Things that defy evolution

Vereon

Member
Jan 12, 2006
7
0
32
✟117.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
This may take a few days to read, but I would like to see an evolutionist explain the following:

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
-Charles Darwin

Animal Oddities That Defy Evolution

When Darwin proposed his famous theory back in 1859, he was aware that one of the glaring weaknesses of his speculations was how to explain complex features in animals by small and gradual evolutionary steps. He admitted, "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" (Origin of Species, p. 149).

Close to 150 years later, research has provided numerous examples in nature in which complex organs in animals could not have developed by small, successive steps. From molecular science on up, many complex systems had to appear simultaneously, with all their components intact, or they would not function, thus offering no survival advantage.

The bombardier beetle's chemical weapon

One example of this kind of biological complexity is the bombardier beetle's defense system. It has so many essential parts and chemicals that, if any are missing, the whole system will not work. Moreover, if everything did not work just right, the deadly chemical mixture inside the beetle would prove fatal rather than favorable.

The tiny beetle, less than an inch long, appears as a tasty morsel for many types of animals. But, as they near the beetle to gobble it up, they suddenly find themselves sprayed with a scalding and noxious solution that forces them to beat a fast retreat. How can this unassuming insect produce such a complex and effective defense system?

The components making up the beetle's effective chemical warfare have been analyzed by chemists and biologists down to the molecular level. When the beetle senses danger, it secretes two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, that end up in a storage chamber inside its body. By tensing certain muscles, it moves the chemicals to another compartment, called the explosion chamber.

But, just as a loaded cannon will not go off without some sort of ignition device, so these two chemicals will not explode without the right catalyst being added. Inside the beetle's body, this catalyst is injected into the explosion chamber. As a result, a boiling hot and toxic liquid is spewed out of the beetle's rear toward the threatening predator's face. All three chemical elements and chambers have to exist for this powerful defense system to work.

How could such a complex system evolve by gradual steps? With only the two chemicals mixing, nothing happens. But, when the catalyst is added in the proper amount and at the right time, the beetle is equipped with an amazing chemical cannon. Could all these components appear by a gradual, step-by-step process?

Francis Hitching comments on the bombardier beetle's defense system: "The chain of events that could have led to the evolution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological explanation on a simple step-by-step basis. The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles. The problem of evolutionary novelties is quite widely accepted among biologists . . . In every case, the difficulty is compounded by the lack of fossil evidence. The first time that the plant, creature, or organ appears, it is in its finished state, so to speak" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 68).

Nevertheless, evolutionist Richard Dawkins tries to dismiss the complex features of the bombardier beetle by simply saying: "As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That's often how evolution works" (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 87).

This is not a convincing explanation at all for Dr. Behe, who has studied this beetle's components down to their molecular level. "Dawkins' explanation for the evolution of the system," he says, "rests on the fact that the system's elements 'happened to be around' . . . But Dawkins has not explained how hydrogen peroxide and quinones came to be secreted together at very high concentration into one compartment that is connected . . . to a second compartment that contains enzymes necessary for the rapid reaction of the chemicals" (Behe, p. 34).

Now that the whole defense system of the beetle has been thoroughly studied, even if the chemicals "happened to be around," this elaborate chemical cannon would not work without everything from the molecular level up working together and at exactly the right time. Dawkins' argument is as absurd as saying that if gunpowder, a fuse, a barrel and a cannonball "happened to be around," eventually they would put themselves together, carefully load the ingredients in the right sizes and proportions, and then go off at the right direction without blowing themselves up somewhere along the way. No, all the components had to be carefully and intelligently assembled in order to function.

Dr. Behe notes: "Some evolutionary biologists-like Richard Dawkins-have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish . . . Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level all the 'details' become critical. If a molecular nut or bolt is missing, then the whole system can crash" (Behe, p. 65).

Astounding bird migrations

Consider another enormous biological complexity-how birds, such as certain storks, ducks, geese and robins, gained the ability to navigate accurately across thousands of miles of previously unknown territory and land in exactly the right zone and at the right time of year to feed and breed. Then, when winter ends in the northern hemisphere, they fly thousands of miles back and arrive safely in their same nesting grounds. Homing experiments have revealed that these birds have inherited the ability to map their location using the stars by night and the sun by day.

hey subconsciously process astronomical data and gauge the altitude, latitude and longitude to fly unerringly to a predetermined place. They have an internal clock and calendar to let them know when to start and finish their migrations. Perhaps what is most surprising is that they are able to reach their distant destiny even on their first trip-without any experience!

