Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 349 of 349 FirstFirst ... 249 299 339 347 348 349
Results 3,481 to 3,489 of 3489

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #3481
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,527
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    01:42 PM
    Points
    5,712

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Evolution requires nothing. Evolutionary change does not necessarily result in " beneficial increase in complexity". Evolutionary changes may be as simple as a slight change in a birds beak that allows it to crack thicker seed shells. Or, a longer beak to allow a hummingbird to take nectar from a deeper blossom. Or a slight variation in coloration to blend in with the surrounding vegetation.

    You define your own version of evolution simply to deny that it exists. How very scientific of you.
    Your definition does not conform to the known definition of evolution. Where is evidence that beaks or coloration add up to an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Slight built it adaptations to changes in environment has nothing to do with evolution.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #3482
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,097
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    10:42 AM
    Points
    4,976

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    LarsMarc Great post.. Pahu should try writing fiction. I suppose Brown isn't the wone to follow in credible writing.

  3. #3483
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,232
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 AM
    Points
    34,943
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Your definition does not conform to the known definition of evolution. Where is evidence that beaks or coloration add up to an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Slight built it adaptations to changes in environment has nothing to do with evolution.
    You mean that my definition does not conform to YOUR definition of Evolution.
    I cannot argue for "Evolutionists" or "Creationists", whatever those are.
    I can only speak to what I know from reading and studying the science. (And reading and studying the Bible. Yes, I have done that, too.)
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  4. #3484
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,527
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    01:42 PM
    Points
    5,712

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    You mean that my definition does not conform to YOU definition of Evolution.
    I cannot argue for "Evolutionists" or "Creationists", whatever those are.
    I can only speak to what I know from reading and studying the science. (And reading and studying the Bible. Yes, I have done that, too.)
    Evolutionists are those who believe in the myth of evolution. Creationists are those who believe in the fact of creation. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



    Monkey Business in the New Gorilla Genome


    Old evolutionary assumptions seem hard to break. The recent assembling of ape DNA sequences based on the human genome provides a good example. This new gorilla genome study, despite capitalizing on advanced DNA sequencing technology, suffers from the same old malady.1 What could have been an accurate genome has been apparently tainted by evolutionary practices.

    When genomes (a complete set of chromosomes) are sequenced, the initial DNA are obtained in small sections and pieced together. Over the past 20 years, a variety of different technologies produced reads—individual DNA sequences, of about 100 to 1,500 bases in length. Considering that human and ape genomes are each about three billion bases in length, it's a daunting task to assemble these short reads into contiguous regions that represent large sections of chromosomes.

    For past research projects in chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan genomes (human kind's supposed closest evolutionary relatives) the DNA sequence reads have always been short in length and research funds quite limited. So using a healthy dose of evolutionary presuppositions, scientists found it convenient to simply assemble the short ape DNA sequence reads using the human genome as a scaffold or guide. This produced a biased and more human-like ape genome.2

    Now a new DNA sequencing technology called SMRT (Single-Molecule, Real-Time sequencing technology) can produce reads of over 10,000 bases in length—making the assembly process of a new genome less dependent on a reference scaffold. But old habits are hard to break, especially when the results don't match up with evolution.3

    Using SMRT, the gorilla genome was re-sequenced into long reads which were then initially assembled onto each other based on overlaps without the use of a reference sequence—an approach called a 'de novo assembly.'1,4 But unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. Then the regions of contiguous sequence that were assembled de novo, called contigs or scaffolds, were further assembled and edited using the human genome as a guide. The authors of the project state, "We evaluated the correctness of the scaffolds by aligning them to GRCh38 [the current version of the human genome]," and, "Scaffolds were further oriented and ordered using GRCh38 to provide chromosomal resolution."4 So even though they started out building the gorilla genome from scratch, they still used the human genome as an evolutionary standard to modify the end product.

    What started out as a noble and objective effort at achieving a more accurate gorilla genome, ended up being muddled by old evolutionary biases. Isn't this a clear subjective negation of the scientific method?

    Nevertheless, if the assembled DNA sequences are released to the public prior to the stage at which the standard evolutionary practices were employed (practices that make the gorilla genome look far more human than it really is), then both creationists and secular researchers will have much improved resources to work with. I look forward to reviewing those initial sequences.

    References

    1. Gordon, D. et al. 2016. Long-read sequence assembly of the gorilla genome. Science. 352 (6281): 52, DOI: 10.1126.
    2. Tomkins, J. P. 2011. How Genomes Are Sequenced and Why It Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88.
    3. Tomkins, J. P. 2016. A More Accurate Chimpanzee Genome. Acts & Facts. 45 (4): 9.
    4. Gordon, D. et al. 2016. Supplementary Material for Long-read sequence assembly of the gorilla genome. Science. 352 (6281): 52, DOI: 10.1126.


    Monkey Business in the New Gorilla Genome | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #3485
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,232
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 AM
    Points
    34,943
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Evolutionists are those who believe in the myth of evolution. Creationists are those who believe in the fact of creation...
    gotcha. So one myth or the other.

    I am not a proponent of Evolution as you define it, but the myth of a 6000 year old earth is far less probable.

    By the way,
    Do you ever actually read any of the documents you post references to?
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  6. #3486
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,097
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    10:42 AM
    Points
    4,976

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

  7. #3487
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,527
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    01:42 PM
    Points
    5,712

    Re: Science Proves Evolution


    Fossil Gaps 13


    d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

    e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

    “As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

    “How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

    “Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

    f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” Taylor, p. 60.

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

  8. #3488
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,232
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 AM
    Points
    34,943
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    Fossil Gaps 13


    d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

    e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

    “As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

    “How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

    “Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

    f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” Taylor, p. 60.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    That horse long ago gave up the ghosts. You should probably put your whip away.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  9. #3489
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,097
    Local Date
    08-21-2017
    Local Time
    10:42 AM
    Points
    4,976

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    The biggest joke of all is that some believe the creationists.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 349 of 349 FirstFirst ... 249 299 339 347 348 349

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