What about the DNA evidence?

[lasthero]

Several prominent scientists denounced evolution on account of these kinds of experiments, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

I'd also ask that you produce some evidence of him 'denouncing' evolution. I can't find anything that would indicate such a thing.

 

[stevevw]

The thing is recent new discoveries about genetics have pointed to the very least that the theory of evolution needs to be revised. Evidence such as horizontal influences on our genetics make up.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

What happens and is scientists and biologists will come up with a theory and they will investigate and do tests to verify if it fits. When it fits it confirms their hypothesis and when it doesn't they have to try other calculations and test that until one fits. Such as with Gravity, now first newtons and now Einsteins theories are changing by the discovery of dark matter and dark energy. The higs boson was a theory about quantum mechanics and they may have proved at least that it may exists. This is now changing how they see things, in some ways it shows that we have got it wrong.

The thing is evolutionists are looking at the evidence out there and because they already believe that theory they will make everything try to fit. As time goes by we are understaning more and more and i believe it will show that there is more to it than mathematical equations and calculations. that there is intelligence behind the design.

 

[USincognito]

The thing is recent new discoveries about genetics have pointed to the very least that the theory of evolution needs to be revised. Evidence such as horizontal influences on our genetics make up.

Horizontal gene transfer, except for ERVs which actually provide even more evidence for evolution, is much more rare in Metazoans than in the rest of life.

 

[stevevw]

did you even read the link or dismiss it out of hat. there is a lot more than just that but i didn't want to go on about it myself as it is said better by the experts.

 

[USincognito]

did you even read the link or dismiss it out of hat. there is a lot more than just that but i didn't want to go on about it myself as it is said better by the experts.

No I didn't. I prefer actual papers or at least a science reporting site rather than a popular press article. Unless this is something new, the overblown rhetoric about HGT sounding a death knell for evolution is something I've read before, seen addressed and offered my own two cents on above.

There simply isn't the amount of HGT in animals (since the Cambrian) for it to confound establishing phylogenetic relationships the way there is in micro-organisms, plants and the earliest Metazoans.

 

[stevevw]

No I didn't. I prefer actual papers or at least a science reporting site rather than a popular press article. Unless this is something new, the overblown rhetoric about HGT sounding a death knell for evolution is something I've read before, seen addressed and offered my own two cents on above.

There simply isn't the amount of HGT in animals (since the Cambrian) for it to confound establishing phylogenetic relationships the way there is in micro-organisms, plants and the earliest Metazoans.

The article was taken from new science life a science publication. There are several write ups on it. There are tests done by scientists in universities so i dont think they are coming from some media tabloid. If you read it first then you can reply to what im talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong post sorry.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The video didn't say anything about DNA.

No, just your own microbiologists.

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

"“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”."

because their is no upward evolutionary branching, merely sideways variation of kind. Just like we have witnessed with your own eyes in cats and dogs.

 

[lasthero]

because their is no upward evolutionary branching, merely sideways variation of kind

When you define kind - give it anything resembling a definition - we can have a discussion about it. Until then, it's twaddlespeak.

 

[USincognito]

The article was taken from new science life a science publication. There are several write ups on it. There are tests done by scientists in universities so i dont think they are coming from some media tabloid. If you read it first then you can reply to what im talking about.

Look, can you just summarize it for me. I'm on an computer with an older browser and news sites tend to load slow so I don't want to take your link right now.

I also get a bit apprehensive when people keep talking about the link instead of talking about the content of the link. Out of politeness I won't say way, but it's definately a caution flag for productive discussion.

 

[USincognito]

because their is no upward evolutionary branching, merely sideways variation of kind. Just like we have witnessed with your own eyes in cats and dogs.

How odd. Because that article has a tree with an upward trunk and several two limb branches - and that's a very simple evolutionary tree.

I don't see any sideways lines there. Could you point them out to me?

 

[stevevw]

Its hard for me to summarize that's why i included the link which is only a summary of the complete study and evidence im sure. But basically what they are saying is you are influenced by your environment and that can influence what is passed down to the next generation and affect their behavior.

Natural selection in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will eventually peter out.

From two elementary notions – random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment – have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.

Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way.

There are other implications this brings with a persons behavior as well which can be read in the reference. But basically it is suggesting what we believe about species evolving into better and more complex creatures that adapt well to the environment may not be the only way our genes are affected and what we will pass onto the next generation. The environment around us can have a big affect which goes against evolving into more suitable and adapted creatures and adds other possibilities. It more or less goes against what natural selection says.

 

[USincognito]

Thanks Steve.
Epigenetics isn't something I'm that familiar with so I'll take a look around.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Its hard for me to summarize that's why i included the link which is only a summary of the complete study and evidence im sure. But basically what they are saying is you are influenced by your environment and that can influence what is passed down to the next generation and affect their behavior.