For instance, the white-throated warbler migrates every year from Germany to Africa. Remarkably, when the adult birds migrate, they leave their offspring behind. Several weeks later, when the young birds are strong enough, they instinctively fly across thousands of miles of unknown land and sea to arrive at the same spot where their parents are waiting! How can these inexperienced birds navigate with such accuracy across thousands of miles and arrive safely to be reunited with their parents?

In North America the golden plover circumnavigates around most of the northern and southern hemispheres in its migrations. After nesting in Canada and Alaska, plovers begin their trip from the northeastern tip of Canada and fly across the ocean down to Brazil and Argentina, a trip of more than 2,400 miles. When the season is over they travel back north, taking a different route through South and Central America, then up the Mississippi basin all the way to their nesting grounds. They do this flawlessly year after year.

Dr. Huse comments: "The causes of migrations and the incredible sense of direction shown by these animals presents the evolutionist with one of the most baffling problems of science. Evolutionists are indeed hard-pressed to explain how these remarkable abilities evolved piecemeal through mere chance processes apart from any directing intelligence. The piecemeal development of such an instinct seems highly improbable because migratory instincts are useless unless perfect. Obviously, it is of no benefit to be able to navigate perfectly across only half of an ocean" (The Collapse of Evolution, 1998, p. 34).

The salmon's amazing cycle

Some species of salmon exhibit amazingly complex migrations. Hatching from eggs in streams, they spend the first few years of life in freshwater lakes and rivers. After growing to several inches they swim downstream to the ocean, where they adapt to a completely different chemical environment-saltwater-and spend the next few years.

In the process they often migrate for thousands of miles as they feed and grow. Eventually, toward the end of their lives, they leave the ocean environment and swim upriver and upstream against the current until they reach the very stretch of stream where they were hatched years earlier. There they spawn and die, with their decaying bodies providing nutrients for the newly laid eggs. The eggs then hatch to start a new generation, repeating the amazing cycle.

These many adaptations go against the supposed "numerous, successive, slight modifications" of evolutionary theory as well as plain common sense. If a species is well adapted to live in freshwater, why undergo the physiological changes necessary to live in saltwater? And why the enormous and exhausting trip back to their original birthplace only to face certain death?

How do these species, after traveling up to several thousand miles, manage to find the very streams in which they were first spawned several years earlier? No plausible evolutionary explanation has been offered.

The decoy fish

In Hawaiian waters swims the astounding decoy fish. When hunting for other fish to eat, it raises its dorsal fin, which appears as a small, helpless fish, complete with an apparent mouth and eye.

It then stays motionless except for the dorsal fin, which it moves from side to side to make the decoy appear to open and close its mouth. The fin itself becomes transparent except for the upper part of the fin, which looks like a separate fish. It turns a bright red, enhancing the illusion of a smaller fish. This unassuming creature has just created an optical illusion that even a Hollywood special-effects artist would envy. To an incoming fish the decoy looks like an easy meal, and as it moves in for the kill it suddenly finds itself inside the jaws of the decoy fish.

As Dr. Huse notes: "The decoy-fish clearly exhibits great ingenuity, attention to biological details, and a sense of purposefulness. No matter how one contorts one's reasoning, one cannot explain such a marvel in terms of the evolutionary theory. Such clear design does not result from mere chance but rather requires careful and deliberate blueprint encoding within the DNA of the decoy-fish by a highly capable molecular programmer" (Huse, p. 36).

Dr. Huse notes other fish species that use similar deceptions to snare a meal. "One type of anglerfish has a 'fishing rod' coming out of its back with a luminescent 'bulb' at the end of it. Another, the deep-sea angler, has a 'light bulb' hanging from the roof of its mouth. It just swims around with an open mouth, dangling the lure from side to side. Small fish, attracted by the display, swim to their death right into the angler's mouth!" (Huse, p. 36).

He also notes that anglerfish have the ability to move their "bait" in a manner that mimics the real thing; an anglerfish with a fishlike bait will move it in a swimming motion while one with an appendage resembling a shrimp will move it with a shrimp's backward-darting motion. On those occasions when the anglerfish's "bait" is nipped off-as could be expected to happen under the circumstances-the anglerfish can fully regrow it within two weeks (Huse, p. 36).

Giraffe -- this animal also contains three unique, cooperating capabilities.

Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, there is a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe. Every giraffe on earth would be dead if these things werent with the giraffe all at once, they cannot evolve if they are dead.

Gradual adaptations?

Now, with our greater understanding of enormously complex and integrated systems that rule all living systems, we see that Darwin's theory that all life evolved through a gradual system of adaptations can be easily and satisfactorily refuted.

Dr. Behe sums up the results of many years of working in molecular biochemistry: "The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws" (Behe, p. 252).

Scientist Soren Lovtrup, admits, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422).
 

Vereon

Member
Jan 12, 2006
7
0
32
✟117.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Watch a few of these videos. Copy it and paste into your URL bar.

incrediblecreaturesthatdefyevolution.com/folders.asp?action=display&record=13

Dr. Martin as a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution...rather a revolution when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
-Charles Darwin

Did you know that teachers are getting fiired for teaching things that disprove evolution? Scientists are supposed to question and experiment. This is not REAL science unless both sides are presented fairly, Darwin said himself.

Things in textbooks that support evolution have been proven false for years, like Haeckle's Embryos.
 
Upvote 0

Army of Juan

Senior Member
Dec 15, 2004
614
31
54
Dallas, Texas
✟15,931.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Vereon said:
Did you know that teachers are getting fiired for teaching things that disprove evolution?
As of right now there is not one thing that disproves evolution, not one. If a teacher got fired for teaching something they thought was against evolution then it would be because it was religous based since only YECs have a problem with evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Here is a possible step-by-step evolutionary pathway for the bombadier beetle. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

  1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
  2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
  3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
  4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
  5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
  6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
  7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.
  8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]


  9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
  10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.
  11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
  12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]
  13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
  14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
  15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
 
Upvote 0

Vereon

Member
Jan 12, 2006
7
0
32
✟117.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Army of Juan said:
As of right now there is not one thing that disproves evolution, not one. If a teacher got fired for teaching something they thought was against evolution then it would be because it was religous based since only YECs have a problem with evolution.

really? did you even begin to read my post.

How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.

Also, as even Darwin said, the religious view needs to be included, or the result is invalid.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
-Charles Darwin
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Vereon said:
Did you know that teachers are getting fiired for teaching things that disprove evolution? Scientists are supposed to question and experiment. This is not REAL science unless both sides are presented fairly, Darwin said himself.

If the teachers are presenting things (such as the stuff in your opening post) that do not disprove evolution, all the while claiming that they do disprove evolution, then they deserve to be fired. Why would you defend misinformation in the classroom.

Things in textbooks that support evolution have been proven false for years, like Haeckle's Embryos.

Show me which textbooks are using these diagrams and I will email the publisher personally to tell them that they should cease and desist.

At the same time, this does nothing to make real evidence disappear, such as transitional fossils and genetic data. Using the same logic, christianity must have been falsified when David Koresh claimed he was the second coming of Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Vereon said:
really? did you even begin to read my post.

How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.

So how do giraffes drink water from streams? I have never heard of a giraffe whose head blew off. Have you?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Some choice statements:
Vereon said:
Close to 150 years later, research has provided numerous examples in nature in which complex organs in animals could not have developed by small, successive steps.
Has it? Let's see which examples you present and whether they are new. I just don't want to put in a lot of time for now, so I'm going for the talkorigins list of creationist claims

1: The bombardier beetle: This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
  1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
  2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
  3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
  4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
  5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
Bird Migration: Couldn't find anything on it on talkorigins. I have studied this topic on the past. Basically they can evolve by a gradual widening of the distribution of birds from a central place, either through competition or through things like continental drift.

The salmon's cylce: Couldn't find anything on this on a casual glance. Haven't studied the subject before either.

The decoy Fish: idem

The giraffe: This argument assumes that the giraffe neck had to be elongated in one go. I really don't see how a gradual development is so hard to imagine in this case. As the necks become gradually longer, all features described above become gradually stronger. To quote from talkorigins on a similar creationist claim on the giraffe neck (yes, this claim seems to have evolve ;)): "In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth."

Gradual adaptations: well, yes. For the three arguments I know about, gradual adaptation is a very plausible scenario.

There's another thing very wrong with all the above arguments, and that is that they are all arguments from incredulity. In the arguments a system is described. Next, the author shouts that this system is "too complex to have evolved!!!111", without even having done some in depth study on the system and possible precursors. Very bad reasoning there, bad, bad reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

Lucretius

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2005
4,382
206
36
✟5,541.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Vereon said:
How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.

