Scientists Criticize Evolution

[james bond]

As usual, you present nothing to support your street sidewalk Bible thumping.

It's over. Evo can't present anything to counter while I have tons of evidence for creation. ANTD as they won't believe even with the evidence.

 

[surada]

So the planet really is only 6k years old?

New evidence shows history of human species more complex than thought

The most ancient human species includes fossils that date to the time at which our lineage separated from the lineages leading to chimpanzees and bonobos.

www.jpost.com

 

[ding]

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin

 

[JoeBlow]

It's over. Evo can't present anything to counter while I have tons of evidence for creation. ANTD as they won't believe even with the evidence.

300 years ago, human were shorter on average, you can see that in the old houses and their clothes from that period. So humans getting taller through time is what evolution is.

 

[Rigby5]

Criticisms of Evolution


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell


"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

Wrong.
Fossil evidence does show all intermediate evolution steps.
The fact they are rare and we have not necessarily found them yet, is not disproof of anything.
We should expect intermediate steps in evolution to not be as successful or abundant.
A successful species does not have to ever change, like the sea sponge.
But an unsuccessful species that is just barely surviving, will evolve much faster because the gene pool is smaller and will have much more interbreeding (with close relatives).
That means that most intermediate examples of evolution will be very small in number.
So we should expect transitions to be small in number, varied, and rare to be found.
While we should expect successful species to be large in number and low in variation.
Everything verifies evolution.

 

[Rigby5]

SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM



https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf

Wrong.
None of those signers are experts in anthropology or anything at all related to evolution.

 

[Rigby5]

It's over. Evo can't present anything to counter while I have tons of evidence for creation. ANTD as they won't believe even with the evidence.

Nonsense.
There can never be any evidence of creation, because there is none.
You just have God who says POOF!
And yet all the billions of past species proves that what used to exist was entirely different than what exists now.
Which then proves evolution and disproves creation.
If creation were true, it would be small in number of species, and never change.

 

[ding]

300 years ago, human were shorter on average, you can see that in the old houses and their clothes from that period. So humans getting taller through time is what evolution is.

Did taller humans form a new species?

 

[Rigby5]

Did taller humans form a new species?

They have to eventually.
All the small incremental changes eventually prevent interbreeding back with the original species, which is the definition of NEW species.

 

[ding]

They have to eventually.
All the small incremental changes eventually prevent interbreeding back with the original species, which is the definition of NEW species.

That's not what the fossil record shows. The fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.

Even Darwin was troubled by the lack of graduation in the fossil record.

 

[Hollie]

It's over. Evo can't present anything to counter while I have tons of evidence for creation. ANTD as they won't believe even with the evidence.

You presented no evidence for creationerism.

 

[Rigby5]

That's not what the fossil record shows. The fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.

Even Darwin was troubled by the lack of graduation in the fossil record.

That is EXACTLY what one would expect.
When a species is successful, they will be in great abundance, and will appear to be in stasis.
It is only when a species is NOT successful, that numbers are very low, where there has to be lots of inbreeding, that allows for any significant evolution.

When there is evolutionary change, that is because of inbreeding from near failure.
In which case the number of fossil remains are going to be extremely low, too low for anyone to likely find.

 

[james bond]

You presented no evidence for creationerism.

It starts with we know who was there before the big bang. There had to be a cause, right?

 

[badger2]

Volcanoes aren't the only possible source for the origins of life, though they and deep-sea vents mesh well with the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[Hollie]

It starts with we know who was there before the big bang. There had to be a cause, right?

There was no big bang. It's to be expected that what you learn at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah is just silliness., right?

 

[james bond]

There was no big bang. It's to be expected that what you learn at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah is just silliness., right?

Yes, there was no big bang, but a supernatural being as a cause to start spacetime and the universe. I'm glad you're getting smarter as the atheists had to make up the "big bang" in order to do it.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, there was no big bang, but a supernatural being as a cause to start spacetime and the universe. I'm glad you're getting smarter as the atheists had to make up the "big bang" in order to do it.

A supernatural being.

Harun Yahya told you so?

 

[james bond]

A supernatural being.

Harun Yahya told you so?

At least, I'm not trying to use bad science to back up atheism.

 

[Hollie]

At least, I'm not trying to use bad science to back up atheism.

You know nothing of science other than what creationer quacks told you.

 

[Rigby5]

It starts with we know who was there before the big bang. There had to be a cause, right?

A cause does not require a being.