Holes in the theory of evolution

[The Irish Ram]

Actually it is from a source that quoted Fred Hoyle, that I read in the nineties, The Signature of God. I highly recommend it. You'll find the quote on page 124. But you googling for knowledge is good too.

You may want to also google right handed and left handed proteins, and the odds of amino acids lining up solely on the left side which is necessary for life, (all none life atoms are 50% right handed, and 50% left handed). It is also out of the realm of scientific possibility for them all to line up on the left. I know the math, but there no substitute for elevating one's own awareness, so get back to me when you find the equation, and we'll discuss the lack of probability it posses.

As far as gaining knowledge, do it by whatever means available.

 

[sealybobo]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

And this video will help them understand why there was no first chicken human or giraffe. Every one of them/us at one point crawled out of the water and we were all related.

 

[sealybobo]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

 

[rightwinger]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

eyeballs?
Lets see a link

Then show me some cavemen from the Cambrian period

 

[there4eyeM]

Despite how wonderfully things seem to work and how much that may remind us of how humans 'plan' and 'design', there is little to justify all the mistakes and errors in life if creation were to be the case.

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

eyeballs?
Lets see a link

Then show me some cavemen from the Cambrian period

I googled this:
Cambrian Shrimp Eyes Are 'Surprisingly Advanced' | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

eyeballs?
Lets see a link

Then show me some cavemen from the Cambrian period

I googled this:
Cambrian Shrimp Eyes Are 'Surprisingly Advanced' | The Institute for Creation Research

The guys at the Institute of Creation Research acknowledge evolution as accepted fact.

 

[Syriusly]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

Well you have made several incorrect assertions- chief among the assertion 'taken as absolute truth' which no one does.

Unlike those who belief in some mythical creation story- who do take that as 'absolute proof'.

There is tons of physical evidence to support the theory of evolution. That is not absolute proof- that is a theory supported by the evidence we have.

And there simply is no other theory that matches the physical evidence that we do have, nor any other theory that is supported by evidence.

So what do you believe?

 

[Syriusly]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

The discoverer of the human genome started his work as an athiest.
He now says God did it.

When you look at the evidence of the inner workings of life with an open mind, only one possibility is possible.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Actually- he says he believes in the theory of evolution- but he also believes in God. Nor does he claim that there is 'only one possibility'- he instead offers another possibility

Collins directly contradicts the OP.

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

 

[Syriusly]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

Biologists do not infer commom ancestry only from small genetic changes between descendants of a species. There is, among other lines of evidence, morphology and especially genetics. See retrovirus DNA signatures.

To infer that there is some arbitrary boundary where evolution stops so that one species, an arbitrary category used only by people, doesn't evolve into a new one is without logical basis. Also, natural selection is not the only theory of evolution; see sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Why is it only this one scientific theory with which religious fundamentalists have an issue? Relativity is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Why don't religious fundamentalists take issue with that, being such scientifically critical thinkers?

If someone produces a video recording of a fruit fly turning into a chimpanzee then that would be a lot more credible evidence than what currently exist.

But that wouldn't be an evidence of the theory of evolution.

It would be something else- no idea what- but not evidence of the theory of evolution.

What do you believe is the basis for the varieties of life and their distribution- on earth?

 

[rightwinger]

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

eyeballs?
Lets see a link

Then show me some cavemen from the Cambrian period

I googled this:
Cambrian Shrimp Eyes Are 'Surprisingly Advanced' | The Institute for Creation Research

But tasty

 

[Syriusly]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

Your assumption of my grasp of genetics and evolution is without merit. I understand genetics and theories just fine. It was crazy Darwin that didn't understand genetics. He didn't know that even a single celled amoeba has complex DNA from the git go. Lots of things escaped Darwin. There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.
Monkeys continue to remain monkeys. Neanderthals didn't mutate into modern man. The two co-existed. One ceased to exist. They did not morph.

