Science Disproves Evolution [trollville]
Offline Two-Celled Life?
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.
Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.
Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.
Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.
Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.
- Login to post comments
Offline The real question here, in my ever-so-humble opinion: Is Pahu really trying to "disprove" evolution, or is this a desperate cry for help, saying "Public school biology has failed me!"
Giggles. If i didn't knoiw better my love, I would say you went to my school.
Goldfish Memory.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ah, another 'Gapper' has creeped out from the woods and its name is Pahu.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since you are copying and pasting this bullshit all over the internet, I thought I might copy and paste some answers for you.
"Perhaps you are not aware that the theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Why are you discussing a theory created 142 years ago and discredited 87 years ago?
Just pointing out that even though it was discredited, it continued to be taught as fact until just recently, although we still hear references to it is some areas such as abortion where many women are being assured it isn’t really a baby at all, it is just a fish.
You should read up on retroviruses. These can mark a DNA strand, much
like putting a dent or scratch on your car. If your mom or dad's
reproductive system was marked in this way, and one of those sperms or
eggs becomes you, every cell in your body will have DNA with the same
dent or scratch - including your own eggs and sperm, which can then
pass the ding to your children, to their children, etc., forever.The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has grown every year.
Thanks to direct DNA evidence, it is now conclusive.
If you look a little deeper, you will find the more science discovers, the less credible evolution becomes. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems most reasonable that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence, not by random natural causes.
Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.
Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:
Macroevolution cannot occur.
Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
Life could not result from a “big bang.”
Chimpanzees and humans have many of the same dents and scratches in
exactly the same places in the same chromosomes. There's too many for
it to be a coincidence - we have common ancestors."
You are using the erroneous “similarities” argument. The differences can be even more important. If you see two identical white, round pills, you would conclude they are similar. If one is aspirin and the other is cyanide, the difference is vast and lethal.
Apes and humans are similar in many ways, but consider the vast difference in output. Humans are going to the moon and beyond while apes are still swinging from branches.
- Login to post comments
Offline Denial of objective truth such as Holocaust denial and evolution denial is based on massive conspiracy theories that could only be accepted by a Paranoid Schizophrenic mind.
Could the denial of evolution be the result of scientific facts disproving it? If so, would that be considered Paranoid Schizophrenic?
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no worldwide flood and the bible is false. The Universe is 14 billion years old, the sun and earth are 4.5 billion years old, there is no evidence of a creator and the bible is false. Faith healing is crap and the NT is wrong about the power of prayer. There was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel. The bible is false. Life has been evolving for more than 4 billions years and the Bible is wrong.
How do you know? Are your assertions fact or opinion?
All the Western governments are not involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the manufacture of massive amounts of evidence that 5 million Russian priosoners of war and 6 million Jews and millions of others were murdered in Nazi concentration campls. There really was a Holocaus.
You finally said something about which we can agree. As to your assertion that there is no evidence of a creator, let me suggest that when we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2
Also, you appeal to archaeology to assert “there was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel.” If you will look a little deeper, you will find that archaeology has consistently confirmed the accuracy of Bible history and has yet to reveal one error.
- Login to post comments
Offline Pahu, you do know that the Christian god violates your argument (unless he had a supernatural creator as well). Arguing anything else is the special pleading fallacy.
As for the archeology, are you talking about the real discipline or the "Biblical" variety where the evidence is tweaked to fit the desired conclusion?
Though I wil grant you that McDowell is good for a laugh. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Pahu,
Would you mind saying what level of education you have received in biology to speak so authoritatively on the matter?
And...do you intend to simply copy and paste responses you've already made in this forum?
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline Pahu, we have a rule about cut and pasting here. It's fine if you want to use excerpts to illustrate or complement your points, but if you can't make the argument in your own words, you don't need to be posting it here. We're all capable of going to other websites and reading what people have already written.
Either prove to us that you have some clue what you're talking about by writing it in your own words, or drop it.
This is an official warning.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. This is a distortion of what the consensus of Biologists have been teaching for the past century. I think someone is lying to you, and that your just being gullible.
Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. Who taught this and was there a consensus of Biologists that this was true. I think that your just spreading lies that other people have told you.
You begin with these assertions and then proceed to contradict yourself with the quotes from the link you provide, or so it seems.
