Evolution Is Invalid.

[chud247]

I'm sick of reading over and over by some of you theistic evolutionists, who say that evolution has been proven, the global flood has been falsified, the resurrection can be falsified, creation is falsified, the earth is old and so on.. Because that is a lie! And, if you are hearing this from others or reading it in textbooks then what you are hearing and reading is a lie!

Evolution from beginning to end has no truth to it. It's all a myth. There have been several hundred lies in the past 130 years dealing with evolution.

It's sad to know that alot of so called, "Christians", are giving into this garbage and making their own religion out of it.

The bible even warns us of people falling into the evolution lies.

2 Timothy 4:4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Which is exactly what is happening.

The theory of evolution is invalid. I have borrowed some text legally out of a book titled, "In the beginning", by Dr. Walt Brown - a well known creation scientist. He has almost 100 PROVEN valid points against evolution. Here I have listed just some...

The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Acquired Characteristics
Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this erroneous belief. On occasion, Darwin did.

However, stressful environments for at least a few animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that genetic machinery already exists to handle various contingencies, not that the environment or “a need” can produce the machinery.

Also, rates of variation within a kind (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation. This situation was widespread in the centuries after the flood.

Mendel’s Laws
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.a Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc have also confirmed these boundaries.

Bounded Variations
While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists. For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring, should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to evolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don’t evolve.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolve in response to pesticides and antibiotics. What actually occurs is that:

A previously lost capability is reestablished, making it appear something evolved...
A damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduces the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or more frequently...
A few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.

Mutations
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Fruit Flies
A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.

Complex Molecules and Organs
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so complex that claims concerning their evolution are questionable. Furthermore, such claims lack experimental support.

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over a hundred thousand billion electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.

Fully-Developed Organs
All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

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

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

Altruism
Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species. Natural selection, which evolutionists say explains all individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited, because its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.

Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If evolution had occurred on earth, one would expect at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars.

Language
Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film.

Wild apes have not demonstrated these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with braille), and tapping (as with Morse Code or tap-codes used by isolated prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used. Different languages, such as English, Spanish, or Chinese, provide other alternatives.

If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex. Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.

 

[chud247]

Speech
Speech is uniquely human. Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.

Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

Codes and Programs
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. It also is accompanied by elaborate transmission, translation, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. Therefore, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, and duplication systems, and all living organisms were produced simultaneously by an extremely high level of intelligence using nonnatural (or supernatural) processes.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Because programs are not produced by chance or natural processes, it seems most likely that an intelligent, supernatural source developed these programs.

Information
All isolated systems contain specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been observed to increase its information content significantly. Natural processes, without exception, destroy information. Only outside intelligence can increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries or consequences:

- Macroevolution cannot occur.

- Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.

- Life could not result from a “big bang.”

The aguments for evolution are outdated and often illogical.

A Common Designer
It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor; such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes or are developed from different parts of embryos, a common designer is the only explanation.

Vestigial Organs
The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply they are vestiges of organs inherited from evolutionary ancestors. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some functions of all organs have been discovered. For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths. Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

Two-Celled Life?
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

Embryology
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it repeats an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few days an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. Another well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are not gills, and they are not slits. Instead, that embryonic tissue develops into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution. Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings, originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. But many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.

Rapid Burial
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) Many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.

Parallel Strata
The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record. Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

Missing Trunk
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed—worldwide. Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all today’s plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates (animals with backbones). Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. The fossil record does not support evolution.

Out-of-Place Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmeniac and in Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks—rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years. Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.

Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

Ape-Men?
Characteristics of skulls and teeth, which for over a century have been the primary means for believing in man’s evolution, often produce false results. Also, fossil evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet, it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.

Before 1978, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakeye and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape.

The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth.

Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was similar to a large gibbon. To support that conclusion, Dubois also admitted he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man. Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have recently been discovered. They show this animal clearly had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).

The australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes. Another study of their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of humans. Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans. One australopithecine fossil—a 31/2-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy—was initially presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely. She probably swung from the trees and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees. The australopithecines are probably extinct apes.

For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets. Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ depictions of them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

Fossil Man
Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, and many others. Other remains, such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil, present similar problems. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

Conlusion
Dr. Brown lists 70 more proven points that make the theory, the religion, the belief of evolution false. The bible even mentions that evolution is a myth. Hopefully as science advances, the truth will appear and God and the literal creation account taken in Genesis will be on top. Until then, we will still have to deal with the myths, lies and theories of evolution.

