Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[konradv]

Oh, but they do. Monkey to man. See the monk monk? Your grandpa?
View attachment 728330
That was the evolution they taught. Cro Magnum man was a plaster caste of part of a skull and a jawbone that they had in a drawer. That stage never existed. And the one with the spear? Extinct! The evolutionary train stopped there!
Google single celled organisms. One celled organisms were always complex otherwise they would not have existed.
Eyes are complex. There was never such a thing as a simple eye.
Google DNA. It is a design incapable of being produced by a pond...

Got something from this millennium?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, but they do. Monkey to man. See the monk monk? Your grandpa?
View attachment 728330
That was the evolution they taught. Cro Magnum man was a plaster caste of part of a skull and a jawbone that they had in a drawer. That stage never existed. And the one with the spear? Extinct! The evolutionary train stopped there!
Google single celled organisms. One celled organisms were always complex otherwise they would not have existed.
Eyes are complex. There was never such a thing as a simple eye.
Google DNA. It is a design incapable of being produced by a pond...

''Eyes are too complex to have evolved''.

Classic nonsensical claim from the fundamentailst ministries.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Why konrad? Are you saying that the bullshit changes everytime their latest school of thought is proven wrong?
I do have something from this millennium... DNA!

 

[konradv]

Why konrad? Are you saying that the bullshit changes everytime their latest school of thought is proven wrong?
I do have something from this millennium... DNA!

Then lay out the proof. So far you have nothing but opinion.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How about you contributing something. Tell me when science gave up on the monkey to man theory that "science" taught us relentlessly for years and generations. Was it this millennium? Was it because DNA proved them wrong? Oops.
What do they say we evolved from now? Grapefruits?

 

[konradv]

How about you contributing something. Tell me when science gave up on the monkey to man theory that "science" taught us relentlessly for years and generations. Was it this millennium? Was it because DNA proved them wrong? Oops.
What do they say we evolved from now? Grapefruits?

DNA hasn’t proven anything wrong with current evolutionary theory. As a matter of fact, it’s now become a foundational basis of the theory. If you’re going to make off-the-wall assertions, you need to provide more facts

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yes, it has. It was the cause of the new and improved theory. Every time "science" finds a misshapen tooth, they will create a misshapen human to go along with it. We came from monkeys from Darwin until the discovery of DNA. Darwin's monkey was taught to us in school to the exclusion of creationalism. It took DNA to prove Darwin wrong that apes kept mutating into modern man. Nor did Neanderthal evolve into modern man.
DNA is an extremely complex design. It took a complex designer. Primordial ooze does not have the capability...

 

[ChemEngineer]

We know evolution happens. We can see it in fruit flies. They breed and die very quickly, and we see evolution happening every so many generations, something like very 9 generations if I remember rightly.

You are confusing evolution, from a LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor, to humans, with adaptation. The only things fruit fly breeders could produce were freaks, unable to live in the wild.
Dawkins said evolution can "only go up, never down." He insisted. Fruit flies only down after thousands of generations.

This is something we can directly observe. It's like gravity. Evolution is not just a "theory" like you're claiming it is.

Oh please, stop it. No physicist compares gravity to evolution. I gave you quote after quote and you ignore them all. These are scientists, not Darwin's lackeys.

You seem to be making an argument about how life came into being in the first place, which is different to (sic) evolution. We don't know how life came into being, or even if it is life.

Your grammar is as weak as your *logic*. We don't know if life is life. Darwin's simplistic book was "On the Origin of Species". The first life was a specie. You can't deal with the first one nor the last. The statistics of polypeptide synthesis are insuperable, forever dooming Darwinian evolution. Stop repeating nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

You are confusing evolution, from a LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor, to humans, with adaptation. The only things fruit fly breeders could produce were freaks, unable to live in the wild.
Dawkins said evolution can "only go up, never down." He insisted. Fruit flies only down after thousands of generations.

This is something we can directly observe. It's like gravity. Evolution is not just a "theory" like you're claiming it is.

