The problem with Creation Science

[notto]

mattes,

Science also strives to falsify theories and the evidence that falsifies a theory is more important that any evidence that supports it. Young earth creationism was falsified before the theory of evolution was even proposed. There is evidence available and abounding in the creation that simply cannot exist if it was created the way it says it was in the bible some 6000-10000 years ago.

 

[mattes]

There is evidence available and abounding in the creation that simply cannot exist if it was created the way it says it was in the bible some 6000-10000 years ago.

What evidence? I haven't heard any that disproves the young earth.

 

[wblastyn]

What evidence? I haven't heard any that disproves the young earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[Vance]

And you can check out:

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Top

if you want to see how other Christians believe in an old earth, not just non-believers. I do not agree with each and every premise of this online book, but his discussion of the age of the earth and the evidence for it is very sound.

 

[troodon]

Why not? Evolution is a theory and they try to support their theory, and wait isnt that the whole point of science?

mattes, how was evolutionary theory developed? It was developed by examining the evidence! How was modern creationist theory developed? It was developed by reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally. Which one of those is a more scientific approach.

Creation science is bad science because it starts with the conclusion (God created the universe 6,000 years ago) and tries to find evidence to support it. That is not how science operates.

There is more evidence of Creationism then there is in Evolution.

Big talk.

In fact most of evolution's evidence are hoaxes ie. Piltdown Horse

Piltdown horse? Come on, at least get the right names for the hoaxes. It's Piltdown man. Maybe you should read about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Nebraska Man

Was not a hoax, it was a genuine mistake. Maybe you should read about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Haekel's Embryos

Was not a hoax done to defend evolutionary theory but to defend Haeckel's own personal theory. Maybe you should read about it:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Peppered Moth

I don't even know what you're talking about here. It's a perfect example of natural selection. Maybe you should read about it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t53671&page=4&highlight=peppered+moth

and there still keeping these hoaxes in the textbooks

I assure you there were no hoaxes printed in any of the biology textbooks I used (and I live in California!)

What evidence? I haven't heard any that disproves the young earth

http://www.christianforums.com/t43339
http://www.christianforums.com/t40474

for starters....

 

[mattes]

The Evolutionary Theory was created by Charles Darwin after his five year journey as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle. After this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Published in 1859.

1 scientist came to a conclusion after seeing some fossils and some different spieces, Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence . Evolution science in my opinion is bad science because it starts with the conclusion the Earth is billions of years old and tries to find evidence to support it.

Ok now on to the hoaxes sorry about the typo about the Piltdown Man I was thinking about somthing else when I was typing.

-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.

Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.

-Haekel's Embryos-
This is a hoax. Haekel drew the first stages of the embryos almost identical. The second row of embryos were real but the first row were faked to look identical to prove the Evolution Theory. The picture of these embryos can still be found in textbooks today even thoe there false.

Heres a picture of Haekel's Embryos:
www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg
Here are some real embryos:
brynmawr.edu/biology/Bio394/embryos.jpg

-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks. So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.

Creation science is bad science because it starts with the conclusion (God created the universe 6,000 years ago) and tries to find evidence to support it. That is not how science operates.

I think not, Evolution Science is bad science because they create hoaxes to try to give evidence to there theory.


*Sorry for the links in the Haekel's Embryos part I cant post urls yet just copy those addresses into your address bar*

 

[Plan 9]

evolution's evidence are hoaxes ie. Piltdown Horse, Nebraska Man, Haekel's Embryos, Peppered Moth, and etc. and there still keeping these hoaxes in the textbooks and not to mention there attempts of cover ups. I hate to say it but evolution is a disease to science. Evolution theory has become a religion and people are going to great extremes to try to prove it.

Piltdown Man was discredited long ago (by evolutionists) and even at my age, there was no mention of Piltdown Man in any of my textbooks, except as the hoax it was. Nor did I ever see Haekel's Embryos.
I don't recall learning anything at all about Nebraska Man, if someone would like to fill me in? *wags tail*
Mattes, peppered moths are the real thing.

 

[notto]

Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence .

I would challenge you to find a single geologist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is young based only on the evidence in nature and not on their preexisting understanding that the bible says the earth is young.

