Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 402 of 409 FirstFirst ... 302 352 392 400 401 402 403 404 ... LastLast
Results 4,011 to 4,020 of 4083

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #4011
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    [QUOTE=Pahu;1517841]
    How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?



    [continued]

    The study authors similarly wrote, "All of these insect host-plant interactions are mediated primarily by adult female butterflies, which must correctly identify suitable host plants for oviposition, or risk the survival of their offspring."1 And these interactions include both physical and nonphysical components. Not only must the female somehow detect leaf chemistry, she must also know what to do with the information once she has it. The study authors wrote, "Adult females of each Heliconius species only lay eggs on a limited number of host plants, and therefore need to recognize different species from among the large and diverse Passifloraceae family."1 And "recognizing" involves both detecting factors like leaf chemicals and knowing what to do with them.

    Her little butterfly babies wouldn't have millions of years to wait while she slowly figured out how to react to her taste sensations.

    These observations rule out evolutionary origins ideas that propose adding parts piecemeal over long ages of time. If all these factors, including wings, eyes, eggs, chemical sensors and plant-selecting behaviors are necessary for basic survival, then the only way this butterfly could have begun was all at once. And an all at once creation exactly matches the biblical record of origins.

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

  2. #4012
    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
    10,029
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    08:59 AM
    Points
    38,607
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    You guys make Flat-Earthers seem intelligent.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  3. #4013
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    You guys make Flat-Earthers seem intelligent.
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Coelacanths: Evolutionists Still Fishing in Shallow Water



    by Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

    A recent report, published in Nature,1 on the genome sequence of the so-called living fish fossil, the African coelacanth, has some evolutionists scrambling to defend their story. This is because the coelacanth's DNA is similar to other types of fish and not land animals, thus forcing the evolutionists to postulate that the coelacanth evolved slowly.1

    Although modern coelacanths are found in water about 500 feet deep, Axel Meyer, a member of the study team believes that ancient coelacanths may have lived in shallow water, stating, "Other coelacanths lived in more shallow, estuary-like environments 400 million years ago, and you can envisage them using fins more like walking legs."2 In the overall evolutionary scenario, fish are believed to have transitioned to land and then continued evolving into amphibians and eventually into other land creatures.

    The ancestral lineage of the coelacanth was thought to have gone extinct 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period—an era most famous for the presence of dinosaurs. In other words, there are no known fossils of this fish in subsequent, younger sedimentary units. Therefore, finding a living coelacanth in 1938 off the east coast of Africa created quite a shock among scientists. This placed the coelacanth in the "living fossil" category, as an example of an organism thought to be extinct, and yet found living today virtually unchanged.

    Only 309 individual occurrences of a live coelacanth have been recorded since it was first identified in 1938.1 Studies of modern specimens have taught scientists a lot about this unique fish. A French team found that coelacanths possess a swim bladder filled with oil, giving it neutral buoyancy between the depths of 600-900 feet.3 Many sharks use a similar type of system that allows them to swim freely without having to exert energy to keep from sinking or rising.

    Studies of the coelacanth's eye have also shown it to have vision perfectly suited for the dark depths between 300-600 feet, rather than eyes more appropriate for light in shallow water.3 Direct eyewitness evidence from fisherman and deep-sea submersibles have placed the fish living between depths of 450-600 feet.3

    So, evidence from the fish's swim bladder and eye structure, as well as fisherman reports and direct underwater observance all show that the coelacanth lives at depths of about 500 feet below the surface. A deep sea environment that it is uniquely designed to inhabit.

    The coelacanth has long been hailed as an ancestor to amphibians and other tetrapods as their lineage goes back a supposed 300 million years.1 However, the exact origin of coelacanths has never been established by evolutionary scientists, the fish just seem to appear in the rocks "suddenly" like most all fossil organisms.4 And modern coelacanths were also found to give birth to live young (like some sharks), unlike their supposed descendants, the amphibians.3

    The substantial evidence is stacking up. Modern coelacanths were designed to live in deep water, they do not lay eggs like amphibians, and they have DNA that is clearly fish like.

    It's a good thing paleontologists didn't lead the search for the coelacanth as they would have no doubt set their fishing lines in water far too shallow. Clearly the coelacanth is a uniquely designed fish engineered by the Creator to live in deep water, and not a predecessor to some fictional crawling creature that decided to transition from shallow water to land.