 

[notto]

..

 

[lucaspa]

I'm sick of reading over and over by some of you theistic evolutionists, who say that evolution has been proven, the global flood has been falsified, the resurrection can be falsified, creation is falsified, the earth is old and so on..

WHOA!! Let's take these in order

1. Evolution has so much support, has survived so many attempts to show it false, that is is perverse not to accept is as (provisionally) true.

2. The global flood WAS falsified by 1831. During the 50 years before that, the Flood had been shown not to be able to explain geological feature after geological feature. By 1810 the Flood was being used to explain ONLY the most superficial (on the surface) gravels and morraines. It had already been shown that all other geological features could NOT have been deposited by a global Flood. When Rev. Adam Sedgwick stepped down as President of the Royal Geological Society, he publicly announced that these superficial gravels and morraines also could not be explained by a Flood. That was the last falsification of a global Flood.

"Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophical heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. ...
"We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits."

3. The resurrection CANNOT be falsified. It has left no evidence we can study today. It is not valid to use the argument "dead men don't rise" because that is using theory to deny data.

4. CREATION is NOT falsified. Creation is the theological statement "God created". Theistic evolutionists are particularly NOT going to say this. After all, TEs DO believe God created. TEs believe God created using the processes discovered by science.

5. The earth is old. Well, it is definite that the earth is NOT less than 20,000 years old. Again, the evidence is so overwhelming that it is perverse not to (provisionally) accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The bible even warns us of people falling into the evolution lies.

2 Timothy 4:4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

You know, I am really sad when creationists take the Bible out of context to get it to mean something different than what it says. This is one of those instances. This verse isn't about evolution. 4:3 says "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears"

This, if anything, decribes creationism. I just got done on the other board showing how Hovind is really promoting atheism under the guise of "sound doctrine". How Hovind has thrown away sound Christian doctrine.

Now, Chud, I have to ask: why did you mischaracterize theistic evolutionists at the start of your post? Why did you falsely state that theistic evolutionists say the resurrection can be falsified and that creation is falsified?

Are you perhaps confusing theistic evolutionists with atheists? Or is it you simply don't know what theistic evolution is?

Here's a short description:

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

I'll take Brown's points but, I need to warn you, they have all been addressed and their flaws exposed elsewhere.

 

[notto]

Speech

Conlusion
Dr. Brown lists 70 more proven points that make the theory, the religion, the belief of evolution false. The bible even mentions that evolution is a myth. Hopefully as science advances, the truth will appear and God and the literal creation account taken in Genesis will be on top. Until then, we will still have to deal with the myths, lies and theories of evolution.

Even if evolution is proven "false", it would not lend any support to young earth creationism as a valid theory. Dr. Brown's model of creation has been falsified and it was done before evolution was a mainstream theory by Christian scientists and geologists.

Before the literal creation account can be "on top", wouldn't we have to evaluate ALL creation stories and myths?

Scientific theories cannot be proven, only falsified. the literal creation story of genesis has been falsified. Evolution has not been falsified, if it had, the worlds scientists (both Christian and Non Christian) would abandon it as a working model that makes accurate predictions of the evidence we find.

 

[Arikay]

A good tip, is that when you copy and paste something that isnt your own writing, you cite it a bit better, I see that you did put a citation. Generally its also nice for you to put your own words into the post to and not to just copy and paste someone elses work.

For those interested, most of the information can be found at
creationscience.com.

 

[lucaspa]

Now we are not discussing theistic evolution, but challenges to the SCIENTIFIC validity of evolution itself. This would better have been posted in the Creationism vs Evolution board so you could have gotten the full range of scientific data.

Also, looking at many of the points, it is apparent that Brown is 1) working on a god-of-the-gaps argument ("there is no evidence", "it has never been observed") and that he is really equating evolution with atheism. His thinking is obviously that, if there is a gap and you have to appeal to a direct action by God, then evolution is false. Since most of the points have nothing to do with biological evolution, this means that Brown is looking for a way to show theism as opposed to atheism. It is even more obvious in Brown's books (yes, I have read two of them).

