Science Disproves Evolution

[halfway]

Ahso!;1416121 wrote: Nature isn't planned or directed by anyone, it happens.


Of course it happens.

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416126 wrote: Of course it happens.Riddle me this: what comes first in nature, reason for a mutation, or the mutation itself? And why?

Those are pretty basic questions and should be easy to answer. I did notice you had some difficulty with my attempt to engage you the other day.

[halfway]

Ahso!;1416132 wrote: Riddle me this: what comes first in nature, reason for a mutation, or the mutation itself? And why?

Those are pretty basic questions and should be easy to answer. I did notice you had some difficulty with my attempt to engage you the other day.


You again assume I have some obligation to answer your questions.

As I've read your posts for several months, here's what I see....

You are a bully.

You condescend to anyone who thinks differently than you.

You are close minded.

You attempt a level of intellect, yet fail miserably. "Two-thumbs up" for trying.

You use "playbook" answers for everything.

You use red herrings to divert.

You attack without reason.

You "demand" sources and additional clarity on nearly everything.

You are not pleasant.

You assume. And assumptions tend to make an "ahso" out of people.

cheers my friend.

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416135 wrote: You again assume I have some obligation to answer your questions.

As I've read your posts for several months, here's what I see....

You are a bully.

You condescend to anyone who thinks differently than you.

You are close minded.

You attempt a level of intellect, yet fail miserably. "Two-thumbs up" for trying.

You use "playbook" answers for everything.

You use red herrings to divert.

You attack without reason.

You "demand" sources and additional clarity on nearly everything.

You are not pleasant.

You assume. And assumptions tend to make an "ahso" out of people.

cheers my friend.So that's your way of saying you don't know anything about Natural Selection?

I'm often absent from this forum for extended periods. Perhaps you didn't know that?

[Pahu]

DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Design



by Mario Seiglie




Recent discoveries about DNA—including the finding that so-called "junk DNA" is anything but—once again clearly points to a supreme Intelligence having imbedded an incredible multifaceted code in our genes.

When first discovered, scientists believed that DNA was a somewhat simple genetic code filled with what they termed "junk DNA," useless bits assumed to be evolutionary remnants from our supposed ancestors. But now they have found the code to be astoundingly complex, multilayered and even bidirectional.

On Sept. 5, 2012, The New York Times reported: "The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as "junk" but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave . . .

"The thought before the start of the [DNA] project, said Thomas Gingeras, an Encode researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was that only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA in a human being was actually being used. The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches.

"Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyanno-poulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, 'if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don't think people would have believed you'" ("Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From 'Junk,' Play Crucial Role," Sept. 5, 2012, online edition).

The astounding complexity of the DNA code was the main reason Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of a divine intelligence behind it all.

He wrote: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together" (There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75).

Let's see some of the examples of the incredible complexity of the DNA code.

Spy codes—as in Washington's day

Back in the days of the American Revolution, George Washington and his officers sent each other letters with double meanings. A letter intercepted by the enemy would simply have sounded like a typical message describing incidents on a farm. But to those with the deciphering key, the same message may have described troop numbers and locations. Yet without the key, the secret message would be safely hidden.

Similarly, scientists have come to realize that certain areas of the genetic code have secondary messages that can be deciphered by a cell's translating devices.

Comparing DNA to a spy code, science historian Stephen Meyer explains: "In the same way, the cell has protein machinery and RNA codes that jointly function as a cipher enabling it to access and read the secondary imbedded messages within the primary message of the genome . . . The presence of these genes imbedded within genes (messages within messages) further enhances the information-storage density of the genome" (Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, 2009, pp. 463-464).

Imagine how difficult it would be to write a message and inscribe within it other messages! Mindless evolution could never produce genetic information of any kind, much less in overlapping levels of this nature!

DNA's bidirectional code

Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.

Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.

"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).

Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!

From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system

Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.

Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins . . . the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).

Discarding the "junk DNA" myth

To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth . . .

"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" (The Myth of Junk DNA, 2011, p. 107).

God, Science and the Bible: DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Divine Design - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 1




All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[halfway]

Pahu;1416858 wrote:

Fully-Developed Organs 1




All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Always found it peculiar that chimpanzees "stopped" evolving or even existed after they became obsolete in the face of humans.

Evolution requires a bit of "faith" to hold it together.

Thanks for posting...I appreciate these!

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416867 wrote: Always found it peculiar that chimpanzees "stopped" evolving or even existed after they became obsolete in the face of humans.

Evolution requires a bit of "faith" to hold it together.

Thanks for posting...I appreciate these!Ignoramus.

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 2




There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit. Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies, Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas. However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose? Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[halfway]

Interesting research.

[Eris]

halfway;1416979 wrote: Interesting research.
It's not research.