Oh please, stop it. No physicist compares gravity to evolution. I gave you quote after quote and you ignore them all. These are scientists, not Darwin's lackeys.

You seem to be making an argument about how life came into being in the first place, which is different to (sic) evolution. We don't know how life came into being, or even if it is life.

Your grammar is as weak as your *logic*. We don't know if life is life. Darwin's simplistic book was "On the Origin of Species". The first life was a specie. You can't deal with the first one nor the last. The statistics of polypeptide synthesis are insuperable, forever dooming Darwinian evolution. Stop repeating nonsense.

Pimping your silly polypeptide nonsense.

What a laughable joke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are confusing evolution, from a LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor, to humans, with adaptation. The only things fruit fly breeders could produce were freaks, unable to live in the wild.
Dawkins said evolution can "only go up, never down." He insisted. Fruit flies only down after thousands of generations.

This is something we can directly observe. It's like gravity. Evolution is not just a "theory" like you're claiming it is.

Oh please, stop it. No physicist compares gravity to evolution. I gave you quote after quote and you ignore them all. These are scientists, not Darwin's lackeys.

You seem to be making an argument about how life came into being in the first place, which is different to (sic) evolution. We don't know how life came into being, or even if it is life.

Your grammar is as weak as your *logic*. We don't know if life is life. Darwin's simplistic book was "On the Origin of Species". The first life was a specie. You can't deal with the first one nor the last. The statistics of polypeptide synthesis are insuperable, forever dooming Darwinian evolution. Stop repeating nonsense.

Thing is, I get the feeling you're just saying what is convenient for you. Where is this evidence they're just producing "freaks"?

Nowhere is where. You just made it up.

What the article I posted said:

" flies rapidly adapted to shifting environmental conditions with alterations throughout their genome and in a suite of physical characteristics."

Not that they produce "freaks", but that they ADAPTED.

"With this direct observation of swift and continuous adaptation in response to the environment—a phenomenon known as adaptive tracking—the biologists have established a new paradigm for thinking about the timescale of evolution."

The thing with evolution is that creatures will evolve and the most successful evolutions will prevail. Same for the coronavirus. It has evolved, quite clearly, it's faster, less strong. It doesn't need to be strong, killing is not its main purpose, its main purpose is unclear, viruses seem to be an essential part of larger creatures evolutionary process, moving different evolutionary code from one animal to another, from human to human, or from other animals to humans.

You gave me quotes, as if you think throwing random quotes at people makes an argument. It does not.

But let's check some of your random quotes.

"Dr. George Wald, evolutionist."

George Wald - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...was an American scientist who studied pigments in the retina."

"In 1970, Wald predicted that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”"

Yep, we ended before the year 2000. This is all a computer simulation.

Nothing about him being an "evolutionist".
I can find NOTHING that shows the context of this being said, just websites that show the quote taken out of whatever context it was put in in the first place, nothing that suggests he was an "evolutionist", nothing that talks about the religious nature of the man. NOTHING.

"Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University"

Dude was born in 1883. Died in 1955. At the time, I'm sure evolution was just a theory and people were struggling to figure out whether it was true or not

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts" This might actually be true. It can be very difficult to use "paleobiological facts" mean anything. This is looking at fossils. Fossils are what is left, they have to be preserved in certain conditions. Jungles, for example, leave behind no fossils, so we don't even know about jungle dinosaurs because all data has gone. The guy did NOT talk about the evolution of fruit flies.

"John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998"

Anglican priest. Need I say more?

Your quotes are cherry picked, don't deal with up to date information on evolution.

Fuck me, now you're trying to attack my grammar.

Different from, different to or different than ?

Different from, different to or different than ? - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org

"Different from, different to or different than?"​

"The adjective different means ‘not the same’. When we compare two or more items, it is usually followed by from. We also use different to, especially in speaking:"

Fuck you, my grammar is fine. And I've even proven it. But that you have to start talking about grammar rather than the topic at hand.....

Do you want to talk about predestiny? There was a thread about it, this is what I was referring to. You think it's nonsense. I think all those quotes you posted are nonsense. I think you're struggling to make a decent argument are you're flapping around with grammar and attacking me for "nonsense".

