Evolution??

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Evolution's strength is not so much that it has been completely confirmed (which is currently impossible with the available evidence) but that the new evidence repeatedly confirms it and that there is no superior theory in this respect.

Click to expand...

WOW someone finally understands, everyone try to remember this answer cause its right.

Still waiting for Stormy to defend the Darwin quote.

Choccy

To say that new evidence repeatedly confirms evolution is to not understand the new evidence. The new evidence actually proves that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory cannot possibly be the empirical description of all life on this planet.

Recently, Neil Risch, geneticist, and a professor at Stanford University, published an article based on research from the Human Genome Project that proves that people did not evolve from a single ancester or from a single continent, both of which are integral to the evolution theory. His research shows that loci clusters of genes for race prove that each race of human, of which there are several thousand, on the planet are genetically different from each other. A review of his research is here;

[ Edited a news link that wouldn't work.]

And his published paper is here;

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

For his published paper you will have to register at the Genome Biology site, which only takes a minute, and search for it, which also only takes a minute.

In the published paper, Mr. Risch states,

-- "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry--namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American." --Neil Risch

This statement, and the science behind it, proves that human races are genetically different and that black people cannot turn into white people and white people cannot turn into red people because, while most of the genes they share are virtually identical, the most important one that delineates the different races is totally different.

The adherents of evolutionary theory always seem to confuse evolutionary theory with natural selection, and they use both descriptive term interchangeably. In support of their theory they will come up with the most unrealistic scenarios and say that they have evidence that supports their theory when in fact the evidence refutes their theory, such as this quote;

--"Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native Americans, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups." --Neil Risch

What world renowned geneticists are trying to tell us here is that black people emigrated out of Africa and moved north and changed into white people and then the white people moved west and changed into red people and that every time they did one of these emigrations they developed a totally new gene that no other human race had ever possessed before the emigration. Then, for reason's they do not explain, all three of those race, after they were fully changed from black to white and then to red, all got together in southern europe and changed into Hispanic people. Anyone in science knows that such rapid race change is clearly impossible, but the evolutionists stick to the story because without their fanciful manipulations and mis-interpretations of data,---they have no theory at all.

Clearly, the evolutionists think that the majority of people are stupid or gullible enough to fall for that fairy tale, or they wouldn't present it. Their hostility towards creationism causes them to inveigle against it instead of presenting their evidence in an open and honest fashion, as science should be conducted.

john macneil, just what do you actually know about genetics, because judging from your posts, it ain't much.

Anyone in science knows that such rapid race change is clearly impossible

Click to expand...

you haven't even mentioned a time frame - perhaps its because you believe the world is 6000 years old. I'd love to see you support your claim that "anyone in science knows its impossible"

there can be no denying that the weight of incoming evidence is supporting evolution - if you'd read any of the major science journals over the last couple of years you'd know that

Originally posted by John MacNeil

<snip>

Click to expand...

I am confused as to how any of that is an argument against evolution (assuming that was your intent, which isn't that clear, either).

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Evolution's strength is not so much that it has been completely confirmed (which is currently impossible with the available evidence) but that the new evidence repeatedly confirms it and that there is no superior theory in this respect.

Click to expand...

The voice of moderation and reason. Well put. What many will fail to understand that this is equally the case with all scientific theories that are universally accepted (even by the lay public to the extent that they understand them), and usually without so much evidence behind them as evolution.

You won't likely get quoted by creationists on this statement - except where they are arguing against their sacred strawman, "infallible science".

John MacNeil,
Did you read the Genome Biology article? I suggest you peruse the section titled "Human Evolution" and check out the picture in figure 1 titled "The evolutionary tree of human races." You seemed to have missed to point by quite a very very very long way.

The evolutionists always display charts they have drawn in lieu of presenting evidence that could prove their theory. They seem to feel that by putting simplistic diagrams on paper and saying those diagram prove their evolutionary theory is the same as presenting real evidence. Whenever they are challenged about the scientific relevance of their diagrams and their made up connections which are the heart of their theory, they always attack the individual who dares to challenge their Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Always. They don't examine the evidence or the scientific view for the simple reason that they know their theory is untenable from a scientific perspective.

Neil Risch is a world renowned geneticist and he is a professor at a world renowned university, Stanford. He is at the "cutting edge" of genetic science with his work on the Human Genome Project. The results that he and his team published prove unequivocally that different races have loci clusters of genes that are inherant to individual races and that no intermediate evolutionary genes exist that could be construed as an evolutionary step between the races. The science that the geneticists produced is above reproach. However, if they say that they still believe in Darwinian Theory of Evolution after producing such evidence, then that is a personal viewpoint and is not science. They merely state that they believe in Darwinian theory because that is the official viewpoint of corporate/science and they must pay homage to it if they wish to practice science at an establishment university.