As to the assertions in the link, I have no doubt what is being described is accurate. The question remains: Do those facts prove evolution—the change from one species to another—or just variations within species? Also, I notice that the author mentions evolution as a fact several times indicating he already has that preconception, rather than coming to that conclusion after the evidence. Let’s take a closer look at the part on whales:
Conventional wisdom among evolutionists, at least at the popular level, is that whales descended from Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family of land mammals that were well adapted for running. It is hypothesized that some mesonychid species began feeding on creatures inhabiting shallow waters and that over many generations the selective pressures created by this change of diet transformed one or more of the species into an amphibious archaeocete. The selective pressures of amphibious living in turn generated a variety of archaeocetes and eventually transformed one or more of the species into a fully marine archaeocete. Marine existence then shaped further adaptations to produce the 75 to 77 living species of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.
To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,” is to understate the problem. It is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species. All known mesonychids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.
The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.
We know that the bible is fiction and Jesus never existed, because if the bible were history and Jesus really existed, then there should be reasonable evidence that it was true, but there is no such evidence.
Archaeology constantly supports the historical accuracy of Bible history and has yet to discover any errors. To claim Jesus never existed is to ignore mountains of evidence. The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for "Christ"], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
God is impossible because you can not explain how its possible for the immaterial to be conscious. The Greek philosophers disproved that the God that you worship thousands of years ago.
It would be interesting to see that Greek proof. Why would my inability to explain how the immaterial can be conscious disprove God’s existence? Is a blade of grass conscious? Does it exist?
When its discovered that there are mistakes in our theories about evolution, then we just fix them and move on, but you have not even shown us that there is anything to fix.
You seem to overlook the fact that the hypothesis of evolution changes regularly, like the tides, but is never fixed. Every “fix” creates more mistakes to be “fixed” creating more mistakes, etc. Instead of admitting evolution cannot be reconciled with scientific facts, evolutionists keep believing in it anyway. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution? Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:
Arthur Keith, author of twenty books defending evolution, wrote:
"Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards."
The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said he believed that the reason so many scientists, himself included, embraced the idea of evolution was "because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Evolutionist and philosopher Bertrand Russell said that getting rid of the idea of God "freed me up to my erotic desires."
According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Josephus and Tacitus?
<laughs maniacally>
- Login to post comments
Offline Pahu, you do know that the Christian god violates your argument (unless he had a supernatural creator as well). Arguing anything else is the special pleading fallacy.
How does the Christian God violate my "argument"?
As for the archeology, are you talking about the real discipline or the "Biblical" variety where the evidence is tweaked to fit the desired conclusion?
I am referring to the real McCoy.
Though I wil grant you that McDowell is good for a laugh. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
- Login to post comments
Count down to shoot down... 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1...
Not by me, of course. I have objections, but there's nothing sweeter than someone with some expert knowledge of the subject ripping garbage like this to shreds.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Firstly, organisms do not have to have evolved from transitional forms which are currently alive. Organisms, in many cases, have evolved from transitional forms which are now extinct.
These early multicellular organisms are likely now extinct, and left no trace in the fossil record, because organisms so small could not have formed fossils.
Furthermore, colonial forms of life are the most likely "bridge in the gap." Here is the reason: colonial forms of similar cells are extremely successful in nature, so are multicellular forms of life with differentiation. Colonial forms of life with slight amounts of differentiation would have been better in some environments, like the open ocean, than forms of life with no differentiation. However, this niche would have been filled by totally differentiated, multicellular organisms after such organisms evolved. The simpler forms of life simply wouldn't have been able to compete to fill the niche. Colonial organisms like bacteria, on the other hand, are much more versatile, and lived on because they could fit many niches that multicellular organisms couldn't fit.
Even if what you cite did disprove evolution (which I doubt), it doesn't do much for helping your God.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
God doesn't need help.
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say its all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
OK, first off, you are not using science to construct an argument. You are using rhetoric and faulty logic. When you say that diplomonads can't bridge the gap, you obviously have not bothered to find out that they are not two celled organisms but rather single cells that have two nuclei.
In any case, why would you need to have a two, three or any other number celled organism to prove anything? Certainly, if there is a survival advantage in two cells joining as a colony, then there would be even more survival value to larger more complex colonies.
Also, it bears noting that just because something has not been found just yet does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps it does and we have not found it. Or possibly it did at one time and has since gone extinct.