Try harder. This is a topic that interests me. The reason I will talk about this topic is because I think I can learn things. Not necessarily from you, but because I go out there and do the research. HOWEVER, I will not end up in a conversation with someone who dicks around with off topic crap like grammar, especially when the grammar is perfectly fine. So, you want a good debate, have a good debate, you want to bullshit, just don't reply.

 

[Indeependent]

What is the source of your cut and paste?

Funny how you never ask this when some jackass does an evolution cut and paste.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Moderator said I should post my thoughts before quoting others'.
Here they are.
1. The Godless Left preaches Darwinism under claim of "fact, fact, fact." That is utterly preposterous in view of the many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of biochemists, biologists, medical doctors, mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts and other learned people who have studied and continue to study how impossible is the claim of random mutations transmogrifying water dripping on rocks to human beings.

2. NOBODY argues that "gravity is as proven as evolution."
NOBODY claims that gravity is "only a theory."

3. This large number of highly educated people argue very persuasively that Darwin's archaic nonsense is just that. I'm with them. I've studied it extensively.

The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude


"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"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! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." - (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it." - (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe." - (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."- (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."
- (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")


"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology." - (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation."-
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked." - (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."- (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." - (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)


"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it." - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." - (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." - (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."- (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one." - (Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' " - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. - (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."- (Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")


"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted." - (Dr. T.H Morgan)

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." - (Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - (Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities (1985)

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."(Dr. P. L - emoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." - (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)


"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
-(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." - (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."- (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Transformation is a fairy tale for adults." - (Dr. Jean Rostand, French biologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." - (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." -(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." - (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." - (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." -(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" -(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Evolution is faith, a religion." - (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."- (Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)


"Chance renders evolution impossible." - (Dr. James Coppedge)

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." - (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." - (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. - (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." - Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." - (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." - (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." - (Sir Cecil Wakely)

"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." -(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

I cut off hundreds more quotes of a similar nature.

It would take millions of years of DNA making the exact same mistake with no self correcting, to produce a different species. It is impossible.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We know evolution happens. We can see it in fruit flies. They breed and die very quickly, and we see evolution happening every so many generations, something like very 9 generations if I remember rightly.

Rapid adaptation in fruit flies has evolutionary implications

While evolution is usually considered to be a gradual process, new findings show that widespread physical and genomic adaptation to the environment can occur within just weeks.

news.wsu.edu

"Over the four months of the experiment, the researchers documented changes to 60% of the flies’ genome. With this direct observation of swift and continuous adaptation in response to the environment—a phenomenon known as adaptive tracking—the biologists have established a new paradigm for thinking about the timescale of evolution."

This is something we can directly observe. It's like gravity. Evolution is not just a "theory" like you're claiming it is.

You seem to be making an argument about how life came into being in the first place, which is different to evolution. We don't know how life came into being, or even if it is life.

Adaptation is different than evolution. And one of the traits of DNA is that it allows for a species to adapt. There are parts of a cell that can be modified, and parts that cannot. One part allows the species to adapt, while the other part cannot be modified thereby keeping the species specific. It was designed that way.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How do you know it never went from simple to complex? You’re making assertions without facts? The earliest organisms were simple and became more complex. Why would DNA be any different? No one says we were ever monkeys. To say that just illustrates your ignorance of the topic.

The earliest organisms had complex DNA. There is no such thing as DNA evolving from a simple blueprint. It has always housed the genetic information<complex data, for the organism to develop and function. Primordial soup cannot not produce complex data. It is software that needs to be designed, engineered.

Science said we evolved from apes. Then changed their story to a more modern version of evolution. Because they were wrong. Just like science said we were going to succumb to global warming, then changed to the more modern version of global warming .....weather, or as they call it, climate change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Adaptation is different than evolution. And one of the traits of DNA is that it allows for a species to adapt. There are parts of a cell that can be modified, and parts that cannot. One part allows the species to adapt, while the other part cannot be modified thereby keeping the species specific. It was designed that way.

How Much DNA Do Humans Share With Other Animals and Plants?

beenhereKey Takeaways:🐒 Humans share about 99.9% of their DNA with other humans.🐱 Cats share approximately 90% of their DNA with humans.🐭 Humans share around 85% of their DNA with mice.🐖 Humans share a significant amount (98%) of their DNA with pigs.🐔 Humans share more than half (60%) of their DNA…

thednatests.com

We share 99.7% with Neanderthal.
98% with pigs.
90% with cats.
80% with cows.
70% with slugs.
60% with bananas
50% with trees.
Are bananas merely an "adaptation" of humans?

 

[The Irish Ram]

How Much DNA Do Humans Share With Other Animals and Plants?

beenhereKey Takeaways:🐒 Humans share about 99.9% of their DNA with other humans.🐱 Cats share approximately 90% of their DNA with humans.🐭 Humans share around 85% of their DNA with mice.🐖 Humans share a significant amount (98%) of their DNA with pigs.🐔 Humans share more than half (60%) of their DNA…

thednatests.com

We share 99.7% with Neanderthal.
98% with pigs.
90% with cats.
80% with cows.
70% with slugs.
60% with bananas
50% with trees.
Are bananas merely an "adaptation" of humans?

A Water mellon is nearly the same as a jelly fish, and a cloud A water mellon will never evolve into a jelly fish. Or a human, even though we have about the same amount of genes. The codes are different.
DNA is a code. Codes are designed. Human DNA has about 3 billion base letters in it's genetic alphabet. None are random. Each has a specific function. A 2% difference means there are 60 million differences between a human and a monkey's DNA. Darwin didn't know that...

 

[frigidweirdo]

A Water mellon is nearly the same as a jelly fish, and a cloud A water mellon will never evolve into a jelly fish. Or a human, even though we have about the same amount of genes. The codes are different.
DNA is a code. Codes are designed. Human DNA has about 3 billion base letters in it's genetic alphabet. None are random. Each has a specific function. A 2% difference means there are 60 million differences between a human and a monkey's DNA. Darwin didn't know that...

Okay, and?
You're talking about a difference between adaption and evolution. Adaption changes DNA you said. DNA changes, in changing it's evolving. You say it's just adaption, but clearly somethings are closer to other things than they are to completely different things.

Neanderthal existed, they were one of various human like creatures. They probably passed on genes through intercourse with other human like creatures that became Homo Sapiens.

We have no record of homo sapiens from a million years ago, so where did they come from?

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA allows for adaption, but preserves the areas that would change the species into something else. For instance, the more clothes we put on, the less hair we needed on our bodies. The result was still human/decrease in hair. Blind cave fish used to have eyes. They were so unnecessary in the dark caves that the fish no longer develop them. They adapted to their environment, but remain cave fish.

Modern man lived at the same time as Neanderthals, and may have contributed to their demise. We aren't sure. And there are humans today that carry a small amount of Neanderthal DNA suggesting that yes, some sex between the two took place.

According to "science", they think that mitochondrial DNA takes us back to one woman, they named "Mitochondrial Eve". They say she's existed about 160,000 years ago. Then they decided to trace the y chromosome and decided it went back to the first man. About 270,000 years ago.
110,000 years is a long time to wait for a first date. I think they have it wrong again...

 

[konradv]

The earliest organisms had complex DNA. There is no such thing as DNA evolving from a simple blueprint. It has always housed the genetic information<complex data, for the organism to develop and function. Primordial soup cannot not produce complex data. It is software that needs to be designed, engineered.

Science said we evolved from apes. Then changed their story to a more modern version of evolution. Because they were wrong. Just like science said we were going to succumb to global warming, then changed to the more modern version of global warming .....weather, or as they call it, climate change.

The change in the story is called progress. Crack a dictionary, if you don’t know what that means.

 

[Hollie]

It would take millions of years of DNA making the exact same mistake with no self correcting, to produce a different species. It is impossible.

''It is impossible.... because I say so''.

Such arguments may work at the Jimmy Swaggert ministries but in the realm of science, they're disposable.