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

  4. #4014
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution


    Proteins 1


    Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed (a). Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen (b).

    a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.” Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American, Vol.250, April 1984, pp.30–31.

    Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.53, 15 June 1965, pp.1194–1205.

    Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?” ICR Impact, No.109, July 1982.

    “In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol.13, No. 9, September 1976, p.1161.

    “What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.55, June 1966, p.1365.

    b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.74, No.23, 20 October 1969, pp.5355–5368.

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

  5. #4015
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,401
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    06:59 AM
    Points
    6,192

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.

  6. #4016
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.

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


    'Talking' Ants Are Evidence for Creation



    BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.

    New surprises revealing complex bio-engineering keep emerging as evolutionary scientists continue to unwittingly obey the biblical command to "observe the ant"(Proverbs 6:6; 30:25). The latest bio-engineering discovery is that a key component of ant colony survival is based on sound (acoustic) communication systems.1

    One of the long-standing paradigms of animal communication is the use of airborne chemical messages called pheromones. Ants use pheromones to leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the colony. Now, scientists can add yet another layer of complexity and communication in ant colonies based on acoustics.

    Scientists have been studying a type of ant commonly found in Europe. This ant has a specialized appendage on its abdomen that it strokes with its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses that are key to survival of the colony. Several years ago, researchers found that, in adult ants, these signals can act like an emergency beacon when an ant is threatened by a predator.2

    If the discovery of this complex signaling in adult ants was not enough of a surprise, scientists have now determined that developing larvae back in the nest also use this technique, which is important for the ant colony's survival. Everything in an ant colony is performed in an orderly manner.

    When an ant nest is disturbed and threatened, the worker ants immediately go about rescuing the nest. First, they grab and remove the mature larvae and then the immature larvae and pupae. As it turns out, the mature larvae use acoustic communication via their early maturing acoustic appendage, which the younger larvae and pupae lack, to signal their social status to the worker ants, enabling them to be extricated first (see image below). In the event of settling a new colony, the mature larvae would hatch first and thus be more valuable assets than the younger larvae, which require more resources.



    It is also noteworthy that the acoustic signals are not performed in isolation, but co-processed along with other pheromone sensory signals using complex internal bioprocessing systems. Several other news articles from the Institute for Creation Research have discussed the complexity of ant colonies and their management through highly engineered bioprocessing systems.3,4,5

    The combination of various sensory communication and processing systems are a clear example of an all-or-nothing suite of features referred to as irreducible complexity. All the ants would die in one generation if you remove any one of these features: 1) early maturing abdominal acoustic appendage, 2) instinct to "strum"it, 3) sensors in adults to detect it, 4) ant brains to interpret the sounds, and 5) the instinct to protect the mature larvae.

    These new discoveries are amazing testimonies to the intelligence of the powerful Creator who engineered these remarkable living systems that utterly defy evolutionary dogma.

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

  7. #4017
    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
    10,029
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    08:59 AM
    Points
    38,607
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.
    Oh ,no. A lot of this is quite fascinating.
    I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
    It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  8. #4018
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Oh ,no. A lot of this is quite fascinating.
    I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
    It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
    Perhaps it would help if you looked at the material without your evidence free evolution bias.

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

    Deer in Black and White



    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    White-tailed deer are generally brown, but sometimes they can appear all black or all white. Photographer Richard Buquoi captured striking photographs of a dark fawn in 20101 and verified the images when some questioned whether his photographs were real: "I took the photos of the black fawn near Austin, TX. That area of central Texas seems to have a concentration of black 'white-tailed' deer, although it is still extremely rare to find them. This is a wild deer, but resides in a greenbelt near a neighborhood."2

    Melanism is the name of the darkened coat effect in animals, but what causes it?

    "[Researchers] admit that they aren't sure, but they say the mutation likely has been perpetuated because it offers a survival advantage," according to an article appearing on the North American Whitetail magazine's website.3

    Well, the reason that evolutionary researchers would say that the trait was born from "survival advantage" is because that is standard Darwinian doctrine. But it does not express the results of scientific tests. Alternatives deserve consideration and could also be tested. For example, what if the darker color is not caused by an accidental mutation but by a purposefully designed genetic switch? Evolutionists have had trying times interpreting evidence for non-random mutation.4, 5

    And just because something "offers a survival advantage" does not mean it becomes a real creature feature. An instinct to avoid traffic would give squirrels a survival advantage, but they persist in trying to juke straight-rolling tires.