Evidence for our type of human exists from a maximum of 30,000 year ago. Therefore the evolutionists theorize that black people moved north out of Africa and turned white and then the white ones moved west to the Americas and turned red and then they all emigrated to Southern Europe and turned Hispanic. This is describing evolutionary change at an incredible rate, considering all their other theories for biologic change takes tens of million of year. And that is only describing four races out of the approximately seven thousand on the planet. How they fit the other seven thousand races in their race change scenario is anybody's guess, since they only ever attack the questioner when they are confronted with the inconsistencies and outright absurdities of their theory.

Natural selection among individual species is a proven scientific theory. We see evidence of it in the breeding of roses and horses and numerous other plants and animals. But there is no evidence that all life on the planet derived from a single source or a single time or even from several different time periods, if the cataclysmic extinctions are valid. The most apparent difference, and proof against evolutionary theory, is in humans, whose species diversity cannot be explained by modern science.

They don't examine the evidence or the scientific view for the simple reason that they know their theory is untenable from a scientific perspective.

Click to expand...

you're not a scientist are you, have you ever actually done any science? Do you know any scientists? I doubt it very much based on what you've said so far. Baseless rhetoric is no substitute for an argument

This is describing evolutionary change at an incredible rate,considering all their other theories for biologic change takes tens of million of year.

Click to expand...

whats incredible about it again? The genetic differences between human subpopulations aren't very large at all. Biological change happens all the time, constantly. It takes tens of millions of years for large changes - the divergence of subpopulations of humans isn't a large change. It isn't a problem for evolutionary theory at all, I don't know why you think it is, perhaps it stems from a poor understanding of genetics.

Originally posted by John MacNeil

And his published paper is here;

[Can't Post Links but see above]

Click to expand...

Concerning the paper by Neil Risch, did you read it?
From the paper in question --
"Probably the best way to examine the issue of genetic subgrouping is through the lens of human evolution. If the human population mated at random, there would be no issue of genetic subgrouping because the chance of any individual carrying a specific gene variant would be evenly distributed around the world. For a variety of reasons, however, including geography, sociology and culture, humans have not and do not currently mate randomly, either on a global level or within countries such as the US. A clearer picture of human evolution has emerged from numerous studies over the past decade using a variety of genetic markers and involving indigenous populations from around the world. In summary, populations outside Africa derive from one or more migration events out of Africa within the last 100,000 years [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The greatest genetic variation occurs within Africans, with variation outside Africa representing either a subset of African diversity or newly arisen variants. Genetic differentiation between individuals depends on the degree and duration of separation of their ancestors. Geographic isolation and in-breeding (endogamy) due to social and/or cultural forces over extended time periods create and enhance genetic differentiation, while migration and inter-mating reduce it."

" . . For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."
---------------------------------------

Your source seems to be misrepresenting the research. This does not conflict with evolutionary theory and his research only strengthens the predictive power of the theory.

*Deane looks at everyone in surprise that they have not come to a standing point yet*

I loathe pride and I strive to be humble through prayer. When I see someone that is clinging to a lie, I see the very thing that got Satan kicked out of Heaven: pride.

*Roars* Are you afraid to use the two-edged sword? You will debate, but where is God's Word in all of this?

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

I recently got a new issue of Clubhouse today. In it, I found this:

"For years some doubters of the Bible have said it can't be trusted because it contains inaccuracies. One example, they said, is the Old Testament story of King Hezekiah having a tunnel built under Jerusalem to bring water into the city. In 1838, an American archaeologist named Edward Robinson explored this tunnel, which connected the Spring of Gihon to the Pool of Siloam inside the old city. He discovered the pick marks in the stone ran in opposite directions&nbsp;at either end. Then in 1880 an Arab boy wading in the pool went deep into the passage with a light.&nbsp; On the wall, he found something archeaologists had missed...an inscription in ancient Hebrew explaining how the tunnel had been made. It said the diggers worked with picks from opposite ends until they met in the middle...a distance of 1,200 cubits. That's approximately 1,800 feet. What an incredible feat! And it happened just as the Bible recorded (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30). More proof the Bible makes no mistakes!"&nbsp;

Originally posted by AgnusDei

*Roars* Are you afraid to use the two-edged sword? You will debate, but where is God's Word in all of this?

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

Click to expand...

Not everyone believes in God or that the Bible is God's word.

Also, science cannot deal with issues of God or other supernatural force affecting our natural world (not that science tries to disprove God; rather, God is beyond science).

Disprove science with God's Word. Of course God is above science, He created it so we could learn more about Him. After all, He is all things. What I said above has to do with science and disproves evolution.

Goodnight.

Originally posted by AgnusDei
Disprove science with God's Word. Of course God is above science, He created it so we could learn more about Him. After all, He is all things. What I said above has to do with science and disproves evolution.

Click to expand...

If God created science so that we could learn about Him, then science has told us that He has used evolution to shape the diversity of life on this planet.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
The evolutionists always display charts they have drawn in lieu of presenting evidence that could prove their theory. They seem to feel that by putting simplistic diagrams on paper and saying those diagram prove their evolutionary theory is the same as presenting real evidence. Whenever they are challenged about the scientific relevance of their diagrams and their made up connections which are the heart of their theory, they always attack the individual who dares to challenge their Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Always. They don't examine the evidence or the scientific view for the simple reason that they know their theory is untenable from a scientific perspective.