=
Your argument alludes to a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution as predicting that the phenomenon of evolution would make organisms progressively more complex. The theory of evolution does not claim or predict such a thing. Evolution does not posit a universal directionality regarding complexity. Evolution only concerns fitness, which may entail greater simplicity or greater complexity. More complex characteristics often require more energy to grow and maintain. If it is a bad investment of energy to grow and maintain a certain trait, then natural selection will favor those that do not grow and maintain the trait, thus leading the population toward greater simplicity. This aspect of evolution explains the blindness of cave organisms whose ancestors could see, the absence of digestive tracts in tapeworms whose ancestors did have digestive tracts, and so on. Devolution never occurs. That conclusion is necessitated by the premises of the theory of evolution, as coevolutionary genetic algorithms readily demonstrate to any intellectually honest person.
No aspect of the theory of evolution leads to the prediction that two-celled, three-celled, etc. organisms must have existed as intermediate forms between unicellular and multicellular life, let alone that such would be found fossilized. The first requirement for multicellularity is signaling between cells for cooperative swarming. The evolution of cooperative swarming has been observed in Myxococcus xanthus.[1] It has also been experimentally proven that "transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable".[2]
[1] Velicer, G. J. and Y. N. Yu. 2003. Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Nature, 425, 75–78.
[2] Rainey, P. B. and K. Rainey. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature, 425, 72–74.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Yes he does, explain sudden infant death syndrome.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Take a Pringles can. Now, cut said Pringles can into four equal sections. Take the four sections (toss the aluminum bottom piece) and cut into each of them all the way until you have an opening to flex and bend it however you want. Hopefully, you'll end up with bracelet-type accessories. Design them any way that you wish!
What does this have to do with the OP? Nothing. This shit is boring.
Indeed, he screwed things up quite well on his own (assuming he exists). Of course, he exceeded all expectations at screwing up when Christians came into the mix.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As Bugs Bunny would have said; "What a maroon!"
There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Embryology 1
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).
a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.
Hitching, pp. 202–205.
“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.
“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.
“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.
“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.
“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]
“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
[mod edit to avoid blue-on-grey eye discomfort]
Does this count as spam yet?
ARGH blue font on gray background makes my eyes bleed!!!!!!!!!
MAKE IT STOP!
Good call. Allow me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Since you are copying and pasting this bullshit all over the internet, I thought I might copy and paste some answers for you.
"Perhaps you are not aware that the theory of recapitulation was
destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Why
are you discussing a theory created 142 years ago and discredited 87
years ago?
The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has grown every year.
Thanks to direct DNA evidence, it is now conclusive.
You should read up on retroviruses. These can mark a DNA strand, much
like putting a dent or scratch on your car. If your mom or dad's
reproductive system was marked in this way, and one of those sperms or
eggs becomes you, every cell in your body will have DNA with the same
dent or scratch - including your own eggs and sperm, which can then
pass the ding to your children, to their children, etc., forever.
Chimpanzees and humans have many of the same dents and scratches in
exactly the same places in the same chromosomes. There's too many for
it to be a coincidence - we have common ancestors."
From here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/febdecf3b5b0c0f3?pli=1
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Stop spamming.
The real question here, in my ever-so-humble opinion: Is Pahu really trying to "disprove" evolution, or is this a desperate cry for help, saying "Public school biology has failed me!"
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Pahu looks like he might be a disciple of Michael Corey.
I wouldn't say it's a desperate cry for help, but it certainly is desperate.
Denial of objective truth such as Holocaust denial and evolution denial is based on massive conspiracy theories that could only be accepted by a Paranoid Schizophrenic mind.
All the biologists in the world (including the Christian ones) are not in involved in a massive conspiracy to invent an unsupported theory to convince people that Geneses is wrong when it says that the world and people and all the animal species were created 10,000 years ago. Life has been evolving for more than 4 billions years and the Bible is wrong.
All the geologists in the world (including the Christian Geologists) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to generate unsupported theories and to convince people that Geneses is wrong. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no worldwide flood and the bible is false.
All the physicists in the world are not involved in a massive conspiracy to generate false theories to convince people that Geneses is false. The earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, the Universe is 14 billion years old, the sun and earth are 4.5 billion years old, there is no evidence of a creator and the bible is false.
All the medical doctors in the world (including the Christian doctors) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to deny the power of prayer to cure diseases. Faith healing is crap and the NT is wrong about the power of prayer.
All the Mideast archeologists (including the Christian and Jewish ones) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to to hide evidence that would support the stories in the bible of the Exodus and the empire of ancient Israel. There was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel. The bible is false.
