Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity

Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity

1. The term 'evolution' is an equivocation fallacy that attempts to define two different proposed processes under the same definition. It is a violation of the logical reasoning process to conclude that the genetic variation we can observe within and around species explains the creation of complex body plans, organs, and other complex systems. Darwin's theory is illogical, serendipitous, and unproven.

2.. Complex life by complete accident over billions and trillions of successive serendipitous accidents is an incredulous claim without evidence.

3.. Calculations of the time necessary to evolve from goo-to-you reveal such a low probability of macro-evolution happening that the odds are beyond the threshold of 'impossible'. Hitchen's was correct - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"...

If someone approaches you, and asks, why is evolution not true, how could we answer in simple terms, without being too technical? I would first outline, that there must be made a differentiation. Darwin's theory has to be subdivided into three main aspects of the theory. 1. Adaptation, the tree of life, where it is claimed, that all life and biodiversity originated from one single ancestor, and macroevolution, and biodiversity which is claimed to be due to macroevolution. The dispute is about common ancestry and macroevolution. Bacteria do not share the same replication process, nor the same cell membrane as animals ( eukaryotes ). Even peer-reviewed science papers admit that, and so, common ancestry of all domains of life is a refuted claim. Most phyla ( animal forms ) appear suddenly in the geological strata, and not gradually, so the fossil record does not support evolution. Macro-evolution has also never been observed in the laboratory. Bacterias can adapt to antibiotics, but will never become something else, then bacteria.   A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional.   Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution. Furthermore, organisms on a molecular level are full of molecular machines, Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. 1. Complex machines and factories are intelligently designed 2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines 3. Biological cells are intelligently designed. It has been claimed that so called Junk DNA is evidence of remnants of evolution, and is junk - or, has no function. The design prediction that Junk DNA HAS function is being unraveled, and more and more it is clear, that Junk DNA fullfills life essential functions, like gene regulation ( that is, when a gene is expressed ). Body plan building, and consequently, its supposed evolution, does not depend uniquely on information contained in the genetic code, but beyond ( epigenetics ). That is, what causes body form, and cell size and shape, depends on Membrane targets and patterns, Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes,  cell membrane Ion channels and their location, and  sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code), Gene regulatory networks, Transposons and Retrotransposons, and at least on a dozen epigenetic informational codes.

1. Evolution depends on huge ages, billion of years.  Radiometric dating is not reliable.
2. The millions or billions of transitional fossils are missing
3. There is no empirical data of an unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where  one "kind" did evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) ,  like an organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entirely different, new fully functioning biological  organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the rise of new body plans
4. Species appear and disappear abruptly in the fossil record.
5. Homo erectus, the precursor of homo sapiens, supposedly populated the earth for 1,5 million years. Where are the millions of fossils that should be buried and be found? They are missing.
6. Most species never changed. We have many animals, like Crocodiles, fish, crabs, insects, that can be found in the fossil record. unchanged.
7. Many fossils have been found with soft tissue, collagen, and proteins, which could not have remained preserved for millions of years.
8. DNA contains a blueprint, an instruction manual to make you, for example. Books, Blueprints, Instruction manuals, information retrieval, transmission, and translation systems do not emerge randomly. They have always an author and can be traced back to an intelligent source.  
9. Machines, assembly lines, computers, recycle systems, error check and repair systems are always invented by intelligence. Biological cells host all this.
10. The information in the genome does not increase but deteriorate.  
11. The human brain is 4 times the size and weight of a Chimp. It is supposed that a common ancestor of Apes and Humans lived 4 million years ago, and from there on, speciation into humans and apes began. The human brain has about 100 billion neurons. That means, there would have had to be the evolution from about 25billion of the common ancestor to 100billion of humans today, or an increase of 75 billion neurons in 4 million years. Or 25 thousand new neurons per year.  Each Neuron has 10 thousand synapses,  which connect to other neurons. Synapses function like a microprocessor and these over ten thousand per neuron would have had to find out how to connect correctly to other neighboring neurons. That is, 25 thousand new neurons, each with 10 thousand synapses, interconnecting correctly, per year !!
12. You cannot change just one body part. In order for evolution to account for the transition of land-living animals, to birds, for example, the whole body plan has to change, and not just single point mutations.
13. Natural selection has been shown to be able to account maximum for two mutations ( malaria ), but for new complex traits to emerge, at least six mutations are required, and it would take too much time to fix them into the population. ( Behe )
14. It has commonly been claimed that the question of how the eye evolved, has been answered. But scientists know this is not true. Rhodopsin is the key enzyme of sight. It is composed of two interdependent parts. Opsin, and retinal. One has no function without the other. And both are finely tuned to interact together. How can evolution explain its origin, if one has no function alone?
An article in Nature magazine confirms :
even as far back as the prokaryotes, the complex seven transmembrane domain arrangement of opsin molecules seems to prevail without simpler photoreceptors existing concurrently. Darwin’s original puzzle over ocular evolution seems still to be with us but now at a molecular level.
15. All complex life forms require interdependent parts. The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity. The human visual system depends on eye muscles, lubrification, a reliable communications channel (the optic nerve), the data to the central processing unit (the brain) via the visual cortex. If one of these components is missing, no deal. They had to evolve together, but during the evolution process, the single components would confer no survival advantage. What good would an optic nerve be for, without the eye, and the brain?