The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Spontaneous generation is the theory that COMPLEX, fully formed, multicellular oganisms spring from non-living matter. THAT has never been observed. However, there is a separate study -- ABIOGENESIS -- that investigates how life can arise from non-life via chemistry. It is NOT part of evolution. It is a separate field of study.

However, living cells have been made by chemistry:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
And we can go into more detail if you wish. But we will see this work again when we get to CSI.

Acquired Characteristics
Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this erroneous belief. On occasion, Darwin did.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Darwin did. Now, Brown's fallacy here is that Darwin is treated as gospel. Not so. ANY scientist is scrutinized and ALL his claims are examined. Those that survive scrutiny are accepted and those that don't are rejected. Like any scientist, some of Darwin's claims have been rejected. Those having to do with acquired characteristics are among them. Every example Darwin used has since been shown to be due to Darwinian processes, not acquired characteristics.

However, stressful environments for at least a few animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that genetic machinery already exists to handle various contingencies, not that the environment or “a need” can produce the machinery.

Did Brown cite any examples? Part of what you are describing is called the Baldwin Effect. Within the last 50 years it has been discovered that the genetic diversity is VERY large. Most mutations are neutral in the original environment and therefore persist in low frequencies in the population. Thus, if the environment changes, these variations are then already present in the population for natural selection to work on.

Also, rates of variation within a kind (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation.

This needs to be documented. I have read that stress will sometimes require molecules that repress alternate developmental pathways for dealing with the stress, thus derepressing those pathways. This can rise to some very major changes within a single generation because mutations have accumulated in the developmental pathways. This is consistent with evolution (and even gives what you mistakenly call macroevolution). So I don't see where this poses any problem for evolution.

This situation was widespread in the centuries after the flood.

AH! Now I see. You are seeking ways to get the very rapid evolution that creationists posit happened after the Flood. Of course, since the Flood never happened, this whole issue is moot, except that it shows how strong the evidence for evolution is, because even creationists use evolution to explain the diversity of life!

Mendel’s Laws
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.a Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc have also confirmed these boundaries.

What Mendel discovered was that there are several forms of the same gene within a population. These are called alleles. The frequency of these alleles can change from generation to generation, either increasing or decreasing. Frequency is the fraction of individuals having the alleles. What this means is that the genetic composition of a population can completely change under natural selection over time. That is, the original population that had 0.1% of the allele A and 99.99% of allele B can now be 100% A and no B.

Now, the genes themselves can alter by copying mistakes -- mutation. It turns out that there is no limit on variation. Phylogenetic analysis looked at the relationship of genes between dozens or hundreds of species. IF such a boundary existed in fact, THEN clusters of genes would be independent, showing no relation to any of the other clusters. Instead, exactly the opposite was found: genes are related thru their historical connnections. Falsifies creationism. Supports evolution.

Breeding experiments have produced the same thing. A whole new GENUS of plants -- triticosesale -- has been produced by breeding. These originally were a wheat-rye hybrid and are now used by us for food. Lucky creationism is not true or we woudn't have this new food source.

[QUTOE] Bounded Variations
While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists. For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring, should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles.[/QUOTE]

Strawmen arguments.

1. "evolved the most" ALL organisms alive today have a 3.8 billion year evolutionary history. There is no such thing as "evolve the most". A bacteria today is just as evolved as you or I. You are equating an intuitive idea of "complexity" with "more evolved". Not valid.

2.Remember, it is reproductive success. In order to reproduce the organism has to live to adulthood. Thus, one strategy for organisms is to invest in parental care in a few offspring and have them reach adulthood rather than have a bunch of kids and have them all succumb to predators or starvation.

3. This is a one-size fits all argument. It is assumed there is only ONE avenue to reproductive success. But reproductive success depends on the ENVIRONMENT, and what works in one environment won't work in another.

Organisms
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to evolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don’t evolve.

Oh, but they do evolve. Examples below. How do you tell what is a species with bacteria? With sexually reproducing species it is not interbreeding in the wild. But what do you use for bacteria? Morphology? Lots of bacteria have the same shape. So, what Brown has done here is play a semantic game, as well as a false premise.

In multicellular organisms, the if ... then statement does hold true. Darwin showed that in Origin. In bacteria it holds true if you consider STRAINS of bacteria. That is, each strain is a new species.