Clearly you don't understand the theory of evolution.
Darwin was not 'crazy'- and what is remarkable is that his theories are so close to what DNA studies have shown us.
Eyes did not suddenly appear as 'complex'.
Monkeys- what are 'monkeys'? There are mammals that all species of monkeys did evolve from, and all species of monkeys continue to evolve.
Neanderthal's didn't mutate into Modern man- we both descended from a common ancestor.
Though to an extent they did 'morph'- since most modern humans have Neanderthal genes also.

(and I don't want to hear how species is not correct- it is a useful imprecise term just as the term tree or monkey)

 

[Syriusly]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Which eye?
Primitive Sea Creature Sports Eyes Made of Rock | Chitons & Primitive Creatures | Evolution of Vision
A tiny sea mollusk uses eyes made of a calcium carbonate crystal to spot predators lurking above, researchers say of the first such rocky lenses found in the animal kingdom.

 

[Syriusly]

No scientific theory proposes that homo neandertalis evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. There is, however, significant genetic evidence that the two interbred. Red heads have neanderthal genes.

That is incorrect. The first theory contended, and was taught as truth in school rooms, that Neanderthal slowly evolved into Modern Man. They had to come up with a new theory when archeologists proved that man was already modern while Neanderthals were still un-evolved Neanderthals. That the two mated on occasion was proof the old theory was simply wrong. And while there may be Neanderthal DNA in redheads, it can also be found in those with blond, brown and black hair...

Well that is an amusing tale, what you have just demonstrated is the difference between science and faith.

Theories are based upon science- and if the theory is proven to be incorrect, then scientists have learned something new and apply that knowledge.

Faith will never accept fact which disputes their faith- say evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

 

[Syriusly]

For those who claim that life is too complex to have evolved, their faith is nothing more than a failure of being able to grasp the immense concept- and span of time- of life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Holes in the theory of evolution"

No, ignorance as to what is evolution.

 

[guno]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

Your assumption of my grasp of genetics and evolution is without merit. I understand genetics and theories just fine. It was crazy Darwin that didn't understand genetics. He didn't know that even a single celled amoeba has complex DNA from the git go. Lots of things escaped Darwin. There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.
Monkeys continue to remain monkeys. Neanderthals didn't mutate into modern man. The two co-existed. One ceased to exist. They did not morph.

Clearly you don't understand the theory of evolution.
Darwin was not 'crazy'- and what is remarkable is that his theories are so close to what DNA studies have shown us.
Eyes did not suddenly appear as 'complex'.
Monkeys- what are 'monkeys'? There are mammals that all species of monkeys did evolve from, and all species of monkeys continue to evolve.
Neanderthal's didn't mutate into Modern man- we both descended from a common ancestor.
Though to an extent they did 'morph'- since most modern humans have Neanderthal genes also.

(and I don't want to hear how species is not correct- it is a useful imprecise term just as the term tree or monkey)

thankfully the mentally ill christers are dying off

 

[rdean]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

DNA self corrects? Does it have a consensus first?

 

[there4eyeM]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

Your assumption of my grasp of genetics and evolution is without merit. I understand genetics and theories just fine. It was crazy Darwin that didn't understand genetics. He didn't know that even a single celled amoeba has complex DNA from the git go. Lots of things escaped Darwin. There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.
Monkeys continue to remain monkeys. Neanderthals didn't mutate into modern man. The two co-existed. One ceased to exist. They did not morph.

Clearly you don't understand the theory of evolution.
Darwin was not 'crazy'- and what is remarkable is that his theories are so close to what DNA studies have shown us.
Eyes did not suddenly appear as 'complex'.
Monkeys- what are 'monkeys'? There are mammals that all species of monkeys did evolve from, and all species of monkeys continue to evolve.
Neanderthal's didn't mutate into Modern man- we both descended from a common ancestor.
Though to an extent they did 'morph'- since most modern humans have Neanderthal genes also.

(and I don't want to hear how species is not correct- it is a useful imprecise term just as the term tree or monkey)

thankfully the mentally ill christers are dying off

Perhaps they are evolving.