Science Disproves Evolution

[Smaug]

Ahso!;1488977 wrote: Masturbation is offensive to you, Smaug? Ir is it wisdom you take issue with?


Maybe I missed something there, Ahso? If I did, it certainly wasn't wisdom!:yh_rotfl

Ah well, things to do, and people to see; can't spend all day feeding you Billy-goats.....

[Ahso!]

Smaug;1488985 wrote: Maybe I missed something there, Ahso? If I did, it certainly wasn't wisdom!:yh_rotflYou miss a lot, smaug, because you're often too busy being indignant.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1488984 wrote: Good, then stay TFOOTT.


Ah, you like me.

[Smaug]

Ahso!;1488986 wrote: You miss a lot, smaug, because you're often too busy being indignant.


I would say that I was busier puzzling over what makes you 'tick', actually....

Though I don't think I'll spend too long doing so (the law of diminishing returns springs to mind here).

[Smaug]

Ahso!;1488981 wrote: I have no idea what this means.


I suggest that you read the story ' The Three Billy Goats Gruff'.

A story about some goats, and a troll......

[FourPart]

It's fun to play with Pahu though. He seems to think that everyone takes him seriously.

Credit where it's due, though, he does stay out of the other interminal Religious threads with his crazy ideas.

[Pahu]

Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 4




A similar problem exists for stars that are more than twenty times more massive than our sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow (g). Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the age of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning (h).

In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics (i).

g. “Once a protostar reaches a threshold of about 20 solar masses, the pressure exerted by its radiation should overpower gravity and prevent it from growing any bigger. In addition to the radiation pressure, the winds that so massive a star generates disperse its natal cloud, further limiting its growth as well as interfering with the formation of nearby stars. Erick T. Young, “Cloudy with a Chance of Stars: Making a Star Is No Easy Thing, Scientific American, Vol.�*302, February 2010, p. 40.

“Nascent stars above 20 solar masses are so luminous that they would be expected to disrupt their own formation, as well as that of nearby stars. Ibid., p. 37.

h. Steidl, pp.�*134–136.

i. “Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable. Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing, Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30.

“If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect. Geoffrey R. Burbidge, as quoted by R. L. Sears and Robert R. Brownlee in Stellar Structure, editors Lawrence H. Aller and Dean McLaughlin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 577.

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form. Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep, Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[FourPart]

Forget the pastings - we're waiting for the Post Number. Come on now - there's a good boy.

[Ted]

Scientifically masturbation has been shown to be a positive practice rather than dangerous. I don't really understand why sexuality is such an issue. It was an issue for the ancient Hebrews because they wanted monogamy and marriage within the tribe to increase the population of the very small tribe. Hopefully we have far more then that to worry about.

[FourPart]

Ted;1489689 wrote: Scientifically masturbation has been shown to be a positive practice rather than dangerous. I don't really understand why sexuality is such an issue. It was an issue for the ancient Hebrews because they wanted monogamy and marriage within the tribe to increase the population of the very small tribe. Hopefully we have far more then that to worry about.
I could never understand why it's always used in a derogatory sense. Of course, Religion comes into it again, with Catholics especially condemning it, using the story of Onan as their reference point, being the only part in the Bible that even comes close to mentioning it, although that wasn't even anything to do with masturbation, but to withdrawing to avoid inseminating his Brother's Widow (as was considered his duty due to his Brother having died without leaving an heir) - which is rather ironic, as withdrawal is the only form of contraception that Catholics approve of.

[Ted]

Too much is made of sex by Christians. Like get over it.

[Pahu]

Galaxies




Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another (a). There are also good reasons why natural processes cannot form galaxies (b). Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted (c).



Figure 219: Spiral Galaxies. The arms in these six representative spiral galaxies have about the same amount of twist. Their distances from Earth are shown in light-years. (One light-year, the distance light travels in one year, equals 5,879,000,000,000 miles.) For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course, if light traveled millions of times faster in the past—or if space and its light were stretched out during the creation week, as is proposed on pages [396-401 ]—the farthest galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out to be the case.21

The galaxies are: A) M33 or NGC 598; B) M101 or NGC 5457; C) M51 or NGC 5194; D) NGC 4559; E) M88 or NGC 4501; and F) NGC 772. All distances are taken from R. Brent Tully, Nearby Galaxies Catalog (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)

Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies (d). Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction (e). Slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures; rapid, supernatural processes may have.

a. “There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve from one type to another at all. George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969), p. 629.

“Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence... Paul W. Hodge, The Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 122.

b. “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists. Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.

Trefil explains the basis for this frustration in his fourth chapter entitled, “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist.

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe. Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe, New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.

“A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated. Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 22.

“The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantom Books, Inc., 1977), p. 68.

Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarizing much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. [See P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, “A Cosmic Book, Nature, Vol. 335, 13 October 1988, pp. 601–606.]

c. Hodge, p. 123.

d. Harold S. Slusher, “Clues Regarding the Age of the Universe, ICR Impact, No. 19, January 1975, pp. 2–3.

Steidl, pp. 161–187.

e. “In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea. Peterson, “Seeding the Universe, p. 184.

“It is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Science, Vol. 2 46, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe, Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ted]

ho-hum

[FourPart]

Here we go - back to the pasting.

Come on Pahu - we're still waiting - Where is this post number where you supposedly met my challenge.

As per usual I'm not going to bother going into the name old rubbish - we've seen it all time & time again. The first few words demonstrate that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Look up the meaning of the word "Evolutionist". Here it is for you as defined by Dictionary.com.



noun

1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

adjective, Also, evolutionistic

3. of or relating to evolution or evolutionists.

4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.


Take note the key word here is BIOLOGY not COSMOLOGY.

[Ted]

FourPart you have way more patience than I can muster on this topic. ho-hum

[FourPart]

Ted;1489882 wrote: FourPart you have way more patience than I can muster on this topic. ho-hum


I just find it fun to play with the troll. He's cute. He takes himself so seriously, when no-one else does.