3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15).
3a. PB rainey and ER Moxon, When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187, May 19, 2000.
4. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol284/issue5423/index.shtml
1. BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983. Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

A nice, subtle, misrepresentation of natural selection. Natural selection is a means of PRESERVING good designs.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

Right. There are OTHER mechanisms for producing more DNA and variations. These are called "mutations". The mutation rate is a little over 1 mutation per individual. That is what keeps the genetic variation up.

What Brown does here is what I call the shell game. He takes a two step process, breaks it down into the component steps, then says each step can't do what the other does, implying that the process can't happen. Shift the pea and hope you don't catch him.

I'll go into antibiotic resistance in the next post. This one is already long enough.

 

[lucaspa]

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolve in response to pesticides and antibiotics. What actually occurs is that:

A previously lost capability is reestablished, making it appear something evolved...

Example?

A damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduces the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or more frequently...

Example? What I have seen, particularly for tetracycline, is a modification of the target subunit of the ribosome so that it still performs its function but no longer binds the antibiotic. IOW, an INCREASE in information: do your job AND don't bind the antibiotic.

This also happens for aminoglycosides binding to the cell wall. Again, an increase in information: still be a cell wall AND don't bind the antibiotic.

A few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.

Natural selection. DUH! However, in the case of antibiotics, that wasn't true. Twenty years of use of penicillin before resistance was seen. It was a new mutation.

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.

DUH! Again, the shell game. The ORIGIN of the fittest is the variations in the population. The variations don't arise by natural selection, but by other means. Each variation represents a possible design to the design problem presented by the environment. Selection sorts thru those possible designs and picks the best ones available. But it doesn't make the designs. Variation -- sexual recombination and mutations -- do that.

Mutations
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

Excuse me, aren't you forgetting sexual recombination? It provides new combinations of genes to give you new morphologies. Remember, it is the INDIVIDUAL that is selected, not the gene. So what you are looking for is new MORPHOLOGIES. Mutations of genes is one way; sexual recombination is another.

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful;

You don't have to have many be beneficial. Just some. If ONE is present, then natural selection will GUARANTEE that the mutation is eventually present in EVERY individual in the population.

Most mutations are neutral. The harmful mutation rate has been measured and is 2.6 harmful mutations per 1,000 mutations.

The key here is "observable mutations". Most mutations are NOT naked eye observable. Only multiple mutations in the same organism are, as induced by large doses of radiation. Yes, these are almost always harmful. But these aren't the natural mutations anyway. Congratulations, Chud, Brown has just slain a strawman of his own making.

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Untrue. Again, you have to watch these "no known" statements. You have to see if they are true. I have a list of 30 papers on mutations that are gain of function. That is, more complexity and viability than the ancestors.

1. BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983. Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html
3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15).
1. Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
1. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dup_favorable.html
Accelerated evolution
2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html New apo-lipoprotein mutation that adds antioxidant activity.
3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807
5: J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50. Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine. Paidhungat M, Setlow P

Fruit Flies
A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.

What paper is that? I have papers that contradict the statement, showing not only new features but speciation in the process.
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

This one is my favorite. New ability of the flies to live in colder temps and also to eat meat or bread. Genetic difference between the new species and the old is 3%. Genetic difference between the "kinds" of humans and chimps is less than 2%.

3. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. ...All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.

Of COURSE they show design. They were designed. By natural selection. That's what all creationists overlook: natural selection is an algorithm to produce design. Follow the steps and design is guaranteed.

As to evolution of organs and "half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, etc.:
David N. Reznick, Mariana Mateos, and Mark S. Springer Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis Science 298: 1018-1020, Nov. 1, 2002. Intermediate steps in same genus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/1018 News article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/945a
2. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, 84-93, March 2003.
3. Sawyer RH, Salvatore BA, Potylicki TT, French JO, Glenn TC,Knapp LWJ, Origin of feathers: Feather beta (beta) keratins are expressed indiscrete epidermal cell populations of embryonic scutate scales. Exp Zool 2003Feb 15;295B(1):12-24
4. Zou H, Niswander L , Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosisand scale formation. Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41 "Expressionof dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigitalapoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformedinto feathers."

See Climbing Mt. Improbable for a list of living species with "partly-developed" eyes.

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

Another of "there is no direct evidence". You haven't been paying attention to the fossil record. And let's not forget that new genus of plants by artificial evolution.