If the earth is young, and evolution is false, how come there are not ANY scientists who come to this conclusion who are not part of creation ministries that have tenents to adhere to related to what the bible says about the earth. Why must creation scientists from organization like ICR and AIG state that they will not accept any evidence that is contradictory to the bible?

When it comes to what science is, evolution meets all of the requirments from how it was developed, and how it is supported.

Young Earth Creationism is anti-science and is based on belief in a strict, literal, interpretation of the bible first, and evidence second and completely ignores what is the most important part of science, which is to examine evidence that falsifies a theory.

A young earth was falsified by Christian scientists when they went looking for evidenceto support their beliefs and couldn't find any. Once a theory is falsified, it remains falsified no matter how much evidence supports it or how weak another theory is.

In these discussions, claiming evidence invalidates evolution in no way supports young earth creation. The falsification of one does not provide evidence or support of the other.

There are thousands of different theories that could be formulated (and have been formulated) about why life on earth is the way it is. Evolution is currently the strongest and explains the most evidence we find in detail.

Unless you have read some primary literature on evolution, you really can't know enough about it to make the statements you are making.

 

[Plan 9]

-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.

Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.

It was the scientist who was the digging who was hoaxed; the altered skull was planted and, yes, he fell for it.
Yes, it was discredited, but by by evolutionists and I have yet to see a modern textbook which includes Piltdown Man as anything but a hoax.

-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks. So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.

Peppered moths do indeed rest on tree trunks, but not for long. They are moths. They fly around a lot.

 

[troodon]

The Evolutionary Theory was created by Charles Darwin after his five year journey as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle. After this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Published in 1859.

1 scientist came to a conclusion after seeing some fossils and some different spieces, Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence .

That's exactly what you just described! Darwin didn't say, "I think all life descended from less derived organisms so I'm going to go look for examples." He saw the examples (the data), connected the dots (formulated a hypothesis), and tested it by examining other examples (pigeons are mentioned thoroughly in Origin of Species)

Evolution science in my opinion is bad science because it starts with the conclusion the Earth is billions of years old and tries to find evidence to support it.

Your opinion is incorrect for 2 reasons. Number one, because evolution did not start out as the dominant theory. Creationism did. Evolution was 'invented' after examining the evidence and it gained prominance because it was so fricken good at explaining all the evidence. Number two, scientists are not out "[trying] to find evidence to support it". Scientists are out looking for two things. One, they are out looking for evidence to support the controversial specifics of evolution. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and there is no need to find more evidence for it. What there is a need for is specific evidence to defend and falsify the more controversial specific claims of ancestry (dinosaurs to birds and ungulates to whales for example). Scientists aren't out looking for (and finding btw) feathered dinosaurs to support evolution in general but to support the dino/bird link. Secondly, scientists are looking for evidence to provide more detail about commonly accepted lines of ancestry (therapsid to mammal, fish to amphibian, early Homo to human). We know that is the general ancestral line but we look for evidence as to what specific family, genera, or even species was that ancestor.

Just for reinforcement, scientists (in general) are not looking for evidence for biological evolution but for the specific details of the history of biological evolution.

-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.

Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud.

Yes, it was a fraud but what you fail to be taking note of is that the hoax was uncovered by people who accept evolutionary theory. Far from being desparate to find support from their claims, they very willingly cast aside this evidence when they managed to discover it for what it was.

On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.

Have you personally examined the specimen? And if not could you point me to a source where a person who has says "one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like"?

-Haekel's Embryos-
This is a hoax. Haekel drew the first stages of the embryos almost identical. The second row of embryos were real but the first row were faked to look identical to prove the Evolution Theory. The picture of these embryos can still be found in textbooks today even thoe there false.

Oh really? A very major claim. Back it up. Point me to a text book company who has Haeckel's embryos still in their books.

If you can't I will discount your claim as an empty lie

Heres a picture of Haekel's Embryos:
www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg
Here are some real embryos:
brynmawr.edu/biology/Bio394/embryos.jpg

Yes, I've seen them. If you would actually look at the link I provided you would see that pictures like these are on the page and thus you could have concluded that I have seen them.

-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks.