[Ahso!]

Eris;1417184 wrote: It's not research.Not to worry, I believe halfwit is gone. His time was up.

[halfway]

Eris;1417184 wrote: It's not research.


Someone researched it.

Why it not research?

[halfway]

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.

Incredible. Shows the extent of design. Simply incredible.

[Pahu]

Distinct Types




If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment. Such “patchwork animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.



Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field. Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation. Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution, Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution. Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature. Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[halfway]

Very compelling and with common-sense.

I know some hard line party scientists that would start their response with vulgarities and questions about your family over this!

Keep the airwaves for open thought "open"!

[Pahu]

Altruism 1




Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals. How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?

a. “...the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma. Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order. Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox, Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:



“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do no t appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives. Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates, Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Extraterrestrial Life?




No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?]



Figure 6:Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 297. For a full understanding, see pages 285-345]



a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades, Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Eris]

Pahu;1420164 wrote: If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars.
Comedy gold.

[Saint_]

Eris;1420184 wrote: Comedy gold.


Yeah, but kind of sad. Twisting science to fit your views isn't scientific method. Besides, I though they found traces of ancient bacterial life fossilized on Mars. Let me look that up.

[Saint_]

Yeah...here it is.

Fossilized Bacteria May Point to Life on Mars | Fox News

I suspect the Io will hold some even greater surprises. As for why Mankind has not seen evolution in action....we have:

Samurai Crabs

[Pahu]

Language 1




Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants, Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it. Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward. H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence? Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world. Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d. “No languageless community has ever been found. Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable. Chomsky, p. 60.

e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing). Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Language 2




If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g). See [Figure 218 ]

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex. He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view. George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man, Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification. Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples. Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates. Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words, Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once. John Maddox, “The Price of Language? Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[halfway]

Another thought-provoking read. Thanks!

Keep the enlightenment coming! The DOGMA is fully rooted.

[Zeratul]

Even if Evolution is actually proven false, the religious nonsense that comes from the Bible and the Quran sure as hell is not the answer to anything. It is fictional man made propaganda created by a bunch of powerful people who knew they could easily control stupid people.

[Pahu]

Zeratul;1422068 wrote: Even if Evolution is actually proven false, the religious nonsense that comes from the Bible and the Quran sure as hell is not the answer to anything. It is fictional man made propaganda created by a bunch of powerful people who knew they could easily control stupid people.


Your assertions are the result of ignorance. I agree that your are right about the Koran. But you are pitifully wrong about the Bible for these reasons:

1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible: The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible

Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

About Bible Prophecy

100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[Eris]

Prophecy is remarkably easy to write when you're predicting events that have already happened.

[Pahu]

Eris;1422152 wrote: Prophecy is remarkably easy to write when you're predicting events that have already happened.


Are you assuming the prophecies in the Bible were written after they happened? Do you have evidence supporting that assumption? You might consider the following:



How to Disqualify a Prophecy

Should we test if the prophecies in the Bible are valid? Absolutely! There are many ways someone could make up a prophecy that seems to be fulfilled or for someone to fulfill a prophecy and claim God was involved in its fulfillment. Are the prophecies in the Bible of this sort?

1. Self-fulfilling a prophecy.

When a person who knows the prophecy causes it to take place then it can be called a self fulfilling prophecy. But this can be the case only if all aspects of a prophecy can be engineered by the person or people desiring its fulfillment. An example from the Bible would be when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on the very day it was predicted that the Messiah would come. Jesus knew the prophecies and chose to fulfill them by his actions. But does this disqualify the accuracy of the original prophecies?

If these were the only prophecies about the Messiah then they would certainly be disqualified. Jesus chose to ride in on a donkey; he also chose the correct day. Any one could have done that. How many other would be Messiahs rode in to Jerusalem on that day? If that were all there were to being the Messiah then anyone could have fulfilled it. But there were a number of things required that Jesus could not have guaranteed. The unbroken donkey colt would have to be ridden. The crowd had to declare that he was Messiah and King. The religious leaders had to reject him. Jesus specifically chose several aspects of the prophecy that the Messiah was to fulfill, but he could not have engineered the rest.

Also there were hundreds of prophecies, many of which were out of Jesus' control. When Jesus was born the wheels preparing for the Messiah had been in motion for well over a thousand years. But because there were certain prophecies that Messiah had to do and do successfully. Jesus had to deliberately fulfill them, giving sight to the blind for example. So even if a prophecy can be deliberately fulfilled it can be considered authentic if other non-self fulfilling prophecies were contingent on it or related to it. If we eliminate the few prophecies which the prophets themselves caused to pass, there are still many hundreds left to consider.