You make a mistake common to Creationists and ID advocates. You deny the existence of possible intermediaries because you say you must have none or all, but nothing inbetween. Ken Miller did an excellent job of debunking this notion of irreducible complexity in his talk.

One example is the oft-used blood clot cascade. Certain parts of the cascade are missing in other creatures but their blood still clots.

Another example I was able to pick up from Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is, which talks about the Pax-6 gene, which has changed function to be used for sight. The gene performs other functions in eyeless creatures.

The point of these two examples is to demonstrate that function change in the genotype of an individual lineage is a possibility, one that the opponents of evolution do not take into account and that solves the "problems" of Irreducible complexity.
 
Upvote 0
I

Ioinc

Guest
Vereon said:
Close to 150 years later, research has provided numerous examples in nature in which complex organs in animals could not have developed by small, successive steps.

This is simply not true

Vereon said:
One example of this kind of biological complexity is the bombardier beetle's defense system. It has so many essential parts and chemicals that, if any are missing, the whole system will not work.

This is inaccurate. A complex system does not have to work at 100% efficiency to be a benifit in nature.

Your eye is a good example of this. In a large percentage of the population the eye does not work correctly, many people (me) need glasses, some people are color blind.

Is some vision better than perfect vision... of course.

Is a some defense system in the beetle better than no defense system... of course.

To imply that "if any are missing, the whole system will not work" is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
47
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Vereon said:
How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.
Why couldn't the backflow-prevention system evolve before the long neck?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,199
821
California
Visit site
✟23,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Vereon said:
really? did you even begin to read my post.

We probably spent longer reading it than you did writing it, plagiarizing youth.

Vereon said:
How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.

You do know, don't you, that evolution doesn't work piece by piece?

Vereon said:
Also, as even Darwin said, the religious view needs to be included, or the result is invalid.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"

-Charles Darwin

First of all, the result has been obtained. Science has evaluated the evidence. Even the courts have ruled, and even Christian, church-going, Republican-appointed judges have upheld the decision. The case isn't going to be re-opened without new evidence. PRATTs won't do.

Religion addresses the supernatural. Science cannot address the supernatural. The results of scientific controversy are obtained in the scientific community, not in high school classrooms, nor in the ballot box.

The quote in context, from the introduction to "On the Origin of Species":

I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html

It can be seen that Darwin was referring to balancing and considering scientific opinions, not religious opinions.

But thousands of points have since been addressed in the scientific literature. The theory of evolution has stood up to every scientific challenge. No serious scientific challenge has been mounted since the emergence of the modern synthesis. It is because this failure of creationism has been tacitly acknowledged by creationists that they are trying to resurrect the controversy in the political forum and the high school classroom.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
vajradhara said:
from whom was this post taken?

metta,

~v

This looks like its likely ripped directly from Jobe Martins book "'Evolution of a
Creationist" who also made a DVD series "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution". My uncle made me watch the first DVD a couple of year ago. Biggest load of nonsence, especially when I found out he wasnt a scientist like he claimed but in fact, *chuckle* a dentist.

Edit: A couple of years ago Aron Ra wrote a massive crique to several sections of Jobe Martins book on Talk Origins.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A14E2457C
 
Upvote 0

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Vereon said:
Did you know that teachers are getting fiired for teaching things that disprove evolution?
It's quite telling that so far, this claim is still unsupported. Care to show us where you got this information?

Also, as even Darwin said, the religious view needs to be included, or the result is invalid.
#1 - he didn't say the religious view needs to be included. #2 - that's not how science works anyhow. You can't just insert your religious views and call them science - that's not how the scientific method works.
 
Upvote 0

Vereon

Member
Jan 12, 2006
7
0
32
✟117.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Also in textbooks, the peppered moth, evolutionists believe they changed colors in the industrial revolution, this is also in textbooks, and has been proven not true. The moths do not rest on the bark of trees, thus making the pictures invalid.

Also with finches on the galapagos island, how they grew bigger beaks in the drought so they could eat. But with further study, it seems that they ones with smaller beaks moved out to another place so they could eat (makes sense.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vereon

Member
Jan 12, 2006
7
0
32
✟117.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
You call them religious, why? It is another view of science, you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law. Creation is science. If you think it is religious because of faith, then you are calling evolution religious too, because it is not a law, you have faith that it is true, as we believe that Creation is true.
 
Upvote 0