Scientists Refuting Darwinism

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.
You’re science illiterate. Stop pretending you are anything else.
 
The change in the story is called progress. Crack a dictionary, if you don’t know what that means.
The change in the story is,
"We were wrong before but this time we're sure we got it right, trust me. And all those people that we taught they sprang from monkeys, well joke's on you."
Show me a pond scum that can produce code...
 
''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.
lol. Science says so. You just aren't educated enough to understand the DNA process.
Back mutation causes it to be impossible, DNA is a self repair mechanism to avoid mutation, preventing it from making the same mistake over and over and over in order to create a new species. Or do you think a new species just pops out one day? Do you have any examples of that? Or are you to busy with your hatred of God to do a little research? Show me how quickly a clam can turn into a dog...
 
You’re science illiterate. Stop pretending you are anything else.

I have you on my Ignore List for your cowardly, reprehensible insults which are devoid of science and understanding.
But just to make my point, why don't you retrieve your most brilliant and original post educating readers on the scientific subject of your choice. I don't recall you or Hollie every saying anything educational that you created yourself.
This isn't about me, it's about you. But just for the record, my published book of inspirational science can be purchased on Amazon.com where a medical doctor in Buffalo, New York, reviewed it with Five Stars and said it "is beyond outstanding."
A dentist in Tennessee said "it should be required reading for every high school student." The doctor said "it should be required reading for every literate person." Book Commentary gave it a Five Star Review and said it "is pure genius."

So your calling me "science illiterate" is bitter, hateful gaslighting, nothing more.
 
He backed his shit up, you give us nothing. Show us how smart you are, Bill Nye...
How long does it take DNA to produce a new species through mutation?

Evolutionary biologists have spent decades breeding bacteria and fruit flies in a futile attempt to demonstrate evolutionary progress. They have failed miserably and admitted as much. The fruit flies which mutated, had four wings, couldn't fly and couldn't possibly survive except in the lab where they were lovingly cared for. Darwin's Zombies ignore science and shoot their mouths off feigning knowledge that they so obviously lack.

Incidentally, everyone has seen nature programs where narrators, such as David Attenborough, invariably state, "This animal is perfectly adapted for its environment." They NEVER SAY "perfectly evolved" for obvious reasons.

His Zombies don't want to learn because that would mean they have to admit that they were wrong - something they utterly refuse even to consider.

Thank you Ram Tough!!!
 
lol. Science says so. You just aren't educated enough to understand the DNA process.
Back mutation causes it to be impossible, DNA is a self repair mechanism to avoid mutation, preventing it from making the same mistake over and over and over in order to create a new species. Or do you think a new species just pops out one day? Do you have any examples of that? Or are you to busy with your hatred of God to do a little research? Show me how quickly a clam can turn into a dog...
You’re getting a little hysterical.

What is ‘back mutation’? Is that something they teach at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrassah?

The very mechanism that commonly occurs for adding information to DNA is gene duplication. This results when a long strand of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing by scientists, (this is when real scientists, not the hyper-religious who don’t do research), has revealed several instances in which this is the origin of some proteins.

Your comments suggest an appallingly lack of even high school level biology so to help; Mutants are not the sort of things you see in the X-Men movie or in science fiction novels. All living things have a high likelihood of there being some mutations in one or more of our cells. If they are germ cells, and don't cause harm or actually help, they will probably be passed on to half of your children.

No. New species don’t “pop out” one day. Speciation can happen quickly, (quickly in geologic time frames), or very slowly. There is a firm record of speciation in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that most fossils give just a snapshot in time, so abrupt appearances in the fossil record do not mean abrupt origins. There are gradual changes depicted in most the fossil record.

Why do you feel a need to use your gods as a weapon? Religion is about personal feelings and the Gods you use as a bloody truncheon have nothing to do with gods in lives of most other people. Everything you screech out about your version of gods is based solely upon your personal belief. If you wish to communicate about objective things such as DNA or biological evolution, (or how a 600 year old man piloted a yacht full of animals), you must find a standard that is common to everyone. The natural world itself is the only such standard I know of.
 
