Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 401 of 405 FirstFirst ... 301 351 391 399 400 401 402 403 ... LastLast
Results 4,001 to 4,010 of 4043

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #4001
    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
    9,897
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    38,019
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Which only reveals your lack of discernment.
    I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
    "If I had to do it over again, I would also avoid any semblance of involvement in partisan politics.
    An evangelist is called to do one thing, and one thing only: to proclaim the Gospel."
    - Billy Graham

  2. #4002
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,011
    Local Date
    02-24-2018
    Local Time
    04:24 AM
    Points
    27,740
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
    He doesn't even have any idea of what constitutes Evolution either. He seems to believe in the single linear version of Evolution - the age old Creationist Idiot's question of "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"? Every time he pastes he further confirms this much. The bit in the paste about the Jesus lizard about a fossilised Jesus Lizard having been found. Just what is that supposed to prove? All it shows is that a genus of Jesus Lizard had evolved by that time, and that there were other genuses evolved before it & since. It's a lizard which survived by running fast - so fast that it ran faster than it took to sink, and in so doing survived to pass on its genes to the next generation. A good example of Evolution in action. The slower, more cumbersome ones either grew to become predators themselves or got eaten, yet somehow this is supposed to prove the non-existence of Evolution.

    I have even itemised the Disciplines of Science for him & laid them out ready to list in what way they have proved anything. Not once has he been able to do so. All he does is continue to use his fallacious, meaningless soundbite about the "Disciplines of Science", when he has no concept of what they are or how they relate to anything.

  3. #4003
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,397
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    08:24 PM
    Points
    6,176

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    My discernment tells me that evolution is the reality of life on this planet. And pigs fly.

  4. #4004
    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
    9,897
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    38,019
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    My discernment tells me that evolution is the reality of life on this planet. And pigs fly.
    Now, I've seen a Horse Fly, and a Dragon Fly, and a House Fly, ...
    "If I had to do it over again, I would also avoid any semblance of involvement in partisan politics.
    An evangelist is called to do one thing, and one thing only: to proclaim the Gospel."
    - Billy Graham

  5. #4005
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,771
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    6,688

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution



    BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.

    Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3

    Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.

    The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.

    First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.

    In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.

    Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.

    These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  6. #4006
    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
    9,897
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    38,019
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution



    BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.

    Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3

    Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.

    The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.

    First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.

    In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.

    Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.

    These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Agin, A very interesting article. Quite fascinating.
    But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
    "If I had to do it over again, I would also avoid any semblance of involvement in partisan politics.
    An evangelist is called to do one thing, and one thing only: to proclaim the Gospel."
    - Billy Graham

  7. #4007
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,771
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    6,688

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Agin, A very interesting article. Quite fascinating.
    But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
    I am sure, with your superior intelligence, you can figure it out, unless your pro-evolution bias blinds you.

    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    'Simple and Elegant' Insect Design Showcases Creation




    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    Sometimes little things matter a lot. For example, consider how some tiny creatures fully depend upon each other for survival in a relationship called symbiosis. This very clearly showcases divine creation. How could two unrelated creatures have this relationship unless they were intentionally crafted that way from the beginning? Otherwise, they would die while waiting for a perfect partner to evolve. Has evolutionary faith blinded biologists from seeing the forensic clues within the insect symbiosis they study?

    A leaf-green creature called the pea aphid feeds on the plant sap it extracts from leaf veins, but the sap lacks some required amino acids. Bacteria living inside the aphid's body manufacture and export the vital nutrients to their aphid host. The aphid and the bacteria actually swap these nutrients in a regulated and coordinated assembly-and-shipping system that rapidly responds to supply and demand.

    What if either creature manufactured or exported too many, too few, or the wrong kinds of amino acids?

    Researchers found the machine that regulates the amino acids—but it was in an unexpected place. An active protein gate called a transporter shuttles amino acids between aphids and bacteria. The biologists published their discovery of the transporter's second function in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1

    First author of the study Daniel Price told the University of Miami, "To our surprise, the transporter is a key regulator of the factory production line."2

    Senior author Alex Wilson said, "The system is simple and elegant."2

    The Miami University press release said, "The findings of these studies show that symbiotic relationships have the power to shape animal evolution at the genetic level." Wait a second. Do any of their observations really show that "the power" to shape genetics came from "symbiotic relationships" instead of from the Lord?

    Evolutionary speculation—not observations—suggest that long ago, before these creatures' lives merged into a symbiotic dance, they were making extra gene copies, including copies of transporter genes, for no functional purpose. According to their explanation, these extra copies accidentally mutated into the vital protein tools we see today.

    Wilson said, "Given the extensive gene duplication of the amino acid transporter gene families that took place multiple times independently in sap-feeding insects, it makes sense that gene duplication might be important for recruiting amino acid transporters."

    How does he know that gene duplication was extensive? He didn't witness the supposed duplications, but inferred them from an evolutionary mindset. For all he really knows, God could have created the varieties of transporter genes we find among insects.

    Also, does the gene duplication story really make as much sense as Wilson suggests? It doesn't explain how the aphids would have survived before its symbionts were supplying vital amino acids.3 And how can any unthinking natural process help with "recruiting amino acid transporters?" Only intelligent recruiters are known to recruit.

    How would those ancient imaginary pea aphid ancestors have made any transporter protein back when it didn't have its bacteria, and thus didn't have the very amino acids out of which those transporters are built? The evolutionary scenario seems essentially impossible.

    Incredible stories require crystal clear support. So, if we are to buy into this story of how symbiosis supposedly evolved, researchers should at least supply examples of other creatures developing new and functional proteins like this transporter. They should also supply examples of how those creatures incorporated the new proteins into a biochemically intricate symbiosis between two previously unassociated organisms.

    These studies do not actually reveal that symbiotic relationships or gene duplications led to symbiotic-specific genes in these dissimilar creatures. They simply show that all those required genes exist. Where they came from falls outside the realm of direct experiments and instead fits the realm of forensic clue-gathering.

    And one key forensic clue reveals that nobody has ever witnessed this kind of symbiosis emerge. The second clue is that nobody has ever witnessed gene products like dual-function transporter/regulators arising from mutated gene duplications. Third, painstaking research has virtually disproven the general notion of evolving new and functionally integrated proteins.4

    To see why creation best explains these "simple and elegant" symbiosis-specific proteins, we only need to try making one ourselves.

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  8. #4008
    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
    9,897
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    38,019
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    I am sure, with your superior intelligence, you can figure it out, unless your pro-evolution bias blinds you.

    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
    So, I see that you have shifted your focus.
    That is not a bad thing, entirely.
    But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "

    Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
    They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.

    And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.

    Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
    "If I had to do it over again, I would also avoid any semblance of involvement in partisan politics.
    An evangelist is called to do one thing, and one thing only: to proclaim the Gospel."
    - Billy Graham

  9. #4009
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,771
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    6,688

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    So, I see that you have shifted your focus.
    That is not a bad thing, entirely.
    But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "

    Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
    Everything I have posted supports that statement.

    They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.

    And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.

    Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
    Scientists, with whom I agree, say it better than I.

    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?



    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    Colorful Heliconius butterflies grace the tropics with their beautiful wide wings. Their survival depends on more features than what simply resides in their physical bodies. The challenge is trying to explain the origins of the way their body parts not only mesh perfectly with each other, but also with their butterfly behavior.

    Passion flower vines supply food for Heliconius butterflies. The larvae eat the leaves, and the adults consume the Passion flower's nectar and pollen. Like many plants, the vine's leaves contain chemical deterrents. So, the female butterfly meticulously selects just the right leaf on which to lay her eggs, avoiding the leaves that contain too much poisonous chemistry. She also avoids those that already have larvae, and those too old or unhealthy.

    How does she do all this intricate detecting and determining? Butterfly experts recently studied the genetics underlying Heliconius leaf-tasting behavior. They wrote in PLoS Genetics, "Female butterflies drum with their legs on the surface of leaves before laying eggs. This behaviour presumably allows the female to taste… Consistent with this behaviour, adult nymphalid butterfly legs are known to contain gustatory sensilla."1

    Gustatory sensilla can be likened to taste buds embedded in tiny fibers on the insect's legs. The study found that the females have more sensilla on their legs, and more different kinds of taste receptor genes expressed in sensilla tissue, than males of the same species.

    [continue]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #4010
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,771
    Local Date
    02-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:24 PM
    Points
    6,688

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?



    [continued]

    Heliconius mothers come fully equipped. They have wings and eyes for travel, dual-purpose landing-gear legs with taste sensors, internal egg-manufacturing facilities, and the appropriate insight to select just the right plant—even just the right leaves on that plant—required to meet her larvae's future needs.

    How important is this gustatory sensillae and leaf-tasting behavior? According to UC Irvine News, "It's vital to their larvae's survival that the butterflies pick the right kind [of leaf]."2 Lead author Adriana Briscoe works at the University of California, Irvine Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

    This butterfly's "host plant specializations require specialized sensors by the insects," according to the PLoS Genetics authors.1 No sensors, no butterfly. Removing her sensors, possibly including her gustatory sensillae, would likely result in dead larvae—killed by the passion flower vine's poisons.

    [continue]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 401 of 405 FirstFirst ... 301 351 391 399 400 401 402 403 ... LastLast

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