James Shapiro Microbiologistof the University of Chicago :
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996).

Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
In other words : Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system ? 
A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional.   Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution. 

Claim: Evolution is a scientific theory with emphasis on the word “scientific”. It is observable, based on PHYSICAL evidence.
Answer: Evolution by natural selection ( as the mechanism of the origin of species ) is the most successful and widely believed and accepted fairy-tale story ever invented and told, which keeps surviving despite 160 years of scientific advance and discoveries which have falsified the claim. It is able to survive by hiding and disguising behind names as " science', " peer reviewed", " fact", " consensus", and " rational", and because sold and indoctrinated in schools at science classes as credible serious science, endorsed and defended by most specialists like chemists and biologists, and at most universities in the world. Since 90% of the population is gullible and prefer simply to believe others say, they buy the lie, endorse and defend it. Most do not know that there is no consensus about common ancestry. There are critical differences in DNA replication, and the cell membrane, between eukaryotes, and prokaryotes. And mutations in DNA are not determinant of many determinants of body form, shape, and cell differentiation. Epigenetic factors are probably even more relevant than genetic variation to define body form and development.  And with that baggage in their mind, they make the leap of faith and believe, that their "knowledge" makes God superfluous. And so, they can live their lives as pleases, leaving God out of their lives.

The implicit connotation is that when a claim is scientific, it is most probably true since it went through an exhaustive process of peer review and empirical tests. Since evolution as scientific theory stood the test of time, it merits credibility. Science equals to the truth. Since evolution is scientific, it's trustworthy. If the claim is not scientific, it is most probably based on blind faith, and not worth to be taken seriously. For this reason, Darwinists try to discredit Intelligent Design as not being science, but religion. Once they achieve that goal, a further investigation of the scientific facts becomes superfluous.

What is not fact:
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

What is fact :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )


Darwins Theory of  Natural selection has been falsified

Op-Ed: Genetic mutations challenges Darwin’s evolution theory
DEC 28, 2012
The death of Darwin's evolution theory continues due to the evidence found in genome deterioration, sickle cell anemia mortality, beneficial mutations elusiveness, disease proliferation, and recent genetic mutations. Analysis of DNA/RNA mutations reveals that these genetic transformations cannot offer meaningful new information in significant quantities. Rather, these mutations will generate information degradation in the genome. 1

Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes
PEER-REVIEWED September 26, 2008
We allowed mutation rates to evolve, and we evaluated the proximity to the optimum. Although we chose conditions favorable for mutation rate optimization, the evolved rates were invariably far below the optimum across a wide range of experimental parameter settings. We hypothesized that the reason that mutation rates evolved to be suboptimal was the ruggedness of fitness landscapes. We conclude that rugged fitness landscapes can prevent the evolution of mutation rates that are optimal for long-term adaptation. This finding has important implications for applied evolutionary research in both biological and computational realms. 2

Random mutations deteriorate the genome
In a new paper in Science, 3Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on the evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis.  The abstract said:
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. 3

Non-random mutations: How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome 
And all available scientific evidence also indicates that evolution is an engineered process. In engineering and computer science, evolution never happens by accident. It’s always the result of a deliberate act. A program that can self-evolve is always considered an engineering marvel. 4

Scientists engineer animals with ancient genes to test causes of evolution
January 13, 2017
“For the first test case, we chose a classic example of adaptation-how fruit flies evolved the ability to survive the high alcohol concentrations found in rotting fruit. We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies’ evolution is simply wrong. 5 Siddiq and Thornton realized that this hypothesis could be tested directly using the new technologies. Siddiq first inferred the sequences of ancient Adh genes from just before and just after D. melanogaster evolved its ethanol tolerance, some two to four million years ago. He synthesized these genes biochemically, expressed them, and used biochemical methods to measure their ability to break down alcohol in a test tube. The results were surprising: the genetic changes that occurred during the evolution of D. melanogaster had no detectable effect on the protein’s function.[/size]

What’s that you say? No detectable effect?