Neil Risch is a world renowned geneticist and he is a professor at a world renowned university, Stanford. He is at the "cutting edge" of genetic science with his work on the Human Genome Project. The results that he and his team published prove unequivocally that different races have loci clusters of genes that are inherant to individual races and that no intermediate evolutionary genes exist that could be construed as an evolutionary step between the races. The science that the geneticists produced is above reproach. However, if they say that they still believe in Darwinian Theory of Evolution after producing such evidence, then that is a personal viewpoint and is not science. They merely state that they believe in Darwinian theory because that is the official viewpoint of corporate/science and they must pay homage to it if they wish to practice science at an establishment university.

Evidence for our type of human exists from a maximum of 30,000 year ago. Therefore the evolutionists theorize that black people moved north out of Africa and turned white and then the white ones moved west to the Americas and turned red and then they all emigrated to Southern Europe and turned Hispanic. This is describing evolutionary change at an incredible rate, considering all their other theories for biologic change takes tens of million of year. And that is only describing four races out of the approximately seven thousand on the planet. How they fit the other seven thousand races in their race change scenario is anybody's guess, since they only ever attack the questioner when they are confronted with the inconsistencies and outright absurdities of their theory.

Natural selection among individual species is a proven scientific theory. We see evidence of it in the breeding of roses and horses and numerous other plants and animals. But there is no evidence that all life on the planet derived from a single source or a single time or even from several different time periods, if the cataclysmic extinctions are valid. The most apparent difference, and proof against evolutionary theory, is in humans, whose species diversity cannot be explained by modern science.

Click to expand...

John MacNeil,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It has become painfully obvious that you have not actually read Dr. Risch's paper that you are trying to use as evidence for your point.&nbsp; The point of the paper is to show that races can be distinguished genetically, not that they did not have common anscestors.&nbsp; Risch himself says they do and this is published in the paper that you are using as evidence!&nbsp; THE AUTHORITY YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE TO BACK UP YOUR POINT DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AS WRITTEN IN THE PAPER THAT *YOU* LINKED TO!&nbsp; Your reading of it is entirely wrong.&nbsp; You have missed the point.&nbsp; Hard wishing or clapping your ruby red slippers together isn't going to change that.&nbsp; If you disagree with evolution, fine!&nbsp; Just don't go saying that this or that scientist said something that they did not say.&nbsp; This is known as bearing flase witness.&nbsp;

some advice, taken from http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The proponents of evolutionary theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse. They make pontifical statements such as this;

-- "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?" --Stephen Jay Gould

This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The evolutionists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;

-- "We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of geneology."--Stephen Jay Gould

Both of those statement of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who is a leading proponent of evolutionary theory, can be found at this web site;

www.stephenjaygould.org/

The proponents of evolutionary theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, but it also proves that Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from Darwinian Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. The earliest known human skeletal remains are carbon 14 dated to 30,000 year ago and beyond that humans didn't reside on this planet. The evolutionists always try to link us with the primate hominids Neanderthal and Skhul V, but the species are not anything alike as an examination of the skulls will quickly prove to anyone. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;

-- "The origins of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed."-- The Smithsonian Instituion

This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
The proponents of evolutionary theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse.

<snip>

Click to expand...

And opponents of evolutionary theory, as with all opponents of that which they are woefully ignorant, are fanatic about attacking the theory vociferously with pointless rhetoric, quote-mining, and poor science.

Weee.

The proponents of evolutionary theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse.

Click to expand...

please read a recent issue of nature or science, to avoid embarrasing yourself further

The evolutionists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite.

Click to expand...

The proponents of evolutionary theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not.

Click to expand...

this is just empty rhetoric, and considering that you claim allelic variation in subpopulations of humans is evidence against evolution, i'm not inclined to believe you.

The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, but it also proves that Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not viable.

Click to expand...

99 percent of biologists come to a totally different conclusion. I myself came to a totally different conclusion - not only is it viable, its far and away the best explanation we have

Please do not bring PROFESSOR GOULD into this argue ment until you have read his book "structure of evolutionary theory" and write acomplete rebuttal.

Retoric is easy isn't it John. Have you read the paper by Neil Risch yet? Any comments on it related to the discussion?
------------------------------------------
The proponents of YEC theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse. They make pontifical statements such as this;

-- "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." --Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith

This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The creationists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;

-- "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth, and the universe.."--Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith

Both of those statements of the AIG, who is a leading proponent of Creation theory, can be found at this web site;

www.answersingenesis.org/

The proponents of creation theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, and it also proves that young earth creation theory is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from
Young Earth Creation Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. Early hominid fossils span a time period going back as far as a million years and before that, there is a gradual transition shown from earlier primates. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;

-- "Virtually every human society shares a fascination with our deep past. For many of us, the study of human origins and evolution from our ape-like ancestors (also called Paleoanthropology) is one of the most exciting scientific fields because it investigates the origin, over millions of years, of the universal and defining traits that make our species what it is. It is the science that shines light on the question, "What does it mean to be human?"
-- The Smithsonian Instituion

This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.