2. Fake it.

Imagine someone writing a prophecy about an event that had already occurred and then claiming it was written by someone else at an earlier time. This act of fraud is often claimed of the Bible, but has yet to be shown true. The Old Testament was finished 400 years before Christ and translated into Greek 270 years before Christ. The prophecies contained in scripture about Christ therefore could not have been written after the fact as some claim. There are many other prophetic events that occurred well after the books that predicted them were written, events that occur even after the most liberal dates given by any scholars. A good example is the book of Daniel. Liberal scholars have attempted to date in 165 BC because the book contains an accurate history of the Greek empire up to that point in history. But Daniel lived in the 6th century BC. So since the scholars don't believe that prophecy is possible, Daniel must have been an impostor. The problem is that the book of Daniel continues to accurately predict events that occur after 165 BC. So how did an imposter writing history after the fact accurately predict events and dates in the life of Jesus? Prophecy can be faked, but the Bible is authentic.

3. Revise the text.

This would be an attempt to alter existing documents so it looks like they were originally predictive. This only works when you have a few copies. Once you have many copies the changes have to be made to all existing copies in order for a revision to go unnoticed. We have thousands of copies of the Bible, and while there is a small amount of disagreement, mainly spelling, very few have any impact on prophecy in the Bible. Remember also that the prophecies of the Messiah were in the Torah, the Jewish Holy Book, what we call the Old Testament. They would have had to agree to alter all the existing texts to make it look like it contained the prophecies of the Christ that Jesus fulfilled. There have been many archeological confirmations that the Bible we have today is in fact very close to the original. So while it is possible to revise or change a document, the evidence tells us that this did not occur with the Bible.

4. Be vague.

A prophecy written in such a way that the prophecy could fit a lot of things. Such as "A great leader will come and make war with his enemies." The Bible however is not vague. It gives names, places, times, actions and details. Bible prophecy was not written in such a way that it can fit anything. It is the real revelation of God to his prophets, and it is not at all vague.

5. Predict the obvious.

When the enemy is at the doorstep of a city and your king's armies have been defeated, the citizens have been reduced to eating moldy bird dung and you say, "Very soon the city will fall." That's nothing more than what you might get in the morning news headlines. The Bible however does not make predictions of likely events. It often was very contrary to what people thought would take place. Consider the fact that in the nineteenth century many Bible scholars scoffed at the idea that Israel would ever become a nation again in spite of what the Bible clearly said. So to solve the contradiction many held to the doctrine that the Church had taken the place of Israel. Even today whenever they read "Israel" or "Jew" in the New Testament, they replaced it with "the Church." Its amazing how so many can still hold to this doctrine today even with the evidence right before their eyes? Another example is that the details of the crucifixion first appeared in prophecy five to seven hundred years before crucifixion was even invented. Sometimes things in scripture may seem obvious to us only because we live centuries after the fulfillment took place. The predictions in the Bible were not predictions based on the obvious, but on the truth.

6. Set no time limits.

This allows a prophecy to be fulfilled at any time after it was written. We of course assume that this would increase the likelihood of a prophecy being fulfilled because it has a longer time to happen. That's the same mentality that justifies evolutionary stories. But in reality, time limit or no, the longer a prophecy is left unfulfilled, the less likely it is to be fulfilled. Things change, civilizations, governments rise and fall. How could a prophet know what was going to happen centuries later based on what he could see then? The Bible contains both prophecies with a date and those with no specific date for fulfillment.

7. Cover all the bases.

If a lot of things are predicted then a few of them might actually happen. People are often impressed with the writings of Nostradamus because some of his predictions seemed to have come to pass. Yet only a small percentage of his prophecies can be tied to events that actually occurred, and those require interpretation. His prophecies would be a good example of covering all the bases and vagueness. The Bible does contain a lot of prophecy, but those prophecies are not ones that just proclaim random things or numerous possibilities that are likely to occur given enough time. The facts tell us that Bible prophecy hits it right on the mark, over and over again. Why else would the liberal scholars attempt to date, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and many others as being written after prophecies were fulfilled? They know the prophecy is an accurate record. But their belief compels them to reject the idea that the records could have been written before they happened. The fact is that even the liberal scholars don't believe that prophecies are just thrown out hoping some will stick. The prophecies in the Bible are specific and they relate to the Bible's message. They are not just there for dramatic effect. They were made for a purpose and hundreds of them have been fulfilled. That's not the result of lucky guesses.

Does the Bible fit neatly into any of the above categories? The answer is no. The prophecies in the Bible are authentic and prove it’s divine origin. As you look at Bible prophecy it is good to test it against the above ideas. You will not find that it can be labeled as fraudulent, or that it has been tampered with, or that is it just plain lucky.

Why Bible Prophecy Is Genuine

[Eris]

Yes. Look it up, bot.