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.

Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Whale transition:
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0_fs.html
3. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

Transitional websites:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

5. WL Crepet, The abominable mystery. Science 282: 1653-1654, Nov. 27, 1998. Primary article is G sun, DL Dilcher, S Zheng, and Z Zhou, In search of the first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from Northeast China. Science 282: 1692-1695, Nov. 27, 1998. Have intermediate and first angiosperm from the Jurassic.

This is jsut too easy. As you can see, Brown has misled you on the state of available evidence. The other examples in your OP are just as off as these.

You need to learn to check ALL claims. Including those of creationists. And you have seen the weakness of the "there is no evidence" argument. All it usually shows is:
1. You aren't aware of the evidence.
2. The evidence isn't accepted but ignored and not told to you.

 

[troodon]

Out-of-Place Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.

Do you have a source I can where I can read about this? Surely such a thing would be described by a paleontologist

Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmeniac and in Arizona.

Those have been shown to all have been either fakes or all dinosaur footprints.

Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.

Um, yeah.... Fossilization often occurs in river and lake beds. That's where the sediment comes from. This poses no problem and is in fact expected.

Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.

Again sources please. A horse, a whale, and a dinosaur being found in the same sediment is a huge claim and I'd like to see backing for it.

Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks—rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved.

Again, sources please. As far as I know you are just making this up.

If I say Christ's body was found yesterday, thus falsifying his ressurection, you'd probably want me to provide some backing for the statement. Same with all of these alleged "out-of-place fossils".

Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps.

Insects existed in the Triassic (the period from which the petrified forest dates). Just because the nests look like those of modern insects doesn't meant hey are from them.

Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

You've yet to provide evidence to back up your, frankly, unbelievable claims. I'd like to see some.

 

[wblastyn]

Now, Chud, I have to ask: why did you mischaracterize theistic evolutionists at the start of your post? Why did you falsely state that theistic evolutionists say the resurrection can be falsified and that creation is falsified?

Wouldn't the resurrection be false if you found Jesus' body?

 

[lucaspa]

Wouldn't the resurrection be false if you found Jesus' body?

At this point in time how could you possibly say it was Jesus' body? You've got dental records?

That falsification would have worked the first couple of months after Jesus' execution. And it is amazing that the Jews didn't use it when the disciples first began preaching. That they didn't means that Jesus' body couldn't be located (for sure) then, either. If it couldn't be located and identified positively then, there's no chance that it could be now.

Now, if you could find a diary of a disciple or correspondence among them indicating that they had a conspiracy going to fake a resurrection (by hiding the body), then you would have some historical evidence to use. Not scientific, because there is no way to absolutely 1) falsify that it was not genuine and 2) falsify that they were lying in the document.

In the gospel accounts and the Midrash, you can see the charges and counter charges flying. In the Midrash, the Jews do accuse the disciples of spiriting the body away and hiding it. In the later versions of the resurrection story, you have the addition of two Roman guards at the tomb. Now, the Romans had no reason to post guards at the tomb of a petty executed revolutionary. That detail is there to counter the accusation. But it indicates that the Jews can't produce a body.

 

[wblastyn]

At this point in time how could you possibly say it was Jesus' body? You've got dental records?

LOL, good point.

 

[lucaspa]

=chud247 Codes and Programs
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance.

Analogy. Always a suspect form of argument. Actually, codes are now produced by genetic algorithms (natural selection).

Also, chemistry helps form a code, due to binding. Below are papers discussing different steps in the evolution of translation:
1. Alberti, S The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. J. Mol. Evol. 45: 352-358, 1997.

The title is kind of suggestive, isn't it?

4. Margaret E. Saks, Jeffrey R. Sampson, John Abelson Evolution of a transfer RNA gene through a point mutation in the anticodon. Science, 279, Number 5357 Issue of 13 March 1998, pp. 1665 - 1670
7. P S Chimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998. Describes research showing that RNA in ribosomes sufficient to make proteins. Intermediate step in going from abiogenesis to genetic code.
9. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples.

Sorry, but wrong again.
2. AI Samuel, Some studies on machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research Development, 3: 211-219, 1964. Reprinted in EA Feigenbaum and J Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 pp 71-105.