    So, the melanistic deer trait could have arisen by an accidental genetic mutation or by unfolding an aspect of a pre-planned genetic suite of coat color options. How would a biologist test these ideas?

    One would first need to discover the genetic cause of this trait—a difficult and costly task. Is melanism caused by a rare allele, a difference in regulatory sequence, a combination of these, or some other genetic cue? Even knowing that would not necessarily reveal the true history of how the allele or other DNA difference arose. Did it arise by mutation, or by any of the increasingly discovered numbers of genetic shuffling algorithms?6 The answers may not come soon.

    Meanwhile, deer express other rare coat colors. Some visitors to the Seneca Army Depot in New York state have seen dozens of bright white deer among the hundreds protected there. They are not truly albino, because although their hair lacks pigment, their eyes and hooves do not. The ratio of white to normal brown deer has risen since the first observation of a white buck and fawn in the late 1940s.

    From the perspective of Scripture, God would have given deer effective survival traits, including the potential for those traits to shift in preparation for survival or fitting into a changed environment as its generations fill the earth. But who is to say that He would not also have planted within the deer kind creative expressions of His painter's palette?

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

  9. #4019
    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
    10,029
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    08:59 AM
    Points
    38,607
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Perhaps it would help if you looked at the material without your evidence free evolution bias.
    You keep saying that, but reading through this thread, it seems to be you who is Evidence free, and biased.

    All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
    All you have done is prattle on with opinions.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  10. #4020
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    05-25-2018
    Local Time
    10:59 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    You keep saying that, but reading through this thread, it seems to be you who is Evidence free, and biased.

    All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
    All you have done is prattle on with opinions.

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


    Scientists Discover Secret to Fast Swimming Penguins



    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn't be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers familiar with recent attempts to use air as a lubricant for ships noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater.

    National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by a 2001 BBC documentary that featured emperor penguins leaping out of the water,1 partnered with an engineer in Denmark and two other researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series in 2011, where they showed penguins' unique and remarkable design for fast swimming.2

    The study authors admitted that without a "control" penguin that does not release air bubbles, they cannot scientifically prove the hypothesis that emperor penguins, and by extension other penguins with similar capabilities, use tiny air bubbles to accelerate underwater. However, they found plenty of evidence to favor the idea.

    When the penguins are out of the water, they preen their feathers and fluff them up all over their streamlined bodies, adding about an inch of air between the skin and outermost layer of feathers. Preening also adds waterproofing oil to the feathers. Penguins carry this air jacket with them when they dive into the water.

    The researchers carefully studied BBC footage of penguins diving and rising, estimating they rise on average "2.8 times the descending speed."2 The buoyancy of their air jacket when they swim downward requires more energy than swimming upward. In essence, the penguins store that energy and use it later to accelerate upward.

    The study authors surmise that the penguins lock their feathers down over the air compressed at depth. When they swim upward, the air expands. But they hold their feathers down against the force of expanding air that "will automatically issue as small bubbles."2

    These tiny bubbles remove a huge portion of friction between the feathers and water—up to 100 percent. Experiments with bubbles against flat sheets, representing the sides of tankers, showed over 80 percent reduction in friction, according to Hughes and his co-authors. The penguin slides through the bubble jacket that it creates, leaving bubbles along its trailing wake. This must be how penguins rocket out of the water at 18 miles per hour!

    How do the penguins manage their air jackets? They must first have the instinctive know-how for preening. They also require a streamlined body formed to permit their beaks to reach plenty of body feathers when preening. Plus, "Penguin plumage is unlike that of other birds."2 Their feathers are spread uniformly over their whole body in a tiny mesh of fine strands. They look like they were intentionally designed to trap air. Penguins also need to manufacture the proper oil to condition and waterproof those feathers.

    And "emperor penguins need to have considerable control over their plumage."2 With muscles attached to each feather, it is reasonable to believe that penguins have just such feather control. The interconnected parts all fit, and all are required.

    Hughes and his co-authors could empirically test their idea by building model penguins, but "this would be a technically difficult task as the complexity of penguin plumage would be difficult to replicate in a man-made porous membrane or mesh."2 And what is technically difficult for intelligent man to construct is utterly impossible for mere natural forces. But it is no problem for the Lord Jesus Christ, for "by him all things consist"— even penguin feathers.3

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 402 of 409 FirstFirst ... 302 352 392 400 401 402 403 404 ... 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