You know what? I LOVE IT when people you are having a discussion with do not go to the links you provide them. Do the bigger letters help? Here, for your convenience I will reproduce the important part:

Here's the data:
" [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here are the data I presented (from Majerus, 1998, Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action, page 123):

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 32 of 47 moths (68%) were found on tree trunks[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the vicinity of traps between 1965 and 1996[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]66[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Foliage[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Man-made surfaces:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 136 of 203 moths (67%) were found on tree trunks[/font]​

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...april-2002.html

I even had the words "peppered moth" bolded in the link but some people....

So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.

You know what I find hilarious about your claims of fraud? It's that, if you actually believe that peppered moths don't use their camoflauge, you have a situation where this allele gained prominance in the population for no reason whatsoever. Did you even consider that problem?

I think not, Evolution Science is bad science because they create hoaxes to try to give evidence to there theory.

You have provided 2 examples of hoaxes. Good job. I'll help you out and point out Archaeoraptor as well (although this was a hoax perpetrated on the scientists; not by them). So... you have 3 examples of hoaxes.... that's it. And you dismiss evolution as bad science based on 3 hoaxes?

Here, if you look at my second post on this page you will see a list of a few examples of YEC dishonesty. I hope you will refrain from being a hypocrite in your judgement.

 

[mattes]

You know what? I LOVE IT when people you are having a discussion with do not go to the links you provide them. Do the bigger letters help? Here, for your convenience I will reproduce the important part:


I even had the words "peppered moth" bolded in the link but some people....

You know what I find hilarious about your claims of fraud? It's that, if you actually believe that peppered moths don't use their camoflauge, you have a situation where this allele gained prominance in the population for no reason whatsoever. Did you even consider that problem?

I did read the link I doubt its credibility. I think yes the moths use there camoflauge but its not an example of Darwinism, that was my point.

Oh really? A very major claim. Back it up. Point me to a text book company who has Haeckel's embryos still in their books.

If you can't I will discount your claim as an empty lie

My High School textbook has them in there. I graduated but ill try to get one from my brother and show you.

Ok, now for the debating.

How was evolutionary theory developed? It was developed by examining the evidence!

Really what about Coelacanth?

 

[Vance]

What about it?

We just had a long discussion of this one.

See the "living fossils" thread.

 

[troodon]

I did read the link I doubt its credibility.

You doubt a scientific study because it contradicts what you believe? Was the methodology wrong or are the scientists just lying?

You even said, "later it was found that the moths do not rest on tree trunks". How was this "found" without a scientific study? What? How? Point me to a study that shows these results.

I think yes the moths use there camoflauge but its not an example of Darwinism, that was my point.

How is this not an example of natural selection? The moths, as you admit, use their camoflauge! How do you explain the change in allele frequency without natural selection?

My High School textbook has them in there. I graduated but ill try to get one from my brother and show you.

Please do so.

Really what about Coelacanth?

As Vance said, "What about it?"

The Coelacanth was rediscovered in 1938. Ergo, the Coelacanth was not part of the array of evidence that was used to develop evolutionary theory.

Regardless, the Coelacanth is not as great an example as you think. The thing that's so amazing about the Coelacanth is that it comes from a previously thought extinct order. The living examples are in a completely different family than those in the fossil record. This is an example of an animal that has changed a lot in 65 million years and I don't know why you think it helps your cause.

Edit: I removed an unconstructive question

 

[mattes]

You doubt a scientific study because it contradicts what you believe? Was the methodology wrong or are the scientists just lying?

You even said, "later it was found that the moths do not rest on tree trunks". How was this "found" without a scientific study? What? How? Point me to a study that shows these results. Or did your pastor just tell you this?

Well the reason I doubt is ive heard different things about the peppered moth and I am currently studying which is true. I dont go off beliving everything I hear or read I try to hear both sides then make an educated decision. Fair enough statment "or did your pastor just tell you this?" did you just read this one article to make your belief statment?

 

[Vance]

I don't think any non-YEC that regularly posts here makes ANY statement after reading just only one side's views, much less reading just one article. We have read what the secular scientists say and what the Creationists say. I would recommend you do the same if you are not already (and you might be).