A program to play checkers. Good enough to beat the human checker champ. Written by natural selection. The key that the programmer didn't write it is THE PROGRAMMER CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE PROGRAM!!
AFTER the program beat the human checker's champ, Samuel looked at the code for the first time. There were huge parts of it that Samuel couldn't figure out what it did.

Information
All isolated systems contain specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been observed to increase its information content significantly. Natural processes, without exception, destroy information. Only outside intelligence can increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system.

You need to look at more science.

Let's look at chemistry. Specifically the chemistry of forming proteins from amino acid by thermal polymerization. A chemical reaction without visible intelligence.

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

Notice the bolded words. Proteins are complex. The proteinoids have information, and it is SPECIFIC. Creation of Complex, Specified, Information by chemistry.

Now, let's look at the basic information equation. I got this from Dembski's No Free Lunch, a creationist.

"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be."

Now, it should be obvious that natural selection is going to increase information. M is ALWAYS LESS THAN N. With the -log that insures that you have a positive number for information introduced.

Let's do a few simple calculations to demonstrate:

1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.

2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

This is what Brown has missed. He has company. ALL creationists miss that natural selection MUST INCREASE information. Let's thank William Dembski for making this mathematically certain.

Two-Celled Life?
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.

2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.

Some volvox have 2 cells.

There is also Dictyostelium:
1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low.

Nice intermediate, huh? Single celled AND multicelled.

Embryology
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it repeats an evolutionary sequence.

That's a flat out lie. This is Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and was disproved even before Haeckel proposed it.

Instead, Darwin and other evolutionists have claimed that organisms that share a common ancestor share features of embryonic development.

Missing Trunk
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed—worldwide. Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms.

Again, a misstatement. Chud, you can't show anything by making false statements. Back to the scientific literature (which Brown obviously doesn't do.)

1. Ramskold, L and Hou, X 1991 New early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoan. Nature, 351: 225-228
5. RA Kerr, Pushing back the origin of animals, Science 279: 803-804, 6 Feb. 1998. The peer reviewed article is C-W Li, J-Y Chen, T-E Hua, Precambrian sponges with cellular structures. Science 279: 879-882. Got embryonic animal fossils that lived 40-50 million years before the Cambrian. Correlates with the molecular data and removes the Cambrian "explosion".
9. HR Vandeberg, Fish tales: pushing back the dawn of the vertebrates. The Sciences 40: 9, Jan/Feb 2000. Describes new fossils from China of fish 530 Mya. First vertebrates. Nov. 4 1999 issue of Nature.
10. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0719_crustacean.html Crustacean pre-Cambrian but not hard-shelled.

These layers contain representatives of all today’s plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants,

Sorry, but flowering plants don't appear until the Cretaceous. Brown fibbed to you again.

Ape-Men?
Characteristics of skulls and teeth, which for over a century have been the primary means for believing in man’s evolution, often produce false results. Also, fossil evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. ...Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was similar to a large gibbon. To support that conclusion, Dubois also admitted he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man. Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

This is just some of the misstatements in this section. Other fossils of H. erectus have been found in Java. Also, more fossils, with the skulls articulated, have been found of H. erectus outside Peking.

Below are transitional INDIVIDUALS in the hominid fossil record.

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features

 

[chud247]

Unfortunatley, I do not have the time or patience to reply to most of these posts, but I have looked over some really intense, deep comebacks... especially from lucaspa. But if you evolutionists seem so convinced on your theory (that I will say over and over again that it has not been proven) and since all of these replies were towards Dr. Brown, then please take up the debate offer with Dr. Walt Brown himself.

Go to http://www.creationscience.com and look to your bottom right. Tell me when you've found the truth. Until then, I will continue to pray for you.

And lucuspa, sound doctrine and living a life for Christ is the foundation of the Christian walk. 2nd timothy chapter 4 deals with the author conveying to the people on what they need to do until Jesus returns.

2 timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

How is that dealing with turning against creation science in any way? The SOUND DOCTRINE simply means the true teachings of Christ Jesus or God. Therefore, timothy says, the time WILL come when men will NOT put up with the teachings of Christ or God, instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. THEN it says that they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

So when God conveys that he created the universe in six literal 24 hour solar days (because of the prefaced morning and evening), why do you go against it and say that it was billions of years? Then are you not living the life predicted in 2nd timothy chapter 4? Because you are.