Natural selection in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will eventually peter out.

From two elementary notions – random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment – have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.

Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way.

There are other implications this brings with a persons behavior as well which can be read in the reference. But basically it is suggesting what we believe about species evolving into better and more complex creatures that adapt well to the environment may not be the only way our genes are affected and what we will pass onto the next generation. The environment around us can have a big affect which goes against evolving into more suitable and adapted creatures and adds other possibilities. It more or less goes against what natural selection says.

Or it could simply mean that creatures change appearance just like we have personally observed with dogs and cats yet still remain dogs and cats. But of course the observational evidence can not be accepted by evolutionists, because then they would need to admit that all their theories of species evolving into other species is pure imagination. Their own DNA testing has shown nothing but sideways branching (read kind after kind - just as in dogs and cats).

As I said in another post, when their theory is falsified they simply attempt to change the mechanism, while never once considering that it is the theory itself that is flawed. It can never be falsified because they just change the mechanism by which it occurs, while never once reconsidering the theory itself. It has been falsified half a dozen times over the years, and always they just change the mechanism, while not once considering the correctness of the theory. It is always assumed evolution occurred, a totally unscientific approach.

I contend it is no longer a scientific theory, but a religious belief of which the followers thereof will accept no challenge to their religious faith.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How odd. Because that article has a tree with an upward trunk and several two limb branches - and that's a very simple evolutionary tree.

I don't see any sideways lines there. Could you point them out to me?

Yes, it's a pretty picture full of imaginary links, of which there exists no evidence whatsoever. As I said, you simply change the picture and the mechanism, but fail to realize your entire theory has been falsified half a dozen times in the last 20 years. Links that have no progenitors, just an imaginary line connecting them all with not a shred of evidence to support it.

They used to tell me the pretty picture on the left is correct, untill actual evidence falsified it, so we redraw the picture but never reconsider the actual theory itself. Such unbiased scientists. Scientists that know if they do not claim evolution as fact would never get a single paper published. And bye-bye to their careers.

 

[gungasnake]

They used to tell me the pretty picture on the left is correct, untill actual evidence falsified it, so we redraw the picture but never reconsider the actual theory itself. Such unbiased scientists. Scientists that know if they do not claim evolution as fact would never get a single paper published. And bye-bye to their careers.

Like I said...

Why is evolution presently accepted?

• peer pressure
• government grants
• fear
• yuppyism
• sheep/herd instinct
• money
• ethical challenges

You could probably come up with a few others but that's the gist of it.

 

[lasthero]

peer pressure

From who? Science is built on competition from peers.

government grants

Any evidence of this? Anything?

fear

Fear of what? Is there some pro-evolution mafia out there?

yuppyism

Not even sure what this means.

sheep/herd instinct

There is absolutely nothing to be gained in science from just following other people. Nobody cares about a scientist who just does what every one else does. The plaudits in science go to people who break from the norm, challenge held ideas, discover new things.

money

Most scientists do not make that much money.

Scientist Salary | Indeed.com

$77,000, after years of expensive courses in college and countless hours of hard work. And keep in mind, there are no shortage of places like ICR and evolutionnews that have a dearth of qualified individuals, and would gladly pay such individuals to do a lot less than they would have to do at legitimate institutions. There's no shortage of megachurches that would - and often do - pay for qualified people to come and tell them what they want to hear. Guys like Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind rack in millions of dollars a year, and they don't have an actual qualification between them.

ethical challenges

Such as?

You could probably come up with a few others but that's the gist of it.

Yes, I'm quite certain you guys could make up things all day.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps evolution is Satan way of saying God didn't create man i did.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, science *was* built upon competition and the search for truth. Now it is a good old boys club, where the only thing that matters is getting funding, and one does not get funding by going against the mainstream belief. Any scientist that asked for funding to do research to disprove evolution would be immediately denied.

And those that do find evidence contrary to it (usually by accident because they were looking for something else) are afraid to bring forth their finding for fear of being osterized and ridiculed.

‪60 Minutes - B. Rex - YouTube
Dino Dig Updates: Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery : Video : Science Channel

Mary Schweitzer a prime example, who was afraid to present her findings, even when test after test after test confirmed her findings. Thankfully Jack Horner is a maverick and doesn't care about funding as has his own fame and fortune already and we have heard about this. Otherwise it would probably never have been reported.

We wont mention this totally destroys your theory of age, findings backed up by C-14 testing of recent origins. Sorry, wasn't supposed to mention that.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, it's a pretty picture full of imaginary links, of which there exists no evidence whatsoever.

Both of those phylogenies were established using evidence. Whether you agree with the results or not is up to you. But to suggest that evidence was not used in their establishment is laughable.