity, when presented with a two-foot high pile comprised of textbooks and over 50 peer-reviewed research articles, all showing that structures or functions he cited as "irreducibly complex" clearly were not (that is, they functioned perfectly well with "irreducible" parts removed), he simply declared that he didn't believe any of the books or articles without even having read them. In the judge's ruling, he noted how "impressed" he was (not!) with Behe's method of supporting his conclusions by simply ignoring the mountain of contrary factual evidence.

    So you're quite welcome to follow a line of "reasoning" that depends on ignoring all the facts. Oh, and you'll also want to be up on the latest verbiage from the Intelligent Design folks. No one's really using "irreducible complexity" any longer since it was shown to completely fall apart under a few minutes' questioning. Now people are talking about "specified complex information" - not just "complex information," but complex information *specified* by someone; you know, someone like God. Of course since this assumes exactly the proposition that was supposed to be proved (that someone must specify the information), it is logically and scientifically completely full of crap.

    Just so you know.

    ReplyDelete
  37. TJ Lane spouts,

    Two words. Irreducible Complexity. Research that, believers of Evolution. Try to prove THAT wrong.

    Why would I want to prove that wrong?

    There are lots of examples of irreducible complexity in biology. The fun part is explaining how they arose as a result of evolution.

    The example I like best is the one I put in my textbook. It explains how an irreducible complex like the citric acid cycle came about by ordinary evolutionary mechanisms [Defining Irreducible Complexity] [Irreducible Complexity].

    There are many other examples where we have a perfectly good evolutionary explanation for irreducible complexity. Did you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Another major flaw in the theory is the lack of supporting evidence from fossil records.Darwin was sure evidence gained from these records would prove his theory correct, but no such evidence has yet turned up. If life forms have truly been gradually evolving over the milennia, why have no mid-transition samples (i.e. fossils) been found. Darwin himself said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

    ReplyDelete
  39. Noticed one or two citing the second law of thermodynamics as evidence of a creator, this is nonsense and creationists have been known to misquote the law stating that "all things tend toward entropy" therefore life does not become more complex so there must be a creator. The law actually states "IN A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT all things tend towards entropy" the universe or earth for that matter can't justifiably be seen as a closed environment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Help me understand this. If evolution were true -- the variations which suppose the non-existence of God or some intelligence -- where the heck did that first speck of life come from? In other words, where is the beginning of evolution? If we came from a soup, or a bang, or whatever, where did THAT come from? What initiated the bang? I mean, you always have to start with SOMETHING, right? Planets, space, the whole nine yards -- the very beginning must be created in order for evolution to begin.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Okay. I have no side. Id have to say people that buy evolution are just fricking dumb. Evolution is a great IDEA. But think. Humans adapt. We overcome. But we do not change. If you put a tribe of humans in north canada and a tribe in central american each will adapt. They will be toned to their envirement. The ones in canada wont grow a second heart to increase blood flow or somthing. The ones in central america wouldnt grow different lungs for the humidity or somthing. The analogys arent perfect but the point is. People dont become a different animal suited to their problems. They adapt and get use to it. And think about this. Why do we see in color? Why do we see at all? Why do we have brain power? Why are humans the sentient species? Why? What purpose would it serve to have eyes? Or to walk? IF the first life sprouted out of mud why would the adapt to become more advanced? They had all they needed. Food. Living space. Others of their kind. They only needed food. And im assuming they had it. So if they were running low on food what? They quickly evolve to get more food? They would die out. The most likely thing to happen is this. They would reach their population cap and never change. Now there are flaws in creationism too. But creationist dont care as much about proving their beliefs. Evolutionists are on a crusade to jam evolution down everybodys throat. Some religions do that too. But the question that really matters. Who cares? What does it matter if you believe we are made from an all mighty being or from a puddle of primortial soup. We are still human. And we have short lives. Why waste time fighting over an age old war fought over somthing unprovable. And think about this. Evolution is a THEORY. Nowhere near as true as 2+2=4 and creationism is a PERSONAL BELIEF. That means that they the person decided to believe in that faith. If you want to be logical? Religon is great. Religous people dont do as many crimes. There are religous wars of course but evolution is treated as a religon. So dont blame those of faith for religous wars. Evolutionists have more faith in their belief than i christian has in theirs. Just chill out. Let it go. Its like politics. You vote. You know your vote really dosnt matter. And you live on. You argue over origon knowing that winning that argument wont change a spec of the world. Its a waste of time. Just live your life and do what makes YOU as a human being happy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. FATAL FLAWS presented here are wrong...though i dont believe in Darwinism... animals can add genes by a process called gene duplication...once the gene is duplicated it keeps on changing by acquiring mutations and ends up being a entirely different gene after many tears....

    ReplyDelete
  43. irreducibly complex systems

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yeah I haven't really given much serious thought to Darwinism either. It has a few good points and some flaws. I also agree that people should live their lives on what makes them happy. However I think Religion is much more of a pain in the ass than Evolutionists.haha I mean you get elders, preachers etc, knocking on door after door to preach something they "think" is true. Sometimes I see the way people talk about their religion and this religion and its funny. I don't hate religion or anything nor do I resent it, because it is an interesting topic. But when people keep justifying creation around us by saying it was made by some powerful being they have never seen or talked to, its just ridiculous. Yet I have a very open mind so I still take religion into consideration when it comes to such topics. I guess the main question on both sides is, where is the proof? This is what I always look for when I study. If we evolved why hasn't Anthropology found anything? If the Bible is a true testimony of our so called creator "God", where is the proof of past events? Did Jesus actually walk on water? was there even a man by the name of Jesus? so many questions, little answers nor evidence on that note. But then again why would someone waste time compiling people's testimony's into one Bible? we could say it was for religious purposes, easier to make sense of prophets and their teachings and the timelines and so on. But then I would say look at the authors nowadays who write novels and books just as long as the Bible, and they are just stories. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Bible could've been written for any reason. Because this is how I view the Bible, just someone trying to tell a story. Was there really someone who lived at the exact moment in time when our so called "creator" created earth? The Book of Genesis? It is Improbable that someone was alive to record such an event when he only started creating the earth just then. And if Noah's Ark saved most species, where were the dinosaurs? or where is there any mention of Dinosaurs in the bible? when they so clearly mention such exotic animals such as tigers and so on. Yet Anthropology dates many Dinosaurs back to such dates in time. Well I could go on all day but the main point is to not dwell on these mysteries, this lifetime or the next will never be enough to uncover the truth. Live life on the edge, have fun, make mistakes, sin alot and don't repent, do whatever, be a pain, cause havoc. .you only live once. Don't waste it on sitting in boring old church listening to some old guy preaching on boring old shyt from "his point of view". Find the truth for yourself. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @ AnonymousJan 27, 2012 01:42 AM

    - the Aborigines of Australia, to this day still have tales of the Dream Time. Stone wall paintings that can be interpeted today by modern day Aboriginals. How is that possible? [rhetorically in relation to the improbablity of Judean Bibical books - after re-reading you comment "The Book of Genesis" i'll simply add, God was there to record the event]

    - The stories of the Old Teastament are of the law and how Kings ruled, whom claimed to have divine intervention. Their personal tales are of how they dealt with matters pertaining to Kings and being mortal and also, being human.

    - The New Testament is about one King conquering the law & setting a standard to embody all law for eternity. "A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." [There is an enternal & spiritual meaning, in both Books, but i'm refering to their teachings as books]

    - That pivotal [near final] teaching of Jesus Christ, regardless of proof of God's existance or His own, is what sustanes trust in Him and His will.

    - i don't begrudge you your opinion, but to callously throw the question out there "was there even a man by the name of Jesus?" It needs an answer. Yes. [there is no historical proof at all to deny Jesus of Nazareth ever existed]

    - personally; i addressed your post "Anonymous Jan 27, 2012 01:42 AM" because yours was the last on the page not because i wanted to single you out. Finally, i absolutely agree with you, there are so many claims to the truth that it becomes a personal question for you alone.

    - as for the initial post. those points mentioned seem too simple to have any true merit. as others have pointed out from a scientific point of view, there are too many overlooked factors.

    i) mathamatical fomulas are in constant change and renewal, making older ones obsolete.

    ii) i would consider, we're [as humans] still on the fontier of genetics and to dimiss new discovers & corrections is reckless.

    iii) watching that lame antelope getting eaten by the lion is a true enough suggestion of the idealogy of survival of the fittest.

    - Coconut Crabs. Evolution can explain the claw but not the reason why this crab decides to drag a coconut up a tree and drop it, in order to eat coconut flesh. Was there a first crab? Or a group? Was it a single meal or family meal, that first coconut? Were they sick of mud? - in my 70 odd years on this rock, i will probably never know the answer to WHY this crab does this. But i do muse at times.