One supposes that the gene selected is one, among very many, that can be best ‘reverse-engineered’ to give a facsimile of the ‘ancient’ form. Yet, when tested in vivo, there is no difference found between the supposed ‘slow’ ancestral gene, and the ‘fast’ extant form. This is not how neo-Darwinism is supposed to work. Something is seriously wrong, no? It might be that the techniques employed to identify the ‘ancestral’ form are bad. Maybe that’s it, and it alone. But, OTOH, maybe something is seriously wrong with current neo-Darwinian theory. Some notions concerning adaptation will, therefore, remain difficult to study rigorously. Nevertheless, because of technical and conceptual advances, it should now be possible to experimentally assess the causal predictions of many previously untested or weakly tested hypotheses of historical molecular adaptation, allowing them to be corroborated or, like the classic hypothesis of ADH divergence in D.melanogaster, decisively refuted. One wonders what’s really left of natural selection. Between Behe’s Edge of Evolution, Shapiro’s “Natural Genetic Engineering,” the whole field of epigenetics, the disappearing of “Junk-DNA”, and now the disappearance of a ‘fitness’ change in a “classic case” of molecular adaptation, can anyone seriously believe that Darwinism has much to say about how life evolves? Remarkably, already in 2010, following paper reported that the claim of NS was not observed in Drosophila. 


Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. 
2010 Sep 15
"Genomic changes caused by epigenetic mechanisms tend to fail to fixate in the population, which reverts back to its initial pattern." That's not all that doesn't fixate. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. 6

Evolution by epigenesis: farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise
2004 May-Aug
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. 7

Dissecting Darwinism
2012 Jan; 25
regarding the origin of the species and life (DNA), even Darwin commented, “If it could be shown that complex systems could not arise by small sequential steps, then my theory would completely break down.” Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm. 8

James Shapiro Microbiologistof the University of Chicago : 
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996).

Lynn Margulis: 
Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.
The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).
The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1

Consider the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” website which informs the student that “natural selection can produce amazing adaptations.” This hilariously appears on a page entitled “Misconceptions about natural selection.”

In fact natural selection, even at its best, does not “produce” anything. Natural selection does not and cannot influence the construction of any adaptations, amazing or not. If a mutation occurs which improves differential reproduction, then it propagates into future generations. Natural selection is simply the name given to that process. It selects for survival of that which already exists. Natural selection has no role in the mutation event. It does not induce mutations, helpful or otherwise, to occur. According to evolutionary theory every single mutation, leading to every single species, is a random event with respect to need.


Natural selection cannot induce a design to appear.
And yet, an Aristotelian mythology has been erected, imagining that natural selection creates things. This brings us back to this weekend’s debate, in which evolutionists Lawrence Krauss and Denis Lamoureux propagated and insisted upon this myth, and Stephen Meyer was presented with an enormous unpacking job. How does one disabuse two interlocutors whose perceived success depends on them not understanding the basic facts—in 30 seconds or less? 7

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

Why Darwin was wrong, and what really drives descent with modification

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?

Micro evolution and macro evolution  are not the same

Failed and falsified evolutionary predictions

Primary, and secondary speciation

Is there evidence for natural selection ?

Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes. Really ?

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design

"Tetrapods evolved" . Really ?

What are the mechanisms that drive adaptation to the environment, microevolution, and secondary speciation ?

Chimps, our brothers ?

The origin of Homo Sapiens & timeline of human evolution according to mainstream science.....

Chromosome 2, evidence for common ancestry ?

Satan and his demons must have held a long-standing debate to solve the problem of emerging evidence of design by the new arising disciplines of science, and scientific discoveries of the 19th century, and the writings of great minds like Paley. He needed urgently an effective, long lasting, damage limiting counter-idea and ways to infuse his devilishly fashioned sciency sounding elaborations long-term to people.

So he inspired Charles Darwin et al to come up with his pseudo-scientific nonsense but fashioned in a way which is the imprint of masters: The lies were hidden so well, that even after hundreds of years, the poor human mind is blinded by it.

The prudish costumes in the English empires were put away without a heavy conscience since Darwin's idea supposedly made God superfluous, and mistresses had their heydays. Past the first impact, his idea strengthened and survived in the academia, because the scientific evidence to dismask the lies came only long afterward.