Here is a very good place to see what the "opposition" says about most of the Young Earth Creationists arguments:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

It would probably be a good idea when you want to discuss a YEC theory, you go to this page first to see what the probable response will be. This will allow you to anticipate the responses and provide the alternative viewpoint right in your original post. This will save a lot of time and energy.

 

[troodon]

Well the reason I doubt is ive heard different things about the peppered moth and I am currently studying which is true. I dont go off beliving everything I hear or read I try to hear both sides then make an educated decision. Fair enough statment "or did your pastor just tell you this?" did you just read this one article to make your belief statment?

Hehe, you got to me before I deleted that pastor part. It was out of line and I apologize. Although the sound of your response makes it seem like you did get it from your pastor. Hmm...

In regards to your question, I believe the study (it's a study, not just an article) because it presents data. Data cannot be simply dismissed because you don't like the implications. The only way you can falsify data is to show it to be fallacious or show that it was gathered with improper or inadequate techniques.

Because you have not shown any conflicting studies (just some anecdotal statements) I will believe the data. To be frank, if this study is not correct, it would be very easy for a YEC organization to show it. All they need to do is their own study using similar procedures.

So, when it comes right down to it I will believe a person presenting data over a person telling me what they heard someone else tell them. It's pretty simple.

 

[lucaspa]

The Evolutionary Theory was created by Charles Darwin after his five year journey as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle. After this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Published in 1859.

1 scientist came to a conclusion after seeing some fossils and some different spieces, Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence . Evolution science in my opinion is bad science because it starts with the conclusion the Earth is billions of years old and tries to find evidence to support it.

Nice attempt to re-write history. When Darwin started the voyage he was a creationist. As you noted, he collected all that data on the voyage but it wasn't until he was back in England that he came up with evolution and natural selection. In fact, while he was collecting the samples of birds and tortoises on the Galapagos, he had no idea all the birds were finches. He only found that out once he was back in England 3 years after he collected the samples.

Before you get to the hoaxes, please go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Notice the number of papers that come up. Are you going to suggest to us that all of them are hoaxes?

-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.

Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.

If that were the case, the proof of the hoax would have been the teeth. Instead, it was the fluoride content of the bones. Remember, this was a hoax perpetrated on scientists, not by scientists. They would have detected as crude a hoax as you imply.

-Haekel's Embryos-
This is a hoax. Haekel drew the first stages of the embryos almost identical. The second row of embryos were real but the first row were faked to look identical to prove the Evolution Theory. The picture of these embryos can still be found in textbooks today even thoe there false.

Heres a picture of Haekel's Embryos:
www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg
Here are some real embryos:
brynmawr.edu/biology/Bio394/embryos.jpg

Haeckel's drawings are not evidence about evolution, but evidence pertaining to a particular theory about the way evolution happened. The pictures can't be found in any textbooks written within the last 10 years.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo1.html

-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks. So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.

You've been reading Icons of Evolution. Sorry, this is a fabrication. The moths do rest on tree trunks. I have the exact data if you want. The pictures were staged because live moths don't rest long enough for the photographer to set everything up. But the moths were glued where the real moths landed. What is not known is the exact selection pressure, i.e, predation, but it is a classic Darwinian model.

Creationists distort the facts because distortion is all they have. It's too bad they con innocent people like you.

 

[lucaspa]

Well the reason I doubt is ive heard different things about the peppered moth and I am currently studying which is true. I dont go off beliving everything I hear or read I try to hear both sides then make an educated decision.

Have you read Origin of the Species? Have you read any textbook on evolutionary biology? Unless you can answer "yes" to both, your haven't studied both sides.

 

[lucaspa]

Excuse me? I don't think you know what your talking about. Creation Science is very much science. In fact the all major branches of science were started by creationists.

Creation Science is not what people like Whewell, Newton, Sedgwick, Linneaus, etc. had. Creation Science dates from 1968 when Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood. While Creation Science is a scientific theory, it is not a valid theory. That is, it was falsified by 1831.

There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless.

ROFL!! That is SOOO wide of the mark. None of the medical advances made in the last 50 years could have been made if evolution was not true.

Here are some areas where evolution and natural selection have proved very useful. We can discuss them in detail if you want. LOL! Sorry, I'm still laughing at your claim.

