Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
703 replies to this topic

#701 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:01 AM

it appears as if DNA is regulated (like in a group of valves), instead of being read like a book.
although it's most likely a combination.

an interesting read, and some links at the bottom:
https://www.quora.co...nome-to-another

it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see.
neither of which is a gradual accumulation.

#702 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:36 PM

it appears as if DNA is regulated (like in a group of valves), instead of being read like a book.although it's most likely a combination.an interesting read, and some links at the bottom:https://www.quora.co...nome-to-anotherit seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see.neither of which is a gradual accumulation.


"it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see."


Oh really? Just what is this so called and asserted "Evolution we see"? Are you still trying to pretend that Dog variation, Finches beaks, moth colors and bear coats are "Evolution" when they are nothing of the sort? Rememeber, those are ONLY Examples of Adaptation, Variation and Speciation inherent in each and every DNA genome of the created kinds from the beginning...


Dont you remember? "Micro" Evolution is merely a bait and switch marketing ploy in order to convince gullible 14 year old biology students into believing the Fairy Tale of Darwin.... Do you remember the name of this website that you are on?

Here is a good Video that explains EXACTLY what happened..


https://www.google.c...n5EeGbN4VUIJjTA

#703 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:36 PM

"it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see."


Oh really? Just what is this so called and asserted "Evolution we see"? Are you still trying to pretend that Dog variation, Finches beaks, moth colors and bear coats are "Evolution" when they are nothing of the sort? Rememeber, those are ONLY Examples of Adaptation, Variation and Speciation inherent in each and every DNA genome of the created kinds from the beginning...


Dont you remember? "Micro" Evolution is merely a bait and switch marketing ploy in order to convince gullible 14 year old biology students into believing the Fairy Tale of Darwin.... Do you remember the name of this website that you are on?

Here is a good Video that explains EXACTLY what happened..


https://www.google.c...n5EeGbN4VUIJjTA

i think koonin pretty well makes it plain.
animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed, doesn't seem to fit the tree pattern, with no detectable intermediates
if they were fully formed, then little to no evolution has happened since.

i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from.

#704 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:20 AM

i think koonin pretty well makes it plain.
animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed, doesn't seem to fit the tree pattern, with no detectable intermediates
if they were fully formed, then little to no evolution has happened since.

i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from.

 

"i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from"

 

Good Point, and Well Stated!... They seem to come from the ever so fertil imaginations of Evolutionists, Other than that, it seems to be a dog and pony show for the masses..

 

Even their own evolutionary prominent expert paleontologists openly admit as such...  How much longer will the Dangerous Fraud of "Evolution" be perpetrated. on mankind?

 

Have you ever heard of Colin Patterson or S.J Gould?

 

 

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following statement which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.

 


On November 5, 1981, the late  Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:

One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users