:-)

[Ted]

Lol

[Pahu]

Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?




The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, “Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars are evolving? Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence.



This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.

Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: “Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In about a million years, it will become a star. Still other interpretations are possible.

NASA’s claim in 1995 that these pictures showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative “EGG-star formation theory. It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. “The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation. [Ron Cowen, “Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle’s EGG, Not So Fertile, Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171–172.]

What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun’s gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud’s temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud.

If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions, and insist on seeing real evidence.





Figure 26: Gas and Dust Clouds in the Eagle Nebula.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

silliness

From Oxford English Dictionary

Definition of evolve in English:

verb

1. Develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form:

1.1(With reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations, especially as a result of natural selection

2 Chemistry Give off (gas or heat).


So please tell us how Stars do not evolve.

(Well, other than the biological, since I do not think any evidence has been produced to suggest that Stars are biological in nature.)

[larrydriver]

9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

[FourPart]

larrydriver;1490076 wrote: 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.
1. No-one ever said it was a law. That's why it's called a theory. The clue's in the name.

2. Wrought with errors? Such as? A Hypothesis is a premise that is formed on the available evidence. Then, after further observation, additional evidence, experimentation & prediction it becomes a Theory. All of these have been done & continue to be done.

3. The example of selective breeding with plants & animals, rather than an argument against the theory, is a good demonstration of how evolution works.

Are you Pahu under a different guise, by any chance? You certainly have his same sort of style by simply pasting a load of rubbish instead of formulating an argument for yourself. Also, which are the '9' points in that little bit of pasting? Come to that, where is 1. Stating that a Theory is not a Law is not exactly a 'Reason', nor is stating how Selective Breeding supports how the Theory of Evolution works.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1490077 wrote: 1. No-one ever said it was a law. That's why it's called a theory. The clue's in the name.

2. Wrought with errors? Such as? A Hypothesis is a premise that is formed on the available evidence. Then, after further observation, additional evidence, experimentation & prediction it becomes a Theory. All of these have been done & continue to be done.

3. The example of selective breeding with plants & animals, rather than an argument against the theory, is a good demonstration of how evolution works.

Are you Pahu under a different guise, by any chance? You certainly have his same sort of style by simply pasting a load of rubbish instead of formulating an argument for yourself. Also, which are the '9' points in that little bit of pasting? Come to that, where is 1. Stating that a Theory is not a Law is not exactly a 'Reason', nor is stating how Selective Breeding supports how the Theory of Evolution works.




Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html

[Pahu]

FourPart;1490077 wrote: 1. No-one ever said it was a law. That's why it's called a theory. The clue's in the name.


It isn't even a theory. It is a scientifically disproved hypothesis.

2. Wrought with errors? Such as? A Hypothesis is a premise that is formed on the available evidence. Then, after further observation, additional evidence, experimentation & prediction it becomes a Theory. All of these have been done & continue to be done.


The errors are found in all my past posts.

3. The example of selective breeding with plants & animals, rather than an argument against the theory, is a good demonstration of how evolution works.


When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1490077 wrote:

Are you Pahu under a different guise, by any chance? You certainly have his same sort of style by simply pasting a load of rubbish instead of formulating an argument for yourself. Also, which are the '9' points in that little bit of pasting? Come to that, where is 1. Stating that a Theory is not a Law is not exactly a 'Reason', nor is stating how Selective Breeding supports how the Theory of Evolution works.


I know nothing about his list, but here is one you may find interesting:



Should Evolution be Immune from Critical Analysis in the Science Classroom?



This fall it was back to class for millions of students enrolled in schools, colleges, and universities throughout Canada and the United States. For those taking science courses such as biology, anthropology, and earth science, it's quite evident that evolution is the reigning paradigm in science today. University of Calgary biology professor Gordon Pritchard's statement on evolution is a good example of this mode of thinking: " . . . evolution currently provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, including humans" (Calgary Herald, August 3, 1995, p. A5).

Michigan State physiology professor Robert S. Root-Bernstein wrote regarding his introductory course on evolution: "I encourage [students] to be skeptical—as long as their skepticism is based on logic and evidence. . . . Questions are what drives science, not answers. . . . Take nothing for granted, I counsel my students: that is what makes a scientist" ("Darwin's Rib," in Discover, September 1995, pp. 38–41).

Taking a cue from professor Root-Bernstein that "questions are what drives science, not answers," what follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolutionary theory.

These questions would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or good student research assignments.

1. Microsoft programmers utilized complex codes to create the Windows 95 software. The genetic code, which is more sophisticated, controls the physical processes of life and is accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems. How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

2. Evolutionists believe the Cambrian explosion of new life began about 525–550 million years ago. Stephen Jay Gould writes: ". . . an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years." (Scientific American, October 1994, p. 89.) What is the approximate number of beneficial mutations which must have occurred per year during this 5-million-year period, given that billions x billions of information bits would have to be encoded? What percentage of mutations in multicellular organisms have been recognized as beneficial? List any you find.

3. Within the field of biogenesis studies, there are a number of models which posit that the early, prebiotic earth must have had a reducing atmosphere (without oxygen or ozone). How could life begin to evolve without ozone to protect the earliest life forms from harmful UV radiation?

4. Both "left-handed" and "right-handed" amino acids occur naturally. Life forms contain proteins consisting principally of "left-handed" amino acids. Assuming a simple protein molecule of 172 amino acids, what is the mathematical probability that all 172 amino acids would be "left-handed"?

5. Megatons of amino acids would be required to reach the necessary concentrations for protein synthesis in a vast primordial ocean. Puddles and ponds have a limited duration. Does evolution address this problem?

6. Molecular biologist Michael Denton (Senior Research Fellow, University of Otago in New Zealand) in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states there is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series. Other molecular biologists agree/disagree with his conclusion. Why?