1. D Ebert, Evolution: experimental evolution of parasites. Science 282:1432-1433, Nov. 20, 1998. A review article summarizing the use of evolution in a test tube to study parasites (viruses and bacteria). Used to study diseases and work out new treatments.
2. RM Nesse and GC Williams, Evolution and the origins of disease. Scientific American 279: 86-93, Nov. 1998. Concepts from evolution help unify the medical sciences.
3. PW Ewald and G Cochran, Catching on to what's catching. Natural History 108: 34-37, Feb. 1998. Applying Darwinian thinking to understand infectious diseases.
4. BR Levin, M Lipsitch, S Bonhoeffer, Evolution and disease: population biology, evolution, and infectious disease: convergence and synthesis. Science 283: 806-809, Feb. 5, 1998.
5. L Van Valen, How the left got Darwin wrong. Scientific American 282: 110-111, June 2000. Review of A Darwinian Left by Peter Singer. Argues that the political left got Darwin wrong, and thus got its policies wrong.
5. Ecology and evolution of infection. Science 292: 1089-1122, May 11, 2001. Series of articles examining evolution of diseases and resistance.
6. KC Nicolaou, CNC Boddy, Behind enemy lines. Scientific American 284: 54-61, May 2001

1. MJ Plunkett and JA Ellman, Combinatorial chemistry and new drugs. Scientific American, 276: 68-73, April 1997. Summary of article: "By harnessing the creative power of Darwinian selection inside a test tube, chemists can now discover compounds they would not have known how to make. The key is combinatorial chemistry, a process that allows them to produce and screen millions of candidate molecules quickly and systematically."
3. G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998. Uses a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) chip that can reprogram its architecture. Adrian Thompson of Univ. of Suxxex used Darwinianselection to have chip write its own architecture to solve problems. First problem was to distiguish between 1 kiloHz and 10 kHz sound. Allocated only 100 logic elements out of 4,096. Chip did the job withonly 32. Thompson can't figure out how. A chip designed by a human would require 10 to 100 times as many logic elements -- or at least access to aclock -- to perform the same task. "There are properties that humans have great trouble designing into a system, like being very efficient, using small amounts of power, or being fault tolerant. Evolution can cope withthem all."-- Thompson.
5. CW Petit, Touched by nature: putting evolution to work on the assembly line. US News and World Report, 125: 43-45, July 27, 1998. Use "genetic algorithms" (cumulative selection) to get design in industry. Boeing engineers had cumulative selection design a wing forthem for a jet to carry 600 passengers but have a wing the same size as a 747.
8. FS Santiago, HC Lowe, MM Kavurma, CN Chesterman, A Baker, DG Atkins,LM Khachigian, New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury. Nature Medicine 5:1264-1269, 1999. Used Darwinian selection to design a DNA enzyme (not found in nature) that degrades mRNA for use in treating hyperplasia after balloon arthroplasty. Humans have no idea what the nucleotide sequence of the DNA enzyme because they didn't make it --Darwinian selection did.
12. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.cohttp://www.genetic-programming.comhttp://www.genetic-programming.comm Making new inventions is pretty useful, I would say.

So I would say maybe Evolution Science is not science, Evolution is only a thoery a bad one at that it doesnt have legitament evidence to support it.

Before you speak out against Creation Science look at both sides of the story.

Before you make that statement about evolution, I suggest you "check out both sides". You can start by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and entering "evolution" as your search term. I would say that over 129,000 articles in a medical database since 1965 constitutes "legitimate evidence". Don't you? Or should we throw all of the database out as illegitimate?

 

[mattes]

ROFL!! That is SOOO wide of the mark. None of the medical advances made in the last 50 years could have been made if evolution was not true.

Here are some areas where evolution and natural selection have proved very useful. We can discuss them in detail if you want. LOL! Sorry, I'm still laughing at your claim.

What the claim that evolution is usless it isnt my claim.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" -Professor Louis Bounoure Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum.

I'll check into those but from looking at them it looks like they are progresses in the Medical field. Evolution came to the fact we should pump ourselves up with chemicals? LOL just kidding. Ill get back to you.