Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 333 of 333 FirstFirst ... 233 283 323 331 332 333
Results 3,321 to 3,327 of 3327

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #3321
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    5,645
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    11:02 AM
    Points
    26,164
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    This is not known as sharing - it's known as flooding. Sharing would be a matter of posting a link, so anyone who was dumb enough to be in the slightest bit interested could go & indulge themselves. All you are doing is repeatedly pasting exactly the same old drivel over & over again. It wouldn't be so bad if you varied your sources, or gave quantifying arguments. Discussed your reasons for believing this idiot in an adult manner. But no - all you can do is mindlessly paste & paste & paste from a single source with absolutely no indication of independent thought. Seriously, do you have any concept of how much of a moron you come across as? Dr Suess with The Cat In The Hat comes across as having more knowledge on such matters as you do. Walt Brown has been debunked time & time again by REAL scientists, giving demonstrable evidence. They give their reasons for disagreeing. They have proven that everything he says is rubbish. Typical of Creationist Snake Oil Salesment he uses a PhD in a totally unrelated subject, such as engineering (Metalwork) to put across the image that he is some sort of expert in Cosmology, Biology, Geology, Physics & even Theology - none of which does he have any qualifications in. His primary source of supportive 'evidence' comes from the very Creationist Institute that he set up & that he remains the Director of, trying to make out that it is an independent resource. The man is a Charlatan preying on the weak minded - as you so clearly prove.

  2. #3322
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,459
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    06:02 AM
    Points
    5,440

    Re: Science Proves Evolution


    Vestigial Organs


    Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

    a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

    b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

    c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

    “Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. ” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

    d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.*249, 2007, p.*826.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  3. #3323
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    8,923
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    04:02 AM
    Points
    33,659
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    Vestigial Organs


    Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

    a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

    b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

    c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

    “Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. ” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

    d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.*249, 2007, p.*826.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Well, whataya know?
    Evidence that humans are actually still learning.
    "You don't need to know all the answers. Nobody is yet smart enough to even know all the questions."
    - Anonymous

  4. #3324
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,459
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    06:02 AM
    Points
    5,440

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution


    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.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #3325
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    5,645
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    11:02 AM
    Points
    26,164
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Plants are lifeforms - as is pollen.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24663667

    Amoebas also frequently do not complete their division before beginning to divide again. This means that on occasion you get multi (or even bi) cellular amoebas, which one might think are, by definition, single celled.

    All multi cellular life begins as a single cell. How it then chooses to divide & develop is encoded in its DNA - which might also be considered as being bi-cellular.

  6. #3326
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,459
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    06:02 AM
    Points
    5,440

    Re: Science Proves Evolution


    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.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  7. #3327
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    8,923
    Local Date
    04-26-2017
    Local Time
    04:02 AM
    Points
    33,659
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    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.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Actually, the observation is more about how embryos of most mammalian critters appear very similar in the early developmental stages. That some less-than-scientific minds developed rather inane conclusions from such observation just shows that non-religious folks can behave with just as much ignorance and the religious wackos.
    "You don't need to know all the answers. Nobody is yet smart enough to even know all the questions."
    - Anonymous

+ Reply to Thread
Page 333 of 333 FirstFirst ... 233 283 323 331 332 333

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2