7. How does evolution explain the emergence and development of sexual reproduction given that both male and female physiology would have to mutate simultaneously?

True or False? Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record and gaps appear systematically between various living kinds.

8. Document from the fossil record the transitional forms leading up to the first fish, from their assumed invertebrate ancestors.

9. Jellyfish consist entirely of soft body tissues. How do evolutionists explain the existence of jellyfish fossils, in view of their argument that soft body tissues of missing intermediate forms did not fossilize?

10. The coelacanth fish was thought to be extinct for 70 million years, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. How do evolutionary biologists evaluate the discovery?

11. Describe one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional between fish and amphibian.

12. There are innumerable evolutionary enigmas, such as eyes, bat radar, and pterodactyl wings. In each case, all the component parts would have to evolve simultaneously in order to function properly. Discuss three other structures which defy evolutionary explanation.

13. Describe one insect that was transitional between a non-flying insect and a flying insect.

During the Industrial Revolution, dark-colored peppered moths appeared in larger numbers during environmental changes. Did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist? Is this macroevolution?

14. "Bird-like" dinosaurs such as Struthiomimus were "lizard-hipped," while dinosaurs such as the low-slung, four-legged Ankylosaurus were "bird-hipped." How do paleontologists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, account for these characteristics?

15. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms that led up to any dinosaur species?

16. (a) Were the feathers of Archaeopteryx identical to modern flying birds? (b) Are there any undisputed true birds in the fossil record that had teeth? (c) Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings. Name three modern birds that have claws on their wings (either in the juvenile stage or as an adult).

17. Evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. All mammals have three bones in the ear (and the Organ of Corti) and a single bone on each side of the lower jaw. All reptiles have a single bone in the ear and on average six bones on each side of the lower jaw. Speculate how intermediate forms could have managed to hear and chew, while the necessary restructuring was taking place and the Organ of Corti was being developed.

18. Has any creature been identified as a direct ancestor of primates? Has any creature been identified as the common ancestor of man and apes? Explain your answers.

Evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard (Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia) completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that they have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever and are simply an extinct form of ape (see Oxnard's The Order of Man, Yale University Press, 1984). How have paleoanthropologists responded to his conclusions?

19. Stern and Susman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-313 (1983) that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. How, then, do some insist that the footprints Mary Leakey uncovered in strata (dated at 3.5 million years old) in Laetoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from modern man? (Tuttle, Natural History, 64)

20. Nebraska Man (based solely on a fossil tooth) became a significant image in America during the time of the Scopes trial (1925); later, scientists discovered the tooth came from a pig. A report in Nature (August 17, 1995) states that analysis of an incomplete shin bone from a creature dubbed Australopithecus anamensis suggests it walked upright "between 3.9 and 4.2 million years ago." How should we treat discoveries which have not yet faced the rigors of scientific validation?

21. In 1982, Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" (Science Digest, vol. 90, May '82, p. 44.) Is Watson's statement still valid today?

22. If coal formation was a slow, vertical accumulation of sediments over vast ages (a) why are fossil trees sometimes found upside down in coal seams? (b) why are marine fossils such as tubeworms, sponges, and corals often found in coal beds?

23. Oil and gas, trapped within permeable sedimentary rock, remains at high pressure. If trapped for millions of years, why wouldn't these pressures have dissipated?

Does the retrograde motion of Venus, Uranus, and Pluto support or contradict the theory of solar system formation?

24. On March 25, 1996, Comet Hyakutake (classified as a short-period comet) made its closest swing by Earth, at a distance of about nine million miles. According to English astronomer Raymond A. Lyttleton and others, what's the maximum lifetime for a short-period comet?

25. The Oort Cloud was first theorized by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort in 1950 to account for the existence of short period comets. Since 1950, has any portion of the postulated Oort Cloud ever been directly observed?

26. Are new stars forming today? Are new planets which circle faraway stars beyond the solar system actually being discovered?

27. If the universe is billions of years old, orbital mechanics require that spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters should have blurred or spun apart long ago. How do Big Bang advocates explain their present shape? Is there any direct evidence for the "missing mass" of the universe (Cold Dark Matter)?

28. In his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Dr. Michael Behe defines an "irreducibly complex" system as a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where removal of any one part causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Give an example of a system (living or non-living) that could be considered "irreducibly complex," and explain why.

In his 1981 address to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History) asked: "Can you tell me anything you KNOW about evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?" The answer he got was silence. Can you state any one thing about evolution you know to be true? How do you know it is true?

To avoid the charge that evolution is presented to students as fact rather than theory, school boards may wish to consider the following Origins of Life policy:

As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.

If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.



Should Evolution be Immune from Critical Analysis in the Science Classroom? | The Institute for Creation Research

[FourPart]

Finally - you (Walt Brown) acknowledge that evolution DOES exist. Whether it be Micro or Macro makes no difference. It is Evolution nonetheless.

Furthermore, science does not disprove anything. It can only provide supportive evidence. A theory is based upon the evidence which already exists, for which there is an abundance. A hypothesis is an idea without any evidence to support it - such as Brown's Hydroplate Hypothesis.

Now - what about that post number?

[tude dog]

An interesting story about the dog.

What really caught me were the foxes.

Rise of the Dog | Watch Nature Online PBS Video

Dogs That Changed The World

Multiply such events among all species.

[FourPart]

tude dog;1490096 wrote: An interesting story about the dog.

What really cought me were the foxes.

http://player.pbs.org/widget/partnerpla ... opbar=true
Afraid the link is not available in this region.

[tude dog]

FourPart;1490097 wrote: Afraid the link is not available in this region.


Here it is on Youtube.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1490087 wrote: I know nothing about his list, but here is one you may find interesting:



Should Evolution be Immune from Critical Analysis in the Science Classroom?



This fall it was back to class for millions of students enrolled in schools, colleges, and universities throughout Canada and the United States. For those taking science courses such as biology, anthropology, and earth science, it's quite evident that evolution is the reigning paradigm in science today. University of Calgary biology professor Gordon Pritchard's statement on evolution is a good example of this mode of thinking: " . . . evolution currently provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, including humans" (Calgary Herald, August 3, 1995, p. A5).

Michigan State physiology professor Robert S. Root-Bernstein wrote regarding his introductory course on evolution: "I encourage [students] to be skeptical—as long as their skepticism is based on logic and evidence. . . . Questions are what drives science, not answers. . . . Take nothing for granted, I counsel my students: that is what makes a scientist" ("Darwin's Rib," in Discover, September 1995, pp. 38–41).

Taking a cue from professor Root-Bernstein that "questions are what drives science, not answers," what follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolutionary theory.

These questions would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or good student research assignments.

1. Microsoft programmers utilized complex codes to create the Windows 95 software. The genetic code, which is more sophisticated, controls the physical processes of life and is accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems. How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

2. Evolutionists believe the Cambrian explosion of new life began about 525–550 million years ago. Stephen Jay Gould writes: ". . . an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years." (Scientific American, October 1994, p. 89.) What is the approximate number of beneficial mutations which must have occurred per year during this 5-million-year period, given that billions x billions of information bits would have to be encoded? What percentage of mutations in multicellular organisms have been recognized as beneficial? List any you find.

3. Within the field of biogenesis studies, there are a number of models which posit that the early, prebiotic earth must have had a reducing atmosphere (without oxygen or ozone). How could life begin to evolve without ozone to protect the earliest life forms from harmful UV radiation?

4. Both "left-handed" and "right-handed" amino acids occur naturally. Life forms contain proteins consisting principally of "left-handed" amino acids. Assuming a simple protein molecule of 172 amino acids, what is the mathematical probability that all 172 amino acids would be "left-handed"?

5. Megatons of amino acids would be required to reach the necessary concentrations for protein synthesis in a vast primordial ocean. Puddles and ponds have a limited duration. Does evolution address this problem?

6. Molecular biologist Michael Denton (Senior Research Fellow, University of Otago in New Zealand) in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states there is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series. Other molecular biologists agree/disagree with his conclusion. Why?

7. How does evolution explain the emergence and development of sexual reproduction given that both male and female physiology would have to mutate simultaneously?

True or False? Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record and gaps appear systematically between various living kinds.

8. Document from the fossil record the transitional forms leading up to the first fish, from their assumed invertebrate ancestors.

9. Jellyfish consist entirely of soft body tissues. How do evolutionists explain the existence of jellyfish fossils, in view of their argument that soft body tissues of missing intermediate forms did not fossilize?

10. The coelacanth fish was thought to be extinct for 70 million years, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. How do evolutionary biologists evaluate the discovery?

11. Describe one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional between fish and amphibian.

12. There are innumerable evolutionary enigmas, such as eyes, bat radar, and pterodactyl wings. In each case, all the component parts would have to evolve simultaneously in order to function properly. Discuss three other structures which defy evolutionary explanation.

13. Describe one insect that was transitional between a non-flying insect and a flying insect.

During the Industrial Revolution, dark-colored peppered moths appeared in larger numbers during environmental changes. Did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist? Is this macroevolution?

14. "Bird-like" dinosaurs such as Struthiomimus were "lizard-hipped," while dinosaurs such as the low-slung, four-legged Ankylosaurus were "bird-hipped." How do paleontologists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, account for these characteristics?

15. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms that led up to any dinosaur species?

16. (a) Were the feathers of Archaeopteryx identical to modern flying birds? (b) Are there any undisputed true birds in the fossil record that had teeth? (c) Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings. Name three modern birds that have claws on their wings (either in the juvenile stage or as an adult).

17. Evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. All mammals have three bones in the ear (and the Organ of Corti) and a single bone on each side of the lower jaw. All reptiles have a single bone in the ear and on average six bones on each side of the lower jaw. Speculate how intermediate forms could have managed to hear and chew, while the necessary restructuring was taking place and the Organ of Corti was being developed.

18. Has any creature been identified as a direct ancestor of primates? Has any creature been identified as the common ancestor of man and apes? Explain your answers.

Evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard (Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia) completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that they have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever and are simply an extinct form of ape (see Oxnard's The Order of Man, Yale University Press, 1984). How have paleoanthropologists responded to his conclusions?

19. Stern and Susman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-313 (1983) that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. How, then, do some insist that the footprints Mary Leakey uncovered in strata (dated at 3.5 million years old) in Laetoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from modern man? (Tuttle, Natural History, 64)

20. Nebraska Man (based solely on a fossil tooth) became a significant image in America during the time of the Scopes trial (1925); later, scientists discovered the tooth came from a pig. A report in Nature (August 17, 1995) states that analysis of an incomplete shin bone from a creature dubbed Australopithecus anamensis suggests it walked upright "between 3.9 and 4.2 million years ago." How should we treat discoveries which have not yet faced the rigors of scientific validation?

21. In 1982, Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" (Science Digest, vol. 90, May '82, p. 44.) Is Watson's statement still valid today?

22. If coal formation was a slow, vertical accumulation of sediments over vast ages (a) why are fossil trees sometimes found upside down in coal seams? (b) why are marine fossils such as tubeworms, sponges, and corals often found in coal beds?

23. Oil and gas, trapped within permeable sedimentary rock, remains at high pressure. If trapped for millions of years, why wouldn't these pressures have dissipated?

Does the retrograde motion of Venus, Uranus, and Pluto support or contradict the theory of solar system formation?

24. On March 25, 1996, Comet Hyakutake (classified as a short-period comet) made its closest swing by Earth, at a distance of about nine million miles. According to English astronomer Raymond A. Lyttleton and others, what's the maximum lifetime for a short-period comet?

25. The Oort Cloud was first theorized by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort in 1950 to account for the existence of short period comets. Since 1950, has any portion of the postulated Oort Cloud ever been directly observed?

26. Are new stars forming today? Are new planets which circle faraway stars beyond the solar system actually being discovered?

27. If the universe is billions of years old, orbital mechanics require that spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters should have blurred or spun apart long ago. How do Big Bang advocates explain their present shape? Is there any direct evidence for the "missing mass" of the universe (Cold Dark Matter)?

28. In his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Dr. Michael Behe defines an "irreducibly complex" system as a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where removal of any one part causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Give an example of a system (living or non-living) that could be considered "irreducibly complex," and explain why.

In his 1981 address to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History) asked: "Can you tell me anything you KNOW about evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?" The answer he got was silence. Can you state any one thing about evolution you know to be true? How do you know it is true?

To avoid the charge that evolution is presented to students as fact rather than theory, school boards may wish to consider the following Origins of Life policy:

As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.

If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.



Should Evolution be Immune from Critical Analysis in the Science Classroom? | The Institute for Creation Research


All very fascinating, even if most of that info is 20 years old or more, and many of the questions presented have been answered, now.

A few thoughts:

Firstly, nobody but "Creationists" use the term "Evolutionist" so the use of that term already establishes a bias on the part of the author, and intended readership.

There is not an actual established "Theory of Evolution"

Such a thing is another creation of the Creationists. And ready the stated Theory of Evolution as presented by Creationists, there probably is some logic in the notion that said theory is not provable.

As for whether the process of Evolution, which has been very well proved to exist, can explain all of the variety of animal life we see in the universe, well the jury is still out. There is some rather astounding evidence that supports those hypotheses. Enough that many scientists are very sure that it is true.

Scientists, however, are always studying and testing and looking for evidence, and nobody has said that such things are absolute facts, yet.

Irreducible Complexity is another fabrication of Creationists, and no self-respecting scientist will even discuss such a notion.

Another question you have chosen to ignore was my request to explain how stars do not evolve.

[FourPart]

LarsMac;1490103 wrote: Another question you have chosen to ignore was my request to explain how stars do not evolve.


No doubt his next response will be that he's given you the answer but that you chose to ignore it - and then to decline in which post he made this claimed answer - just as he has done with mine.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1490095 wrote: Finally - you (Walt Brown) acknowledge that evolution DOES exist. Whether it be Micro or Macro makes no difference. It is Evolution nonetheless.


When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Furthermore, science does not disprove anything. It can only provide supportive evidence. A theory is based upon the evidence which already exists, for which there is an abundance.


There is no evidence supporting evolution. The facts of science disprove evolution.

A hypothesis is an idea without any evidence to support it - such as Brown's Hydroplate Hypothesis.


The facts of science support Brown's Hydroplane theory. Here are the facts:

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview


New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon (pages 207–240)

Mid-Oceanic Ridge

Earth’s Major Components

Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 153–188)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

Submarine Canyons

Coal and Oil

Methane Hydrates

Ice Age

Major Mountain Ranges

Frozen Mammoths (pages 257–287)

Overthrusts

Volcanoes and Lava

Geothermal Heat

Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 191–204)

Limestone (pages 249–254)

Metamorphic Rock

Plateaus

The Moho and Black Smokers

Salt Domes

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

Changing Axis Tilt

Comets (pages 291–325)

Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 327–360)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 367–416)

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs. The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.



Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 115. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)

Why does the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself in the Indian Ocean (shown by the black circle). Ask yourself how seafloor spreading could work there—moving away from that intersection point in four perpendicular directions. Answer: It can’t.As will be explained with many more examples in this and the next chapter, seafloor spreading is a myth. That alone falsifies plate tectonics. The hydroplate theory provides a simple explanation for that intersection point and the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.



Figure 44: “Unlevel Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?

This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.

Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, has many little-known problems. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates, each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. If plate tectonics happens on earth, why is it not seen on other planets?

Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?

The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?

The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1490103 wrote: All very fascinating, even if most of that info is 20 years old or more, and many of the questions presented have been answered, now.

A few thoughts:

Firstly, nobody but "Creationists" use the term "Evolutionist" so the use of that term already establishes a bias on the part of the author, and intended readership.


How do others describe someone who believes in evolution?

There is not an actual established "Theory of Evolution"

Such a thing is another creation of the Creationists. And ready the stated Theory of Evolution as presented by Creationists, there probably is some logic in the notion that said theory is not provable.

As for whether the process of Evolution, which has been very well proved to exist, can explain all of the variety of animal life we see in the universe, well the jury is still out. There is some rather astounding evidence that supports those hypotheses. Enough that many scientists are very sure that it is true.


First you admit evolution is not provable, then you claim it has been very well proved to exist. Isn't that a contradiction?

Another question you have chosen to ignore was my request to explain how stars do not evolve.


That question was answered in my post on star births. Go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1490103 wrote:

Scientists, however, are always studying and testing and looking for evidence, and nobody has said that such things are absolute facts, yet.

Irreducible Complexity is another fabrication of Creationists, and no self-respecting scientist will even discuss such a notion.


Irreducible Complexity has been shown to exist using the facts of science. Here are some of those facts:

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Three intertwined examples of irreducible complexity discussed in this brief report are 1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior, 2) The hoped-for evolution of genes that have novel functions relative to their supposedly ancestral genes, and 3) The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins. In each case, evolutionists point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.

Living things are extremely complex. Evolutionary theory rests upon the premise that all biological systems could have evolved from progressively simpler systems. Although different forms of evolutionary theory assign varying degrees of importance to natural selection, they all suggest that the complexity found in living things need not have developed at once, but could have been acquired piecemeal. Proponents of selectionist approaches to evolution emphasize the claim that each potential step in the acquisition of complexity is tested by natural selection. It is tacitly supposed that each increment of change towards an eventual complex structure would be of benefit to the organism that bears it, and would therefore be preserved by natural selection. Though in no way goal-directed, the outcome of this process, repeated often enough and long enough, would be a complex living system.

Biochemist Michael J. Behe, though an evolutionist, has challenged this widely held and incessantly taught notion:

‘What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional’.

Behe then presents several biochemical examples of irreducible complexity. Certain evolutionists, notably those reviewing Behe’s book, summarily dismiss his argument and insist, in a purely arm-waving manner, that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex system. Given enough time, with the wonder-working power of natural selection acting upon genetic mutations, even seemingly impossible things can happen. Yet despite this bravado, there are other evolutionists who, without mentioning Behe or using the phrase irreducible complexity, acknowledge that it is a very serious problem for evolutionary theory. A few such examples, focusing on gene regulation and novel protein origins, are presented here.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



Origin of genomic regulatory systems

The nature and degree of gene expression is commonly governed by a tightly intertwined set of regulatory elements found on the DNA molecule. How is such a concert of regulatory elements supposed to have evolved as a unit? The scenario invoked has a distinct flavour of storytelling:

‘Advantageous substitutions in regulatory elements caused by genetic factors are most interesting. They must be responsible for morphological evolution as discussed before. When a new chain of gene expression patterns for transcription factors and signal transduction elements is appearing, many advantageous mutations are thought to occur simultaneously at the loci participating in the chain. This process is called “recruitment or “cooption by developmental biologists.

How such a chain originates is a very difficult problem, i.e., a module of interacting gene loci would have to be constantly tested by natural selection under various genetic and external factors. On very rare occasions, while wandering via mutation and drift under available transcription factors, a module might find its place in a larger gene regulation network. Then positive selection may work on the regulatory elements of the module loci’.

Yes, and if a cow had wings, it might fly. Various speculative attempts to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity, discussed in the remainder of this report, are all essentially hoped-for simultaneous accidental changes in the genome that are supposed to eventually lead to the emergence of biological novelty. In the past, these have been called hopeful monsters. However, owing to the fact that the mechanisms discussed are not as extreme as the classical hopeful monsters, I informally refer to them as mini hopeful monsters.

A network of highly regulated genes governs the development of an organism. One of the chief difficulties of overcoming the irreducibly complex system of such gene regulation is the fact that, not only do all the parts of such a system interact closely, but it is, except under special circumstances, difficult to upset this finely-tuned system:

‘Evolution exploits genetic differences between individuals in order to remodel developmental programs, yet development is generally robust to individual genetic differences and environmental perturbations. Theoretical models describe how developmental homeostasis is developed and why it is maintained, as well as how it could be disrupted so that evolutionary change can occur.’

In the common fruit fly, Drosophila, environmentally mediated perturbations of the Hsp90 gene can cause the simultaneous deregulation of a number or genes. This, in turn, causes these flies to display a variety of developmental abnormalities, such as deformed or absent eyes, notched wings, duplicated bristles, etc. Such malformations hardly inspire confidence in this mechanism as a cause of alleged evolutionary change.

This is not to say that simultaneous changes, which result in the uncovering of biologically meaningful cryptic genetic variation, cannot occur in the genome. In fact, several examples are reviewed, by this author,7 in conjunction with the appearance of useful ‘hidden’ variation among the numerically impoverished organisms of the post-Flood world. However, note the minuscule scale of these changes. Clearly, disruptions of gene complexes are a necessary but not sufficient cause for the appearance of new irreducibly complex structures. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system!

Notice, in the following quote, the huge leap between potential deregulation of gene complexes, on one hand, and the hoped-for emergence of major evolutionary changes as an eventual outcome of this mini hopeful monster mechanism:

‘By altering the activities of multiple signal transducers and thereby simultaneously weakening several developmental pathways, Hsp90 can expose such variation, allowing selection to remodel many different processes at once ¦ . The use of Hsp90 as a capacitor for the conditional release of stores of hidden morphogenic variation may have been adaptive for particular lineages, perhaps allowing the rapid morphological radiations that are found in the fossil record.’

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]

The emergence of new biological functions

There is no doubt that irreducible complexity is acknowledged in the following statement:

‘A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deleterious individually and be lost by selective pressure’.

One hopeful mini monster mechanism, proposed three decades ago by Koch, postulated that genes could be temporarily inactivated, allowing them to drift neutrally (acquire a variety of random mutations without the possibility of being removed by natural selection). Subsequently, the genes would re-acquire function, and the multiple accumulated mutations could then be tested simultaneously by natural selection. Eventually, a lucky combination of mutations would turn out to be beneficial to the host organism, and even cause the sudden appearance of biological novelty. It is now recognized that this postulated inactivation-reactivation process is not likely to be effective:

‘However, the known mechanisms for the reactivation of inactive genes work sporadically, act infrequently and provide no obvious means for sampling coding changes in several genes simultaneously.’

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



True and Lindquist propose an alternative scenario for the accumulation of temporarily neutral mutations. It is based on a prion (proteinaceous infectious particle)-mediated mechanism that modulates the effectiveness of yeast genes’ premature stop codons in the termination of transcription, thus allowing for flexibility in terms of gene expression. It is suggested that, while the premature stop codon is ‘on’, mutations occurring in the gene sequence beyond this codon can accumulate freely owing to the inability of this part of the gene from being ‘read’, and therefore potentially impacting host fitness. But once this prion [PSI+] turns the premature stop codon ‘off’, the previously ‘unreadable’ part of the gene sequence becomes expressed and the phenotypic effects of the accumulated mutations can then be simultaneously tested by natural selection.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



This particular mechanism has been shown to cause changes in such things as the heat resistance of the affected yeast, the ability of the yeast to grow in different chemical media, and the geometric shape of the yeast colony itself. Although new phenotypes appear to have been produced (or at least unmasked) by this particular mechanism, their impact is rather modest. The new phenotypes appear to be little more than the ‘tweaking’ of pre-existing yeast traits rather than the emergence of radically new yeast behaviors or capabilities. In any case, the yeast is still yeast. How are the cumulative effects of this mechanism supposed to add up to the emergence of irreducibly complex structures? Consider the following:

‘How might such a system evolve and be maintained? We suggest three different, not exclusive possibilities ¦ The phenotypic diversity generated by these ORFs [gene’s open reading frames, subject to having their premature stop codons turned off and then on] by [PSI+] would depend upon which ORFs had acquired ISCMs [inactivating stop-codon mutations], the frequency of their readthrough, and the presence of additional mutations they have acquired while in the inactive state ¦ Such mechanisms may be present more broadly than previously suspected and exert an important influence on the rates and mechanisms of evolutionary change’10 [emphasis added].

Again, the foregoing has the distinctive flavour of storytelling. In any case, we once again see a huge leap in reasoning from the observed very small phenotypic changes all the way to the hoped-for emergence of totally new structures and functions.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]

Origin of new proteins: still more hopeful mini monsters



The bacterial flagellum. In an attempt to side-step irreducibly complexity, evolutionists hypothesize that the components of irreducibly complex systems all had other functions before being co-opted for use. These prior functions are largely speculative. As an ever increasing number of irreducibly complex systems are discovered, and more and more components in each system, the number of ‘functions’ (and thereby stories) needing to be found is ever increasing.

Earlier, the old ideas of Koch were discussed in conjunction with the evolutionists’ difficulty of accounting for simultaneous large-scale beneficial changes cumulating in the appearance of new biological functions. When it comes to the supposed origin of new proteins from pre-existing ones, a step-by-step set of changes likewise appears to be untenable. A protein having an intermediate sequence between that of its ancestral form and its eventual descendant form would likely be deleterious to its host (if able to be translated at all), and so would not be preserved by natural selection in the first place. In fact, Koch9 had recognized this fact, and so had aptly titled his paper: The importance of untranslatable intermediates. This, in fact, is the central problem for all evolutionary attempts to explain the origin of all irreducibly complex structures.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



Using recent thinking and vocabulary, Harrison and Gerstein, having tacitly recognized the irreducible complexity of protein design, have attempted to update Koch’s old hypothesis:

‘How does one get unique folds in certain phylogenetic groups? As shown in Figure 5(b) [see next paragraph], in some cases it may be difficult to imagine a scenario for this where each intermediate form has to be a functioning protein that is transcribed and translated. (This is in contrast to other evolutionary pathways, where functioning and selected intermediates are more plausible). One can speculate that resurrectable pseudogenes could eliminate this paradox to some degree. A sequence comprising a particular domain fold or (more likely) part of a domain could become pseudogenic. It could then drift freely as a pseudogene, and evolve to a new domain fold upon or after resurrection. In this scheme, each intermediate does not have the constraint that it be a folded functional protein’.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



The word speculation, used in the quote above, is an excellent choice of words for this hopeful mini monster mechanism! And, as in all prior discussed instances, speculative outcomes do not begin to explain the origin of irreducibly complex proteins at all. (Note that Figure 5b in the quote above simply shows changes in geometric shapes to illustrate the (virtually impossible) gradual change in proteins vs the hopeful accumulation of this fortuitously beneficial set of changes within nonfunctional pseudogenes that will one day again become functional genes). Although there are claims11 about supposedly nonfunctional gene copies (pseudogenes) becoming eventually resurrected as new functional genes, such instances are few and far between (not to mention the fact that all inferences of genes changing to pseudogenes and back to genes rely on phylogenic analyses and thereby presuppose organic evolution). This returns the evolutionist to the problem of the rarity of this presumed phenomenon, as already shown by the earlier quote from True and Lindquist.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



Other attempts at understanding the hoped-for evolutionary origin of de novo proteins have also been undertaken. For instance, Taverna and Goldstein noted the fact that proteins found in living systems, in contrast to synthetic proteins, retain their structure, stability, and function even in the face of a significant number of alterations in sequence. Citing and then extending some theoretical experiments revolving around evolution of individuals as part of a group, they suggest that proteins found in living things have this capability because they evolved that way:

‘Why does the sequence plasticity observed in site-directed mutagenesis not translate into ease in protein engineering? ¦ These results suggest that the observed sequence plasticity of biological proteins may occur because these proteins have evolved to be robust to these specific experiments ¦ Firstly, the lessons of sequence plasticity in biological proteins may be inapplicable to artificially designed proteins. It may be necessary to have a de novo sequence exquisitely designed to have properties similar to biological proteins.’

This consideration begs the question about the very origin and diversification of proteins in the first place!

[continue]

[Pahu]

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists


[continued]



Discussion and conclusions

I have discussed only a few examples of irreducible complexity that came to my attention inadvertently (while researching other topics). For this reason, no inferences should be drawn regarding the extent of irreducible complexity based on this short report.

The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). Hopeful monster scenarios reverse this situation, invoking a very improbable event to (theoretically) giving rise to a simultaneously emplaced set of interconnected simultaneous changes. The mini hopeful monster scenarios discussed are intermediate between the foregoing two approaches to the understanding of alleged major evolutionary change. But are they the best of both worlds or are they the worst of both worlds?

Consider the central fact that all the changes discussed in the cited works are quite small. Accounting for new irreducibly complex structures by the foregoing mechanisms is a completely different proposition. There is not the slightest indication, much less proof, that such changes (or ones comparable to those discussed in the cited works) could ever accumulate in a manner that eventually produces a totally different life form (i.e. commensurate with a higher-level taxonomic category). It seems clear that a succession of mini hopeful monster events, capable of originating a de novo irreducibly complex system, appears to be simultaneously improbable and incapable of effecting the large-scale simultaneous changes. Using Behe’s analogy of the mousetrap, one mini hopeful mini monster event may perhaps theoretically happen to produce a hammer that could fit with other would-be mousetrap components. Yet there is not the slightest indication that successive hopeful mini-monster events would also produce the requisite correctly shaped and correctly deployed spring, catch, holding bar, etc.

It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity and force of the argument of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists - creation.com

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1490114 wrote: How do others describe someone who believes in evolution?



First you admit evolution is not provable, then you claim it has been very well proved to exist. Isn't that a contradiction?



That question was answered in my post on star births. Go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?


To "Believe in" implies to accept something is true without relying upon evidence. Not many people "Believe in Evolution" As stated, evolution is simply a process of changing.

Look at human civilization. It has evolved from hunter-gatherer to technological. While there are still humans that focus on the former, a majority now depend upon technology to sustain their existence. That, my friend, is evolution.

As for stars, they form, exist, and sometimes die, the process takes a very long time. We have witnessed a few very astonishing events in our short existence. We have learned a great deal, and yet, have just begun to figure them out at a very basic level. We have a lot to learn about stars. And clowns who think they have all the answers will fade away long before the stars themselves.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1490128 wrote: To "Believe in" implies to accept something is true without relying upon evidence. Not many people "Believe in Evolution" As stated, evolution is simply a process of changing.

Look at human civilization. It has evolved from hunter-gatherer to technological. While there are still humans that focus on the former, a majority now depend upon technology to sustain their existence. That, my friend, is evolution.


Biological evolution claims life forms change from one kind to another kind. This has never been observed and has been disproved by science.

As for stars, they form, exist, and sometimes die, the process takes a very long time. We have witnessed a few very astonishing events in our short existence. We have learned a great deal, and yet, have just begun to figure them out at a very basic level. We have a lot to learn about stars. And clowns who think they have all the answers will fade away long before the stars themselves.


Stars have never been observed to form, only to end.

[Snowfire]

Pahu;1490135 wrote: This has never been observed and has been disproved by science.

Stars have never been observed to form, only to end.


The Hydroplate Theory has never been observed and has been dismissed by all but an infinitesimal amount of pseudo scientists. You're very selective and prejudicial as to what is real science and what is not, what is proved and disproved.

You're like a child who wants to forever believe in Father Christmas even though their brothers and sisters have long since woken up to the fact its not true. I wonder whether you will have that forehead slapping moment when you realise that Father Christmas is for kids and not for life.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1490135 wrote: Biological evolution claims life forms change from one kind to another kind. This has never been observed and has been disproved by science.



Stars have never been observed to form, only to end.


Wrong again.

[tude dog]

[FourPart]

With the Theory of Evolution, as with any scientific theory, the evidence was there to start with. The theory was then formed to fit the evidence. As further evidence comes to light the theory itself evolves. Nothing in science presumes a theory is 100% right. That is how a theory works. It is either supported by evidence or it is modified to fit the evidence. To assume otherwise & to reject evidence would be arrogant. Brown, one the other hand states time & time again that all the evidence that goes against his notions is wrong or doesn't exist, trying to cherry pick what bits of 'evidence' he feels 'might', with a lot of creative interpretation come close to supporting his dreams. There is no evidence for the catastrophic flood that he claims. The closest to it is the catastrophic ice age brought about by the impact of an asteroid, covering the entire earth with ice. Ice, believe it or not, is frozen water. In this sense you 'could' describe it as a 'flood'. There is evidence of Continental Drift - even from the very basic of observing how perfectly the continents fit together, and observed continuing movements - which Brown denies. There is also evidence of evolved diversity of species which were once part of a single land mass, but once separated, by Continental Drift went on to evolve independently. This has been known & proved by fossil evidence for the past 100 years or so. More recently it has been supported by DNA evidence proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet Brown claims all this is wrong, without any genuine explanations for his claims. Instead he makes wild claims that do not match with the facts of the situation. He puts forward imagined ideas & calls them 'facts'. Without supporting evidence nothing is a 'fact'. Also, when you deny accepted evidence and ignore whatever doesn't agree with you, that makes the hypothesis an utter joke, and no amount of pasting is going to change that.

I really don't know why you continue to paste the same old twaddle, using different posts when it won't fit into a single one, because no-one bothers to read it. They just look at your trademark multi-colour pastings & scroll on down - everyone's seen it all before.

And I'm still waiting for this legendary post number where you claim to have answered my challenge.

[Pahu]

Snowfire;1490136 wrote: The Hydroplate Theory has never been observed and has been dismissed by all but an infinitesimal amount of pseudo scientists. You're very selective and prejudicial as to what is real science and what is not, what is proved and disproved.


The hydroplate theory is scientifically sound and answers questions other theories cannot answer.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1490140 wrote: With the Theory of Evolution, as with any scientific theory, the evidence was there to start with. The theory was then formed to fit the evidence.


Science disproves evolution. Evolutionists twist the evidence to try and make their myth look valid.

Brown, one the other hand states time & time again that all the evidence that goes against his notions is wrong or doesn't exist, trying to cherry pick what bits of 'evidence' he feels 'might', with a lot of creative interpretation come close to supporting his dreams. There is no evidence for the catastrophic flood that he claims.


The evidence for a global flood is found worldwide. Start reading from here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

The closest to it is the catastrophic ice age brought about by the impact of an asteroid, covering the entire earth with ice.


Where is evidence supporting your assertion?

There is evidence of Continental Drift - even from the very basic of observing how perfectly the continents fit together, and observed continuing movements - which Brown denies.


The continents don't fit. For evidence see: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to

There is also evidence of evolved diversity of species which were once part of a single land mass, but once separated, by Continental Drift went on to evolve independently. This has been known & proved by fossil evidence for the past 100 years or so. More recently it has been supported by DNA evidence proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet Brown claims all this is wrong, without any genuine explanations for his claims. Instead he makes wild claims that do not match with the facts of the situation. He puts forward imagined ideas & calls them 'facts'. Without supporting evidence nothing is a 'fact'. Also, when you deny accepted evidence and ignore whatever doesn't agree with you, that makes the hypothesis an utter joke, and no amount of pasting is going to change that.


The evidence given by Brown and confirmed by scientists proves that evolution never happened.