[Saint_]

Is Pahu really a netbot? Poor Pahu! To be nothing more than recurring, self-generating lines of code with a auto-initiating parser system. How sad. He almost seems real....

I GUESS SCIENCE DISPROVED PAHU!!!



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!

[Pahu]

Speech




Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).



Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain]. Ibid., p. 164.

b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech, Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates. Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

Humans didn't evolve from apes. We are descendants of ape-like ancestors. We share a common ancestor with chimps and apes somewhere down the line. Our DNA, which is 96-98% the same as chimps and apes proves what I'm telling you. What you don't appear to understand, Pahu, is that you are not disproving Evolution, because what you espouse is something else that you're calling Evolution. I realize you don't care about any of that, but seriously, man, get a grip, you sound like an idiot.

It's similar to calling your computer a cat, and then wondering why it doesn't eat the food you put in front of it.

Does that help at all?

[Eris]

Humans are apes.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1422248 wrote: Humans didn't evolve from apes.


True.

We are descendants of ape-like ancestors. We share a common ancestor with chimps and apes somewhere down the line.


So says the evolution story, but where is the evidence?

Our DNA, which is 96-98% the same as chimps and apes proves what I'm telling you.


Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity?

Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

by David DeWitt

A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

Specific examples of these differences include:

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7

While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1

Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.

Figure 1.

A G T C G T A C C

| | | | | | | |

A G T C A T A C C

A G T C G T A C C

| | | | | | | |

A G T C ¬ T A C C



Substitution Insertion/deletion

Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an ‘indel’. Indels can be of virtually any length.



The Britten2 study looked at 779 kilobase pairs to carefully examine differences between chimpanzees and humans. He found that 1.4% of the bases had been substituted, which was in agreement with previous studies (98.6% similarity). However, he found a much larger number of indels. Most of these were only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, although there were a few that were > 1000 base pairs long. Surprisingly, the indels added an additional 3.4 % of base pairs that were different.

While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’8 To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons6, 10, 11 have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!10

Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference.6 However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.

The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis

What you don't appear to understand, Pahu, is that you are not disproving Evolution, because what you espouse is something else that you're calling Evolution.


What do you think evolution is?

[Pahu]

Eris;1422254 wrote: Humans are apes.


Speak for yourself!

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1422273 wrote: Speak for yourself!You should take a more genuine look at your avatar.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1422272 wrote: So says the evolution story, but where is the evidence?See, this is what I'm talking about. The evidence that has been uncovered to date supports evolution.

Pahu;1422272 wrote: Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity?

Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated

Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in GenesisI read it the first time you pasted it here and it still isn't correct. Pasting it again doesn't change that.



Pahu;1422272 wrote: What do you think evolution is?Welcome to Evolution 101!

[Fakin'It]

Eris;1422254 wrote: Humans are apes.


Well, ape-ish!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 1




In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (a). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (b).

a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.

“...synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code. Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba, “New Roles for Codon Usage, Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al., “Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation, Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.

b. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation. Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery, Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

c. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded, Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]

“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution. [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care, Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 2




No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. A complex program is stored in the genetic information in every form of life. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).

d. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed? Abel and Trevors, p. 8.

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms. Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life, Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 3




Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u that directly follows a “q. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 × 1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

So, pushing almost 800 posts, and I am still looking for the science.

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 4




All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur (g).

Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h).

Life could not result from a “big bang (i).

f. Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Ibid., p. 107.

“If there are more than several dozen nucleotides in a functional sequence, we know that realistically they will never just ‘fall into place.’ This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise randomly one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing ‘concept’ is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author.

g. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded. Gitt, p. 124.

h. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law, Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also [ “Second Law of Thermodynamics ]]

i. If the “big bang occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[halfway]

Amazing observations and opinion.

Good use of resources to back your critical thought.

This is of course against the prevailing thought of the "masses", but so were the early thinkers. The modern day church (science) has a strong hold on the doctrine, so be careful out there. They play for keeps.

[LarsMac]

This is simply regurgitation of stuff written by Mr Brown.

There is very little critical thought involved.

And certainly, little science to back up the claims.

[Ahso!]

I bet there's no science to back any of it up. Pahu has been throughly debunked on other forums around the web. Most of them went ahead and either confined his threads or booted him. FG apparently believes Pahu and his threads are some sort of attraction. I don't see it.

[Ahso!]

....

[LarsMac]

Well, we get to read Walt Brown's book for free.

That's gotta count for something.

[halfway]

LarsMac;1423855 wrote: Well, we get to read Walt Brown's book for free.

That's gotta count for something.


Indeed it does. And full of science....and research...and critical thought. Thanks for re-posting stud!

[Ahso!]

Only a person who knows nothing of Evolution would refer to anything Pahu has presented in this thread as science.