In regard of the origin of life, in a now famous paragraph in the letter sent on February 1st, 1871, Darwin stated that

«it is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed [...]».
~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

What unraveled in front of our eyes along the last decades, however, is a new world of exquisite complexity, sophisticated engineering, factory-like production lines, storage, transmission and use of an enormous amount of genetic and epigenetic information, molecular highways and so on.

In the same sense, as Charly was considerably wrong in regard to the complexity of biological cells out of the ignorance of his days, he was in regard of the true mechanisms that define body form, cell shape, and biodiversity, and the extent and range of natural selection ( which is limited to just 2 mutations ).

But the father of lies has mastered it, to keep the lie alive, the claim of the superpowers of evolution walking around like a Zombie, and keeping the effects of this mental nuclear bomb: Many reject God by deluding themselves, by believing that evolution is the better answer to origins, and settles the issue. Same as the illuster genitors, 150 years ago. The crutches of evolution keep doing their job.

Once the crutches of evolution will be laid down, once for all, it will be much too late, anyway. Sadly.

Last edited by Admin on Sun May 13, 2018 8:22 pm; edited 21 times in total

View user profile


Behe, the edge of evolution

Recall the example of sickle cell disease. The sickle cell mutation is both a life saver and a life destroyer. It fends off malaria, but can lead to sickle cell disease. However,hemoglobin C-Harlem has all the benefits of sickle, but none of its fatal drawbacks. So in western and central Africa, a population of humans that had normal hemoglobin would be worst off, a population that had half normal and half sickle would be better off, and a population that had half normal and half C-Harlem would be best of all. But if that’s the case, why bother with sickle hemoglobin? Why shouldn’t evolution just go from the worst to the best case directly? Why not just produce the C-Harlem mutation straightaway and avoid all the misery of sickle? The problem with going straight from normal hemoglobin to hemoglobin C-Harlem is that, rather than walking smoothly up the stairs, evolution would have to jump a step. C-Harlem differs from normal hemoglobin by two amino acids. In order to go straight from regular hemoglobin to C-Harlem, the right mutations would have to show up simultaneously in positions 6 and 73 of the beta chain of hemoglobin. Why is that so hard? Switching those two amino acids at the same time would be very difficult for the same reason that developing resistance to a cocktail of drugs is difficult for malaria—the odds against getting two needed steps at once are the multiple of the odds for each step happening on its own. What are those odds? Very low. The human genome is composed of over three billion nucleotides. Yet only a hundred million nucleotides seem to be critical, coding for proteins or necessary control features. The mutation rate in humans (and many other species) is around this same number; that is, approximately one in a hundred million nucleotides is changed in a baby compared to its parents (in other words, a total of about thirty changes per generation in the baby’s three-billion-nucleotide genome, one of which might be in coding or control regions). In order to get the sickle mutation, we can’t change just any nucleotide in human DNA; the change has to occur at exactly the right spot. So the probability that one of those mutations will be in the right place is one out of a hundred million. Put another way, only one out of every hundred million babies is born with a new mutation that gives it sickle hemoglobin. Over a hundred generations in a population of a million people, we would expect the mutation to occur once by chance. That’s within the range of what can be done by mutation/selection.

To get hemoglobin C-Harlem, in addition to the sickle mutation we have to get the other mutation in the beta chain, the one at position 73. The odds of getting the second mutation in exactly the right spot are again about one in a hundred million. So the odds of getting both mutations right, to give hemoglobin C Harlem in one generation in an individual whose parents have normal hemoglobin, are about a hundred million times a hundred million (10^16). On average, then, nature needs about that many babies in order to find just one that has the right double mutation. With a generation time of ten years and an average population size of a million people, on average it should take about a hundred billion years for that particular mutation to arise—more than the age of the universe.

Hemoglobin C-Harlem would be advantageous if it were widespread in Africa, but it isn’t. It was discovered in a single family in the United States, where it doesn’t offer any protection against malaria for the simple reason that malaria has been eradicated in North America. Natural selection, therefore, may not select the mutation, and it may easily disappear by happenstance if the members of the family don’t have children, or if the family’s children don’t inherit a copy of the C-Harlem gene. It’s well known to evolutionary biologists that the majority even of helpful mutations are lost by chance before they get an opportunity to spread in the population. If that happens with C-Harlem, we may have to wait for another hundred million carriers of the sickle gene to be born before another new C-Harlem mutation arises.

View user profile


A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.

Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.  Credito to: Theodore Holden

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum