Question Technology
Are these nine good reasons why evolution (all species evolving from one species) cannot be true? Information credit goes to: http://us1.harunyahya.com/?
BillHill "In God We Trust" March 04, 2009 16:50:10
- 3 answers
- Read all 15 comments
Life cannot emerge by chance... The odds that an average protein molecule forms by chance have been calculated as “1 in 10950, a figure that far exceeds human imagination. In mathematical terms, this figure represents a probability of “zero.”
There is not a single intermediate fossil… Although some 100 million fossils belonging to 250,000 separate species have to date been unearthed, not one supports Darwinism.
“Living fossils” are a response to evolutionary myths... “living fossils” are the fossils that despite being hundreds of millions of years old, they are identical to specimens living today.
The unimaginable information in DNA… It is an absolute fact that DNA cannot form by chance.
Organs with irreducible complexity... For example, eyes and wings possess irreducible complexity. It is impossible for the structures such as the tear gland, retina and iris, that together comprise the eye, to come into being individually in stages.
All the variety of life on Earth appeared suddenly 530 million years ago... Nearly all the phyla (Mollusca, Chordata and similar categories) emerged in the Cambrian Period, 530 million years ago. Only one or two phyla existed in the Pre-Cambrian. For example, there is no difference between the eye of the trilobite, a life form that emerged in the Cambrian, and the eyes of present-day life forms.
Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds... Evolutionists are no longer able to point to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. Investigations of fossils have shown that the creature is not a transitional form, but rather an extinct species of bird with slightly different characteristics to those of present-day birds.
Fish did not move onto the land... Evolutionists once used to point to the coelacanth as evidence for the myth of a transition from water to dry land. It was thought that the coelacanth was an intermediate life form between fish and amphibians. However, a “living” coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938.
Mutations cannot form new species... Mutations are breakages and dislocations, caused by radiation or chemical effects, in the DNA molecule located in the nucleus of the living cell and that carries genetic information. DNA has a highly complex structure. For that reason, any random change arising in this molecule can only damage it. Mutations usually lead to irreparable damage, deformity and even death. People subjected to the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl are living indications of this. The claim that mutations are an evolutionary mechanism is proof of the dilemma facing the theory of evolution.
There is not a single intermediate fossil… Although some 100 million fossils belonging to 250,000 separate species have to date been unearthed, not one supports Darwinism.
“Living fossils” are a response to evolutionary myths... “living fossils” are the fossils that despite being hundreds of millions of years old, they are identical to specimens living today.
The unimaginable information in DNA… It is an absolute fact that DNA cannot form by chance.
Organs with irreducible complexity... For example, eyes and wings possess irreducible complexity. It is impossible for the structures such as the tear gland, retina and iris, that together comprise the eye, to come into being individually in stages.
All the variety of life on Earth appeared suddenly 530 million years ago... Nearly all the phyla (Mollusca, Chordata and similar categories) emerged in the Cambrian Period, 530 million years ago. Only one or two phyla existed in the Pre-Cambrian. For example, there is no difference between the eye of the trilobite, a life form that emerged in the Cambrian, and the eyes of present-day life forms.
Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds... Evolutionists are no longer able to point to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. Investigations of fossils have shown that the creature is not a transitional form, but rather an extinct species of bird with slightly different characteristics to those of present-day birds.
Fish did not move onto the land... Evolutionists once used to point to the coelacanth as evidence for the myth of a transition from water to dry land. It was thought that the coelacanth was an intermediate life form between fish and amphibians. However, a “living” coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938.
Mutations cannot form new species... Mutations are breakages and dislocations, caused by radiation or chemical effects, in the DNA molecule located in the nucleus of the living cell and that carries genetic information. DNA has a highly complex structure. For that reason, any random change arising in this molecule can only damage it. Mutations usually lead to irreparable damage, deformity and even death. People subjected to the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl are living indications of this. The claim that mutations are an evolutionary mechanism is proof of the dilemma facing the theory of evolution.
Loading... 
SodaHead Hot Trends
None of the above
-Simply grow a large colony of bacteria that is incapable of producing an enzyme to complete necessary biological pathways. The original dish will obviously have this enzyme because the bacteria can't produce it.
-After many generations, the colonies will be moved to a new dish.
-The new dish will have no enzyme on it of course.
-The results? Surprise! Some of the bacteria will live even though they were denied the vital enzyme! How?!?! MUTATION The bacteria changed so they could either produce the enzyme or go without. The point is that mutations happened and they were a good thing for the bacteria
None of the above
I've heard that line before. If every fossil is a transitional fossil then there should be an abundance of fossils between reptiles and birds, fish and reptiles, reptiles to mammals. Mammals warm blooded, reptiles cold blooded, mammals live birth, reptiles / eggs. There should be a few cold blooded rept-mals that give live birth and feed their young milk.
My point being that if you look at the Cambrian age you will see that there was an explosion of all types of species that were completely formed. There is also fossil of birds 140 million years old that haven't changed a bit in skeletal structure or wing development. Evolution says it takes millions of years to evolve from one species to another, I'm showing you how 140 millions years hasn't produced any change at all.
Do you even know what "natural selection" is? Have you any idea what mutations in species mainly consist of? Typically a mutation is a detriment to the species or at best breaks even. Very seldom does it actually produce change other than a negative change. There has never been witnessed in labs or in species where mutation have created a new trait in a species. If...
I've heard that line before. If every fossil is a transitional fossil then there should be an abundance of fossils between reptiles and birds, fish and reptiles, reptiles to mammals. Mammals warm blooded, reptiles cold blooded, mammals live birth, reptiles / eggs. There should be a few cold blooded rept-mals that give live birth and feed their young milk.
My point being that if you look at the Cambrian age you will see that there was an explosion of all types of species that were completely formed. There is also fossil of birds 140 million years old that haven't changed a bit in skeletal structure or wing development. Evolution says it takes millions of years to evolve from one species to another, I'm showing you how 140 millions years hasn't produced any change at all.
Do you even know what "natural selection" is? Have you any idea what mutations in species mainly consist of? Typically a mutation is a detriment to the species or at best breaks even. Very seldom does it actually produce change other than a negative change. There has never been witnessed in labs or in species where mutation have created a new trait in a species. If you know of some please share with me.
Do you understand what irreducible complexity means? Let's take the eye for an example. With all the complexity of the eye and it's many parts you suggest that a life form added "by mutation" each indivdual part of the eye, saved it even though it was useless by itself, continued evolving all these pieces of the eye, saving them, although useless in the state they are in, then at the right time, all the pieces come together to form sight. That is real faith.
Look up Cambrian Period, you may learn something.
So you're saying that mutations, eventhough they are breakages, dislocations, negatives that "random selection" can fix it all. RANDOM What have you ever experienced that was made better by a random act?
Good genes eventually become bad genes. Man is not getting better, we are deteriorating.
Absolutely NOT true....overwhelming evidence
I will agree with you that it APPEARS that some are useless protein chains but that is just speculation as man has yet to create a living cell. Can we eliminate the useless chains and have the same DNA with the same end result? We've just broken the code about10 years so I think we may have a lot to learn about it yet. It's amazing how scientists can tell us what it can and can't do, what is good and what is bad, what works and what doens't but they can't create one of their own. Thanks for your response.
'Have you ever considerd what the bird would have done to survive all those millions of years while there wings were progressing for flight.'
I don't need to, there are ostriches, emu's and other flightless birds and they survived.
'Can we eliminate the useless chains and have the same DNA with the same end result?'
This is what science is for.
' It's amazing how scientists can tell us what it can and can't do, what is good and what is bad, what works and what doens't but they can't create one of their own.'
Yet.
You are addressing species that were never meant for flight. Being that there are over 9,000 species of birds today not counting all the species that have past on, then two birds representing the survival rate of non-flyers in not very good.
Maybe one day science will eliminate the unwanted useless chains, that is, if they really are useless.
As for the creation of a living cell one day, maybe. But presently they aren't even close.
'To me this is proof that these non-flying birds were never meant to fly and couldn't be considered part of the evolutionary process.'
How is that proof. To me it is proof that they adapted a way to survive without have to fly.
' Over the last 120 million years the ostrich hasn't changed one bit. You would think it would have learned to fly by now.'
Why would it need to learn to fly when it's is perfectly capable of survival in the current state it is in now?
You say .004% is considered a good survival rate? 9000/40
You believe just because they had wings means they were supposed to fly? Scientific research has shown that wings were probably used for warmth / shelter / mating / defense and not necessarily for flight. Animals have tails for different reasons. Each reason assisting their everyday life. Tails aid animals with balance, movement, defense, mating, and communication.
So, evolution eventually stops, where a species no longer evolves. If that is the case then how did some species become other species. If they had reached their evolved state why did they continue to evolve into something else?
We kind of got sidetracked from the original question.
One last thing to consider, man is supposedly one of the youngest species on earth based on evolution. Presently there are approximately 4500 genetic diseases that attack every organ in our bodies and the number of diseases increase every year. Only about 1500 of those diseases are transferable from or to animals. Why do you think mans gene mutation rate is so negative? And, based on the amount of negative input, how do you see that as evolution?
'You believe just because they had wings means they were supposed to fly?' I never said this.
'Scientific research has shown that wings were probably used for warmth / shelter / mating / defense and not necessarily for flight.'
Wow, evolution at work.
'So, evolution eventually stops, where a species no longer evolves. If that is the case then how did some species become other species. If they had reached their evolved state why did they continue to evolve into something else?' Evolution does not necessarily ever stop. What you have described is evolution.
'Presently there are approximately 4500 genetic diseases that attack every organ in our bodies and the number of diseases increase every year.' This statement kind of throws the idea of an intelligent designer out of the window now doesn't it.
'Why do you think mans gene mutation rate is so negative? And, based on the amount of negative input, how do you see that as evolution?' I see it as evolution because no one ever claimed that evolutionary process's make an organism better or more resistant to disease.
As far as survival of certain species goes, we may never discover every species that ever existed, many of them just may not have been around long enough to leave any evidence of their existence.
You can call it faith if you wish, I don't see it that way. I just look at it as the way things are, we may know the answer some day or we may not.