Anyway, I may come by and browse later because I know all you evolutionists are going to disect every single word a creationist says.

But I urge you to take the offer up with Dr. Walt Brown.

In fact, you can call his office if your seriously up for the debate: 602-955-7663 (usa).

 

[notto]

But I urge you to take the offer up with Dr. Walt Brown.

In fact, you can call his office if your seriously up for the debate: 602-955-7663 (usa).

Walt has weaseled out of his challenge when taken up on it and changes the language of the agreement to avoid serious offers to debate him. He uses evasion to avoid committing to the debate. Perhaps you should call and ask why he won't debate Dr. Meert.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Make sure to take note of this comment from the author of the page:

"I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, and who teaches a Bible class every week at my church. In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence, is embarassed by faulty logic and argument, and cringes whenever a creation science proponent appears to avoid instead of welcome direct engagement with an opponent. In this instance, Dr. Brown has disappointed me, because his misinterpretation and/or hyper-elevation of the term "procedures" looks like evasion. Of course, I might be entirely wrong, and I would welcome correction."

 

[lucaspa]

Unfortunatley, I do not have the time or patience to reply to most of these posts, but I have looked over some really intense, deep comebacks... especially from lucaspa.

So you take the time to post these seemingly irrefutable arguments, but, when faced with answers, you BAIL!! You use the 'no time or patience' excuse?? So all the time and patience is on MY shoulders? Tsk, tsk.

But if you evolutionists seem so convinced on your theory (that I will say over and over again that it has not been proven)

I have thread in the other forum entitled "Fact and Theory for Dayton". Read that.

Seriously, Chud, we have tried everything we can think of to falsify both common ancestry and natural selection. We are out of tests to try. The only test left to falsify common ancestry would be finding mammalian fossils in Pre-Cambrian strata. There isn't a test left that would falsify natural selection.

and since all of these replies were towards Dr. Brown, then please take up the debate offer with Dr. Walt Brown himself.

There is no reason to debate Brown. His mind is made up and he will not change his position no matter what data is presented. I don't care about him. He's already jumped off the theological cliff. I care about YOU and don't want to see you commit theological suicide along with him. Altho I doubt you can be saved either when you say this:

Go to http://www.creationscience.com and look to your bottom right. Tell me when you've found the truth. Until then, I will continue to pray for you.

And lucuspa, sound doctrine and living a life for Christ is the foundation of the Christian walk. 2nd timothy chapter 4 deals with the author conveying to the people on what they need to do until Jesus returns.

BUt YOU tied it to evolution. Creationism is NOT sound doctrine. That is what I'm trying to get across to you. As bad as creationism is as science, it is even worse as theology. At best it is heresy. At worst it is false idol worship and apostasy.

2 timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

How is that dealing with turning against creation science in any way?

YES!!

The SOUND DOCTRINE simply means the true teachings of Christ Jesus or God. Therefore, timothy says, the time WILL come when men will NOT put up with the teachings of Christ or God, instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. THEN it says that they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Which is EXACTLY what creationism is. Creationism turns its back on the teaching of God in HIS CREATION! Instead, to suit their own desires to have a literal interpretation of Genesis and preserve their pride that they are inherently special, creationists created a man-made theory called creationism. Then they turn away from truth, as you just did by saying you don't want to discuss it anymore, and instead listen to myths devised by the professional creationists like Brown. Remember all those "there is no evidence". That's MYTH.

So when God conveys that he created the universe in six literal 24 hour solar days (because of the prefaced morning and evening), why do you go against it and say that it was billions of years?

Because GOD DID NOT convey that message. MEN DO. In Genesis 2:4b it says that what Genesis 1 says happened in 4 days happened WITHIN A SINGLE DAY. That tells anyone with ears to hear that neither creation story is to be read literally. Yet you continue to do so. WHY?

Not only that, but God Himself in His Creation tells us clearly that the earth is billions of years old. Yet you ignore Him. By refusing to listen to Creation you even deny that God created.

But I urge you to take the offer up with Dr. Walt Brown.

As I said. Brown is a waste of time. But there is still a chance to keep you from walking off the cliff.

Chud, read what Francis Bacon said over 400 years ago. He had the theological problems of creationism pegged then. But of course creationists ignore him even tho many creation scientists hold Bacon up as a paragon of the Christian scientist.

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm