The best evidence against Evolution

[mzungu]

People go to doctors to get patched up, people go to church for a cure.

Thats funny because I cured my Cerebral malaria at a hospital!! Many poor people unable to afford medical treatment resort to praying (most are devout believers too) but without medical treatment they end up dying! Something is very very wrong with this system!

 

[Davian]

People go to doctors to get patched up, people go to church for a cure.

A cure for what? What could they cure you of that is more than man-made concept?

 

[Davian]

How is evolution different from real science?

One must deny God first or at least revise what He has revealed to us for evolution to be able to grab hold.

Grab hold? "Evolution" just explains what we see in nature.

Real science does not require this.

A nonsense phrase.

Sure other sciences do not mention God literally but one can still believe exactly what His Word tells us and believe in the science as well.

Evolution does not allow this...

Where does the theory of evolution mention "God"?

 

[Astridhere]

If that's the best evidence you've got...oh dear for you. I mean really, because that's stunningly feeble.

The fact that there is disagreement about which is the best fit to the evidence we have doesn't actually mean that a) the evidence somehow doesn't exist (because clearly, there is some argument over the evidence, so it doesn't not exist and b) any form of disagreement must mean the entire thing is wrong. What you've found evidence of is really the very thing that is welcomed in science and shunned in religion - discussion about which conclusion best fits the facts, as opposed to which facts best fit the Biblically (or other holy book etc.) presupposed conclusion.

Whereas - whilst not all religions can be right, every one of them can be wrong, and there's no evidence for ANY of them so they're not looking too strong.

What really matters is at what level any issues in evolution are taught, because the theory has been shown sound time and time again. You wouldn't teach kids in elementary school that Newton's laws break down on the quantum level. Children don't start out at university level, you do realize?

Well I wasn't about to write a book. Just popping in.

Evolutionists falsifying each others work! Love it!

What really matters is that for over 150 years evolutionists have been looking for answers and to date the how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs.

 

[sfs]

Evolutionists falsifying each others work! Love it!

Well, scientists certainly love it. That's because that's how knowledge is gained.

What really matters is that for over 150 years evolutionists have been looking for answers and to date the how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs.

No, what really matters is that for over 150 years, evolution has been guiding biologists into answering thousands of questions about nature, including many thousands of questions about how, when, where and why evolution has occurred. What doesn't matter, as far as science is concerned, is that people continue to shut their eyes to reality because of their religion. Evolution is doing exceedingly well as science; that you don't recognize that is your problem, not ours.

 

[Davian]

Well I wasn't about to write a book. Just popping in.

Welcome. Anything of significance to contribute?

Evolutionists falsifying each others work! Love it!

Agreed. Being one of the strengths of science, this increases our knowledge, and makes theories more robust.

What really matters is that for over 150 years evolutionists have been looking for answers and to date the how, when, where and why of evolution is still up for grabs.

Just not by the creationists, it would appear. Your own efforts notwithstanding, of course.

 

[Greg1234]

A cure for what? What could they cure you of that is more than man-made concept?

Materialism- the cause of a diseased persistence in the first place.

 

[Greg1234]

Thats funny because I cured my Cerebral malaria at a hospital!! Many poor people unable to afford medical treatment resort to praying (most are devout believers too) but without medical treatment they end up dying! Something is very very wrong with this system!

People die at the hospital or are relieved through the activity of the soul in what is deemed "placebo."

Also, prayer isn't a patcher, and it works.

 

[Davian]

A cure for what? What could they cure you of that is more than man-made concept?

Materialism- the cause of a diseased persistence in the first place.

As I said: "Materialism" - A man-made concept, and they can't cure you of that.

 

[Greg1234]

As I said: "Materialism" - A man-made concept, and they can't cure you of that.

I didn't say it wasn't man-made. But yes, there is a cure. Sorry.

 

[Davian]

People die at the hospital or are relieved through the activity of the soul in what is deemed "placebo."

Also, prayer isn't a patcher, and it works.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7660720-5/#post60640077

 

[sur]

Debate 20 - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Michael Shermer (How to Debate a Creationist) - YouTube
=
"Entropy" in physics means "measure of disorder in a system".

For a "closed" system Entropy-change is ALWAYS positive. i.e. unless some external energy along with a mechanism to organize that energy is there to force the system towards state of orderliness, everything goes from state of order towards disorder. In creation of universe that external force was The Creator. Laws of Physics state that Entropy of universe is always increasing. "Spontaneous" evolution goes against this law!!! Only a "controlled" evolution would satisfy law of Entropy change. Who was the controller?

For DNA to have evolved upwards, from primitive to advanced, through trillions of trillions of species, without someone causing it to happen, is against law of Entropy change. Because "disorder" of universe is supposed to increase continually.

A "spontaneous" mutation does NOT lead to improved DNA forms, it's ONLY "controlled" manipulation e.g. adding insulin gene into bacterial genome in a lab, that leads to formation of improved DNA & an "ABSOLUTE" increase amount of gene pool of that kind of organisms. Most of spontaneous changes are either damaging or lethal to species, e.g. cancers.

SPONTANEOUS changes in DNA could NOT have caused improved species,,, ONLY intelligently controlled manipulation of DNA could have caused such.

=
=
Like any person of any religion Atheist "can" have morality,but their morality is plagiarized. They borrowed it from religions allegedly from God while denying existence of it. It's like I wear western dresses but keep saying , "there is NO West, existence of West is just a myth.!!!"

One example could be incest,,,! What/Who stops from such activity? Only God.
=
=
​

Dr.Dino(Kent Hovind) said; There is overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution of a fork from a knife too, & missing links were not discovered until recently by Kent Hovind...



There was a wired telephone with circular dial on it then we found a wired phone with digital key-pad, both have resemblances but where does it prove that prior evolved into latter without intervention of some designer...!!!
=
=
Evolutionists tell that tail disappeared without addition of genetic material, so increase in genetic material is NOT needed for evolution to occur...!! I say; Why start from already having however amount of genetic material,,, why not start from assembling genetic material of that quantity in the 1st place. Where did 1st polymerase(a protein) come from, to make earth's 1st protein from earth's 1st DNA??? We can grow or resorb tails later.

Basic life forms like Viruses cannot replicate unless have another more complex cell to borrow proteins from, no primitive life, if ever evolved, would have propagated without a more complex being present to lend them material like enzymes.

By the way what exploded in big-bang, how did that evolve?(P.S. I believe in big-bang or sth of that sorts coz it's in Quran, but was created & caused to explode by GOD the Creator).

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Debate 20 - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Michael Shermer (How to Debate a Creationist) - YouTube
=
"Entropy" in physics means "measure of disorder in a system".

For a "closed" system Entropy-change is ALWAYS positive. i.e. unless some external energy along with a mechanism to organize that energy is there to force the system towards state of orderliness, everything goes from state of order towards disorder. In creation of universe that external force was The Creator. Laws of Physics state that Entropy of universe is always increasing. "Spontaneous" evolution goes against this law!!! Only a "controlled" evolution would satisfy law of Entropy change. Who was the controller?

For DNA to have evolved upwards, from primitive to advanced, through trillions of trillions of species, without someone causing it to happen, is against law of Entropy change. Because "disorder" of universe is supposed to increase continually.

A "spontaneous" mutation does NOT lead to improved DNA forms, it's ONLY "controlled" manipulation e.g. adding insulin gene into bacterial genome in a lab, that leads to formation of improved DNA & an "ABSOLUTE" increase amount of gene pool of that kind of organisms. Most of spontaneous changes are either damaging or lethal to species, e.g. cancers.


SPONTANEOUS changes in DNA could NOT have caused improved species,,, ONLY intelligently controlled manipulation of DNA could have caused such.

=

=
Like any person of any religion Atheist "can" have morality,but their morality is plagiarized. They borrowed it from religions allegedly from God while denying existence of it. It's like I wear western dresses but keep saying , "there is NO West, existence of West is just a myth.!!!"​

One example could be incest,,,! What/Who stops from such activity? Only God.
=
=​

Dr.Dino(Kent Hovind) said; There is overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution of a fork from a knife too, & missing links were not discovered until recently by Kent Hovind...



There was a wired telephone with circular dial on it then we found a wired phone with digital key-pad, both have resemblances but where does it prove that prior evolved into latter without intervention of some designer...!!!
=
=
Evolutionists tell that tail disappeared without addition of genetic material, so increase in genetic material is NOT needed for evolution to occur...!! I say; Why start from already having however amount of genetic material,,, why not start from assembling genetic material of that quantity in the 1st place. Where did 1st polymerase(a protein) come from, to make earth's 1st protein from earth's 1st DNA??? We can grow or resorb tails later.

Basic life forms like Viruses cannot replicate unless have another more complex cell to borrow proteins from, no primitive life, if ever evolved, would have propagated without a more complex being present to lend them material like enzymes.

By the way what exploded in big-bang, how did that evolve?(P.S. I believe in big-bang or sth of that sorts coz it's in Quran, but was created & caused to explode by GOD the Creator).

Nobody, including creationists, believes Hovind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Entropy" in physics means "measure of disorder in a system".

No, it doesn't. Entropy has a specific mathematical definition, of which 'disorder' is an oversimplification.

For a "closed" system Entropy-change is ALWAYS positive.

No, it isn't. Entropy tends to a maximum on average - but locally, entropy can go any which way.

i.e. unless some external energy along with a mechanism to organize that energy is there to force the system towards state of orderliness, everything goes from state of order towards disorder. In creation of universe that external force was The Creator. Laws of Physics state that Entropy of universe is always increasing. "Spontaneous" evolution goes against this law!!! Only a "controlled" evolution would satisfy law of Entropy change. Who was the controller?

You answer your own question:

"unless some external energy along with a mechanism to organize that energy is there to force the system towards state of orderliness"

The external energy is called 'the Sun'.
The organising mechanism is called 'chemistry'.

For DNA to have evolved upwards, from primitive to advanced, through trillions of trillions of species, without someone causing it to happen, is against law of Entropy change. Because "disorder" of universe is supposed to increase continually.

On average, but remember that entropy can happily decrease locally - it's simply that any decrease is offset by a larger increase elsewhere in the universe. In the case of the Earth, the Sun's heat decreases entropy on Earth, while increasing entropy inside itself. The decrease is tiny compared to the increase, and thus the law is obeyed.

A "spontaneous" mutation does NOT lead to improved DNA forms, it's ONLY "controlled" manipulation e.g. adding insulin gene into bacterial genome in a lab, that leads to formation of improved DNA & an "ABSOLUTE" increase amount of gene pool of that kind of organisms. Most of spontaneous changes are either damaging or lethal to species, e.g. cancers.

On the contrary, genetic 'information' increases spontaneously. For instance, there are species of bacteria that can digest nylon - a synthetic material invented in the '40s.

SPONTANEOUS changes in DNA could NOT have caused improved species

Except, of course, they have. Research Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment.

Like any person of any religion Atheist "can" have morality,but their morality is plagiarized. They borrowed it from religions allegedly from God while denying existence of it. It's like I wear western dresses but keep saying , "there is NO West, existence of West is just a myth.!!!"

If you believe that, your understanding of atheism is quite naive. I'd be happy to explain to you how atheists get their morality, but I have the feeling you're only here to talk at us, and have no intention of engaging in discourse.

​

Dr.Dino(Kent Hovind) said; There is overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution of a fork from a knife too, & missing links were not discovered until recently by Kent Hovind...

Did you know that Kent Hovind (the man with a fake degree in jail for tax evasion) actually believes in evolution?

Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!) - YouTube

There was a wired telephone with circular dial on it then we found a wired phone with digital key-pad, both have resemblances but where does it prove that prior evolved into latter without intervention of some designer...!!!

Evolution works over generations of replicators. Since neither forks nor telephones replicate, your analogy is flawed, and does nothing but bely your own misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Where did 1st polymerase(a protein) come from, to make earth's 1st protein from earth's 1st DNA??? We can grow or resorb tails later.

Polymerase is a complex protein that evolved from previous proteins.

Basic life forms like Viruses cannot replicate unless have another more complex cell to borrow proteins from, no primitive life, if ever evolved, would have propagated without a more complex being present to lend them material like enzymes.

Viruses evolved after other organisms did.

By the way what exploded in big-bang, how did that evolve?(P.S. I believe in big-bang or sth of that sorts coz it's in Quran, but was created & caused to explode by GOD the Creator).

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, and it didn't evolve.

 

[sfs]

"Entropy" in physics means "measure of disorder in a system".

No, entropy means something precise in physics, something that can be defined either in terms of heat flow and temperature change, or in terms of the number of accessible microstates. "Measure of disorder" is a crude attempt to describe the concept to those who don't understand it.

For a "closed" system Entropy-change is ALWAYS positive. i.e. unless some external energy along with a mechanism to organize that energy is there to force the system towards state of orderliness, everything goes from state of order towards disorder.

True.

In creation of universe that external force was The Creator.

Not a scientific statement, but it doesn't contradict anything we currently know about physics.

Laws of Physics state that Entropy of universe is always increasing.

Probably true, subject to the caveat that the laws of physics get a little murky in an expanding universe.

"Spontaneous" evolution goes against this law!!!

Why? Your law states that the entropy of the entire universe must increase; it says nothing about what has to happen in a tiny patch of the universe that contains an acorn, say. Living things are not a closed system: they are part of a system with a massive energy flux across it, driven by the sun. There is no requirement at all that entropy decrease in such a system.

Only a "controlled" evolution would satisfy law of Entropy change. Who was the controller?

Complete nonsense. "Control" has nothing to do with whether entropy increase or not. Humans are just as subject to the 2nd Law as any other part of the universe.

For DNA to have evolved upwards, from primitive to advanced, through trillions of trillions of species, without someone causing it to happen, is against law of Entropy change.

This is simply wrong. Don't try to do physics if you don't understand the subject.

Because "disorder" of universe is supposed to increase continually.

Disorder of the universe is increase continually, even while some parts of it decrease their entropy. This isn't a matter of opinion: you can observe entropy spontaneously decreasing; claims to the contrary are simply wrong.

A "spontaneous" mutation does NOT lead to improved DNA forms, it's ONLY "controlled" manipulation e.g. adding insulin gene into bacterial genome in a lab, that leads to formation of improved DNA & an "ABSOLUTE" increase amount of gene pool of that kind of organisms. Most of spontaneous changes are either damaging or lethal to species, e.g. cancers.

Most spontaneous changes to DNA are harmful or neutral, but some are demonstrably beneficial. Again, this can be easily observed.

I lost interest at this point. . .

 

[Davian]

I didn't say it wasn't man-made. But yes, there is a cure. Sorry.

<looks for substantiation of claim - finds none>

 

[Norman321]

Debate 20

So it is perfectly acceptable to be skeptic of the skeptics. Ok, glad we got that straightened out.

 

[sur]

No, it doesn't. Entropy has a specific mathematical definition, of which 'disorder' is an oversimplification.

No, entropy means something precise in physics,

Both u & SFS don't even get it. It's not about precise or simplified definition, it's about the phenomenon,,, Even in a small segment of universe, the law still stands,,, e.g.DNA cannot assemble on it's own,(& I'm not even going back to assembly of repelling protons in a nucleus & evolving of all the chemicals needed for that DNA & all of them coming into right organization), this is what goes against Entropy-Change, even in a patch of universe, & u answer to this is..

The external energy is called 'the Sun'.
The organizing mechanism is called 'chemistry

'.

Well, energy input alone does nothing except further deteriorating organization, that why ppl wear UV-protection... 2ndly u have put an organizing mechanism in place already,,,!!! then how did that organizing mechanism got "ORGANIZED"...???

Here I would repeat example of protein synthesis from DNA. u said..

Polymerase is

a complex protein that evolved from previous proteins.

Same rhetoric again, "previous proteins",,, well describe a "protein-i.n.d.e.p.e.n.d.e.n.t" organizing mechanism for those "previous-proteins" to have evolved into complex polymerase then...??? (& we haven't touched R.N.A yet ...)

Lets start it from no "previous" "chemistry" or "proteins"...

By-the-way below is ur statement where non-replicating forks or telephones cannot evolve but somehow ur non-replicating "previous proteins" did ...

Evolution works over generations of replicators. Since neither forks nor telephones replicate, your analogy is flawed, and does nothing but bely your own misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Please make me understand...

If you believe that, your understanding of atheism is quite naive. I'd be happy to explain to you how atheists get their morality, but I have the feeling you're only here to talk at us, and have no intention of engaging in discourse.

Did you know that Kent Hovind (the man with a fake degree in jail for tax evasion) actually believes in evolution?

Personal attack alert, pet method to discredit someone, his fake degree or being in jail doesn't change science, & then u get the feeling that I'm not in a mood to engage in discourse

On the contrary, genetic 'information' increases spontaneously. For instance, there are species of bacteria that can digest nylon - a synthetic material invented in the '40s.

No it does NOT,... This example does NOT prove that those bacteria developed new-DNA after exposure to nylon...!!! they already had the gene that just turned itself on,,, If anything this point of yours disprove evolution... Those bacteria were ALREADY had gene for "Nylonase" & co-incidently we invented a thing that they already had the gene for,,,

This disproves evolution,,, otherwise those bacteria should have shown some patience & waited for humans to invent Nylon 1st before carrying out this feat ... One one hand evolutionists claim evolution takes so long that macro-evolution is not observable over average life span but then this Nylon digestion took just 9 days to develop,,, Hehehe. It was pre-existing silent gene that was put to function.

Except, of course, they have. Research

Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment.

Yet Lenski is reluctant to disclose his data to others for counter-analysis...!!! Smells fishy... This would be considered evolution ONLY if could be PROVED that, say, survival in citric acid resulted from development of NEW genetic material & not mere re-arrangement or deletion of already existing gene-pool... I repeat the key words again "ALREADY EXISTING GENE-POOL" & this existence is what has to be proved to have happened spontaneously in order for evolution to be accepted ... Otherwise one can make a trillion of words from pre-existing 26 alphabets of English & keep insisting that it's evolution... It's NOT, it's mere re-arrangement=variation.

...

Complete nonsense. "Control" has nothing to do with whether entropy increase or not. Humans are just as subject to the 2nd Law as any other part of the universe.

either u did not understand what I wrote or i don't get ur statement ... Yes it DOES, like insulin gene is inserted into bacteria under "CONTROL" ,,, thus adding NEW-genetic material into gene-pool of bacteria that was NOT there before,,, this is true evolution but was done by designer & was NOT spontaneous ... i.e. Entropy here is NEGATIVE but under "CONTROL" & with "EXTERNAL-INTERVENTION" of not just energy alone but an organizing method...

This is simply wrong.

Don't try to do physics if you don't understand the subject.

Read above...

I lost interest at this point. . .

There's a saying in Islam, "despair is a sin" keep ur hopes high... May be some day E.Coli would form multicellular organ-systems with "Division-of-Labor" ...

 

[sfs]

Both u & SFS don't even get it. It's not about precise or simplified definition, it's about the phenomenon,,, Even in a small segment of universe, the law still stands,

No, the problem is that I do get it and that you don't. The "law" doesn't stand, because it's not a law of physics. It's some crap somebody made up that doesn't describe the real world. In the real world, entropy can and does decrease locally. It does it all the time. If someone tells you otherwise, he doesn't know what he's talking about. If someone tells that "disorder" always increases, even in a small segment of the universe, he also doesn't know what he's talking about. Watch a crystal form sometime.

e.g.DNA cannot assemble on it's own

What does DNA assembling on its own have to do with anything?

,(& I'm not even going back to assembly of repelling protons in a nucleus

Well, that's good, because that would be even more ridiculous. Please, learn some physics.

Well, energy input alone does nothing except further deteriorating organization, that why ppl wear UV-protection... 2ndly u have put an organizing mechanism in place already,,,!!! then how did that organizing mechanism got "ORGANIZED"...???

What "organizing mechanism" causes water to form organized convection cells when it's heated?

Lets start it from no "previous" "chemistry" or "proteins"...

By-the-way below is ur statement where non-replicating forks or telephones cannot evolve but somehow ur non-replicating "previous proteins" did ...
Please make me understand...

You're talking about many different things, and I have grave doubts that you really do want to understand. But I'll try anyway. No one knows how the first life formed, for example, how proteins and DNA, which require each other for synthesis, came to function together. As scientists, we assume that there was a set of chemical steps that made it possible, and there are some interesting ideas out there, but no complete solution. So, the answer is, we don't know.

We do know how evolution (which doesn't really include the origin of life) works, however, that is, how life changes due to mutation and natural selection. And those processes are entirely in accord with the laws of physics as we know them. Anyone who tells you that evolution violates a law of thermodynamics, or some law about increasing disorder, is telling you a pack of lies.

This does NOT prove that those bacteria developed new-DNA after exposure to nylon...!!! they already had the gene that just turned itself on

Sorry, but that's nonsense. We have plenty of samples of bacteria from all over the world, and they never have spare, fully functional genes just sitting around waiting for some event to turn them on in a hundred years. We know perfectly well what happens to unneeded genes in bacteria: they mutate and are selected away, so that they disappear from the population, because they're a drag on the bacterium.

,,, If anything this point of yours disprove evolution... Those bacteria were ALREADY had gene for "Nylonase" & co-incidently we invented a thing that they already had the gene for,,,

And your evidence for this is . . .

either u did not understand what I wrote or i don't get ur statement ... Yes it DOES, like insulin gene is inserted into bacteria under "CONTROL" ,,, thus adding NEW-genetic material into gene-pool of bacteria that was NOT there before,,, this is true evolution but was done by designer & was NOT spontaneous ... i.e. Entropy was NEGATIVE but under "CONTROL" & with "EXTERNAL-INTERVENTION" ...

The problem is that you don't know understand entropy or the laws of physics. If a decrease in entropy is forbidden by the laws of physics, then it's forbidden to humans as well. There is no term for "control" or "intelligence" in the laws of thermodynamics. And if it's possible for humans to insert a gene, then the laws of physics do permit genes to be added.

Now you may want to invent some other, new law of physics, which says that certain things can only happen if there is an intelligence behind them. Have fun with demonstrating that and getting it accepted, because it certainly isn't part of the physics that physicists know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Both u & SFS don't even get it. It's not about precise or simplified definition, it's about the phenomenon,,, Even in a small segment of universe, the law still stands,,,

Which is simply not true. If you don't understand what entropy actually is, and insist on going off the popular definition of 'disorder', then you're going to get it wrong.

e.g.DNA cannot assemble on it's own,(& I'm not even going back to assembly of repelling protons in a nucleus & evolving of all the chemicals needed for that DNA & all of them coming into right organization), this is what goes against Entropy-Change, even in a patch of universe, & u answer to this is..
Well, energy input alone does nothing except further deteriorating organization, that why ppl wear UV-protection... 2ndly u have put an organizing mechanism in place already,,,!!! then how did that organizing mechanism got "ORGANIZED"...???

As I said, the 'organising mechanism' is simply chemistry. Simple molecules in a warm ocean will spontaneously form more complex organic molecules. The energy from the Sun is all that's needed to turn simple chemicals into complex ones. There's no hard mechanism needed beyond the simple laws of chemistry.

Here I would repeat example of protein synthesis from DNA. u said..
Same rhetoric again, "previous proteins",,, well describe a "protein-i.n.d.e.p.e.n.d.e.n.t" organizing mechanism for those "previous-proteins" to have evolved into complex polymerase then...??? (& we haven't touched R.N.A yet ...)

Lets start it from no "previous" "chemistry" or "proteins"...

You asked where specifically polymerase came from, not proteins in general.

Proteins are fundamentally formed from amino acids, which spontaneously form under the conditions of prebiotic Earth (remember above where I said the Sun's energy alone causes simple molecules to form more complex ones?). These amino acids form monomers, which can pass freely through the semi-permeable membrane of micelles - bubbles of lipids that also spontaneously form. When monomers collide, they combine to form polymers, which are too big to pass back out of the micelle. So, you have this micelle drifiting along, monomers passing through it and polymers sticking inside it. All it takes is one polymer to be self-replicating, and evolution kicks off. From there, the self-replicating polymer can, as a by-product of its replication, spit out chunks of other polymers - and any of those which serve a useful function cause that replicating polymer to be better than its competitors.

In other words, proteins are the by-product of the first replicating molecules. This continues to this day, with proteins being formed by short strands of DNA being copied into a strand of RNA, which is then used to synthesis the protein in ribosomes.

By-the-way below is ur statement where non-replicating forks or telephones cannot evolve but somehow ur non-replicating "previous proteins" did ...
Please make me understand...

Evolution occurs in things which replicate. Variation in offspring leads to variation in fitness - that is, how well that organism survives in the environment that it finds itself in. Fitter organisms will, by definition, survive better. So, over the generations, the species will shift towards variations that make them better-able to live in that environment.

It's this process that allows us to look at homologous fossils and see how they relate to modern species. Homology alone doesn't prove evolution - evolution needs to be possible in order to explain the phenomenon.

So, with regards to phones and forks, since neither undergo replication with inheritable variation, the origin of neither can be explained through evolution.

Personal attack alert, pet method to discredit someone, his fake degree or being in jail doesn't change science, & then u get the feeling that I'm not in a mood to engage in discourse

I never said his fake degree changed the science, I simple corrected your use of the word 'doctor'.

No it does NOT,... This example does NOT prove that those bacteria developed new-DNA after exposure to nylon...!!! they already had the gene that just turned itself on,,, If anything this point of yours disprove evolution... Those bacteria were ALREADY had gene for "Nylonase" & co-incidently we invented a thing that they already had the gene for,,,

This disproves evolution,,, otherwise those bacteria should have shown some patience & waited for humans to invent Nylon 1st before carrying out this feat ... One one hand evolutionists claim evolution takes so long that macro-evolution is not observable over average life span but then this Nylon digestion took just 9 days to develop,,, Hehehe. It was pre-existing silent gene that was put to function.

There are numerous problems with this scenario.

First, we have the ancestral bacterial genome, and the new, nylon-eating bacterial genome, and can see the addition of new genetic information that arose through evolution. It occurred through manipulating its genes and a frame-shift mutation.

Second, the odds that bacteria would have nylonase encoded into its genome, and we just so happened to synthesis a material that was an exact match for this "silent gene", are astronomical.

Third, when evolutionists say it's not observable over human lifespans, we're answering Creationists demands for "giraffes giving birth to whales", or some such nonsense. Macroevolution is simply evolution between species. Large, morphological changes to the phenotype take many years, but macroevolution itself does not.

Yet Lenski is reluctant to disclose his data to others for counter-analysis...!!! Smells fishy...

That is incorrect. Presumably you're referring to request by Andrew Schlafly for Lenski's data - Creationist circles like to parrot round the myth that Lenski refused. He did not. The data Schlafly requested was in Lenski's paper, and biological samples would be happily handed over to qualified professionals with an appropriately equipped lab.

The whole debacle was humiliating for Schlafly, who was criticised by both evolutionists and Creationists for what was tantamount to posturing and bullying, while Lenski's reply was hailed as "one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument".

You can read the full exchange here. Beside being an entertaining read, it also familiarises you with the ins and outs of Lenski's work.

This would be considered evolution ONLY if could be PROVED that, say, survival in citric acid resulted from development of NEW genetic material & not mere re-arrangement or deletion of already existing gene-pool... I repeat the key words again "ALREADY EXISTING GENE-POOL" & this existence is what has to be proved to have happened spontaneously in order for evolution to be accepted ...

As indeed Lenski did. Over the two decades and 44,000 generations, samples were regularly taken and preserved, giving us snapshots of how each strain was developing. We can then experiment with these ancestral strains and see how they, too, develop. We can experiment with just how far back we can go before an ancestral strain won't also evolve the same ability, providing evidence for historical contingency, as well as the accrual of genetic information.