    ReplyDelete
  46. To the person that mentioned down syndrome as as an example of a mechanism "adding genes". Down syndrome is called trisomy 21 because affected individuals have three number 21 chromosomes, instead of two, so wouldn't that mean a duplication of genes in chromosome 21 and no actual NEW genes? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just wondering and asking questions. As I understand it duplication is not about new genes with new "evolved" characteristics as Lance also pointed out. It's a copy of existing ones. ? Don't these cases of extra genes and mutations almost in all cases deteriorate the organism rather than benefit it / make it more "fit" ??? How would that result in evolution by natural selection ??? I would like to learn more about this subject. So any scientific replies are welcome, just don't get personal about how stupid I might sound. I'm just asking

    ReplyDelete
  47. actually i believe that as long as genes can be duplicated OR changed there is no reason that overtime BOTH can happen. the best proof of evolution is that we can duplicated minimally and by that i mean domesticated animals. if we can do that with NO NEED for the animal to change. why can the universe (not some old man in the sky) do the same when pushed to do so? And the evolution between the animals we know were here long ago and resemblance of those here today. i highly doubt these creature just one day replaced one another. the fact you think these are fatal flaws make me wonder why you aren't jumping on the TRULY fatal flaws of religion. but I'm a child and though i don't have the "experience" adults have i think that what I have said so far be understood and considered

    ReplyDelete
  48. Please explain the eye? How and why would the first organism evolve an eye, if they had only 4 senses, what would cause them to develop one based on an interaction that the other four senses could not communicate. Light without an eye to begin with has no effect on the other four senses?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I once believed in evelution as it was taught to me as a child and we believe what are elders taught us. but the flaws are much greater than these three. I dont belive we are aliens either but I would believe that before evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Theory of evolution and it's implications are insufficient, or even contradictory to what we observe of humanity today. I believe it contradicts the existence of culture, morality, creativity, and basic human desires that exist around us and within us. If we indeed evolved from animals, then would it be wrong for me to eat some of you and your children when I am hungry? Would you all please take off your clothes and run around Time Square naked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, like why wear clothes when growing furs would protect us better?

      Delete
  51. Fossil evidence which should reinforce the theory of evolution exposes great flaws in the theory. For example there are great gaps in time between related species with no fossil evidence of the species evolving or mutating from the original species in to the new species. Then there are even greater periods of time where the species does not evolve at all. There also many species that seem to just appear through out history with no evidence of similar species or closely related ancestors (aardvark,) which actually supports creationism not evolution. Then there is the effect of causality on life. How or why would life just appear? A book does not just write itself yet there is more information in the DNA of a single cell organism then there is in a whole library full of encyclopedias. Not only is there an incredible amount of information in DNA, but the info has a specific order and a specific structure. This is fact not a theory. This fact is the strongest evidence that life could not just spring from a random mixture of elements over time. So if the simplest life form had an author or a creator, then it is safe to say that we also had a creator.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think that no adding genes is most likely correct. But what everyone seems to have missed is that amoeba has the biggest genome in existence which clearly points towards something else. That dna gets shorter thus genes are stripped off. This very simple observation means that most likely entire stuff started with enormous strands which became shorter as organism was getting more specified and thus dna stripped off inactive parts as they consume energy for no reason which is a conclusion i came to when i learned that dna repairs itself. This is the missing part of evolution hypothesis. DNA gets shorter not longer with time which also in a way coresponds to thermodynamics. We cannot trace linkage between say chimpanzees and humans because its gone akin to being stripped off once the species branched off from common ancestor. Similarity between primates cannot be a coincidence in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. As a graduate engineer and author of > 20 patents, I am very skeptical about evolutionary theories.
    40 years experience taught me that the more complex any "design"--- the less likely any random change will be beneficial!
    Yet random changes via mutations presumably have "evolved" single cell creatures into men!
    (bear in mind that single cell living creatures are amazingly complex).
    Consider a modern passenger aircraft such as the Boeing 747 with its complicated structures and mechanisms --products of countless intelligent design decisions over many years. More specifically, ponder say the huge main bearings supporting the turbine main-shaft. These result from thousands of design decisions re basic geometry, materials, fits, heat treatment, hardness, surface finish, clearances, lubrication type and amount, seals. cooling, etc,etc. Now let's just "randomly" substitute "Wesson Oil" for the complex specified engine lubricant. The plane departs from LAX to Tokyo in 5 minutes--- so hop aboard !
    The aircraft would likely (hopefully?) never become airborne.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Building built by men we saw today is another kind of creation.
    So as the living thing we saw today is another kind of creation.

    Do the building erected by random thing happen in universe? Answer: No
    So as the living thing.

    It just a difference of expertise, between human vs human creator.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I see some nutbags on this thread claiming that there is a mathematical formula and genetic mechanism for evolution. If that were true, what is stopping us from replicating life?

    ReplyDelete