All the Western governments are not involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the manufacture of massive amounts of evidence that 5 million Russian priosoners of war and 6 million Jews and millions of others were murdered in Nazi concentration campls. There really was a Holocaus.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Nicely put, Patcleaver.
Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. This is a distortion of what the consensus of Biologists have been teaching for the past century. I think someone is lying to you, and that your just being gullible.
Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. Who taught this and was there a consensus of Biologists that this was true. I think that your just spreading lies that other people have told you.
Have your parents ever lied to anyone?
has your pastor ever lied to anyone?
why do you believe people who have no reasonable evidence for what they claim?
This is just completely bullshit. Why are you spreading lies? This has no basis in fact. Instead of spending your time wallowing in your ignorance and spreading lies about science, why don't you try to learn something that really matters. Take some science courses and learn why the bible is false.
Normal 0
Proposed by Jack DeBaun
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/challenge.htm
4. OBSERVATIONS FROM COMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY STUDIES
# As an organism develops through its various embryonic stages, it sometimes displays features that harken back to the evolutionary ancestors from which it descended. All vertebrate embryos are very similar and develop gill-like structures that eventually form gills only in fish.
# The early human embryo has gill-like structures, pairs of aortic arches (adult birds and mammals, being warm-blooded, have only one aortic arch instead of two as in amphibians and reptiles), a fish-like heart with a single atrium and ventricle, as well as a tail with muscles for wagging.
# In baleen whales (which have no teeth), certain embryonic stages have tooth buds which are resorbed at birth and never erupt through the gums. In certain of these stages, the embryo also has a coat of hair which is lost before birth. Evolutionary scientists explain this as being due to the fact that the whale retains genes, that are no longer fully expressed, that it has inherited from its evolutionary ancestors that had both hair and teeth.
# In a like manner, elephant embryos at certain stages of development have four rudimentary tusks, two on the upper jaw and two on the lower. The lower tusks are resorbed before birth leaving only those growing from the upper jaw in the adult. The fossil record shows that the evolutionary ancestors of elephants Eocene and Oliogocene Periods had four tusks arranged just like they are in the embryo of the elephant.
# In the Kollar/Fisher experiment, embryonic jaw tissue from a chicken was exposed to inducers produced by embryonic mouse molar mesenchyme. This resulted in the formation of teeth in the tissue of the chicken showing that this tissue still retains the latent ability to grow teeth as it did in the chicken’s evolutionary ancestors. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7352302&dopt=Abstract and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/10044 for more details and further research on the subject. See also http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403228 for a discussion on the discovery of teeth in mutant chickens.
# The Hampe experiment produced Archaeopteryx-like bones in the legs of modern chicks by interfering with the diffusion of inhibitory growth substances. See http://www.univie.ac.at/morphology/proj/hampe.htm for more details.
# So-called Hox genes are regulatory elements that control the expression of other genes. In some cases they inhibit the expression of genes acquired from evolutionary ancestors. Disabling Hox genes can result in renewed activation of these suppressed ancestral genes. For example, disabling the Hoxa –2 gene in mice resulted in the development of a skeletal structure corresponding to reptilian upper jaw cartilage. This "reconstituted" jaw is similar to that of the therapsids which are the evolutionary link between reptiles and mammals. Similarly, disabling the Hox-4 genes resulted in the conversion of mouse occipital bones into occipital vertebrae, a situation analogous to that which occurred in aganthans – the presumed ancestors of all vertebrates. (See www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html for more details.)
# During dolphin embryogenesis, a number of processes occur which are indicative of a terrestrial ancestry. For example, hind-limb buds develop and are then reduced. The precursors of "fingers" appear on the forelimb limb-bud and are then replaced with flippers. The nose, first located at the tip of the snout as it is in land animals, migrates backward until it is situated on the top of the head, above the eyes. (See http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/ for more details.)
Please, explain, in scientific terms, how the YEC model provides at least as good an explanation for these observations as does the theory of evolution?
We know that the bible is fiction and Jesus never existed, because if the bible were history and Jesus really existed, then there should be reasonable evidence that it was true, but there is no such evidence. God is impossible because you can not explain how its possible for the immaterial to be conscious. The Greek philosophers disproved that the God that you worship thousands of years ago.
When its discovered that there are mistakes in our theories about evolution, then we just fix them and move on, but you have not even shown us that there is anything to fix.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"