How long does it take DNA to produce a new species through mutation?


A new study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, combined for the first time data from short periods such as 10-100 years with much longer evidence found in the fossil record over millions of years.

It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species.

In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.

"Rapid evolution is clearly a reality over fairly short time periods, sometimes just a few generations," said Josef Uyeda, lead author of the study and a zoologist at Oregon State University. "But those rapid changes do not always persist and may be confined to small populations.

"We believe that for changes to persist, the underlying force that caused them has to also persist and be widespread," Uyeda said.

"This isn't just some chance genetic mutation that takes over," he said. "Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance, and these forces have to continue and become widespread for the change to persist and accumulate. That's slower and more rare than one might think."

Though slow, however, the process appears to be relentless. Most species change so much that they rarely ever last more than 1-10 million years before going extinct, or developing into a new species, the scientists noted.




I was hoping you could provide some studies showing why human life expectancy dropped from 600 to 900 years to 80+/- in just the last 4,000 years.

Anything?
 
I have you on my Ignore List for your cowardly, reprehensible insults which are devoid of science and understanding.
But just to make my point, why don't you retrieve your most brilliant and original post educating readers on the scientific subject of your choice. I don't recall you or Hollie every saying anything educational that you created yourself.
This isn't about me, it's about you. But just for the record, my published book of inspirational science can be purchased on Amazon.com where a medical doctor in Buffalo, New York, reviewed it with Five Stars and said it "is beyond outstanding."
A dentist in Tennessee said "it should be required reading for every high school student." The doctor said "it should be required reading for every literate person." Book Commentary gave it a Five Star Review and said it "is pure genius."

So your calling me "science illiterate" is bitter, hateful gaslighting, nothing more.

You just wrote that you had the poster on ignore. Obviously you didn’t.

You’re going to make the gods angry.
 
Evolutionary biologists have spent decades breeding bacteria and fruit flies in a futile attempt to demonstrate evolutionary progress. They have failed miserably and admitted as much. The fruit flies which mutated, had four wings, couldn't fly and couldn't possibly survive except in the lab where they were lovingly cared for. Darwin's Zombies ignore science and shoot their mouths off feigning knowledge that they so obviously lack.

Incidentally, everyone has seen nature programs where narrators, such as David Attenborough, invariably state, "This animal is perfectly adapted for its environment." They NEVER SAY "perfectly evolved" for obvious reasons.

His Zombies don't want to learn because that would mean they have to admit that they were wrong - something they utterly refuse even to consider.

Thank you Ram Tough!!!
Actually, evolutionary biologists have spent longer than decades studying biological systems, from the structure of DNA to evolution of species.

Your silly examples of flys with four wings is simply your retreat to the nonsense you steal from Harun Yahya. Harun Yahya groupies are the subject of ridicule for many reasons.

The problem shared by you Flat Earthers is a total lack of science vocabulary and ignorance regarding even the most basic concepts of biology and chemistry.
 
You’re getting a little hysterical.

What is ‘back mutation’? Is that something they teach at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrassah?

back mutation​

The process that causes reversion. A change in a nucleotide pair in a mutant gene that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.

If you would set aside your hatred for Christianity, and your pointless insults, you would have more time for research. Without it, your arguments have nowhere to go but aggression.

Not knowing what reversion is, is why you don't understand DNA. And why you believe in revisionist science. And why evolution is a theory and not law...

And if you think I'm hysterical, then you don't know what that is either...:cool:
 
Last edited:

back mutation​

The process that causes reversion. A change in a nucleotide pair in a mutant gene that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.

If you would set aside your hatred for Christianity, and your pointless insults, you would have more time for research. Without it, your arguments have nowhere to go but aggression.

Not knowing what reversion is, is why you don't understand DNA. And why you believe in revision science. And why evolution is a theory and not law...

And if you think I'm hysterical, then you don't know what that is either...:cool:
I’m delighted you apparently looked at a science based forum.

I’d suggest you put aside your hatred for the Infidel. You should realize that those from various geographic locations will inherit the gods commonly associated with those locations, just as you did.

I’d also suggest that you abandon the “hatred for Christianity”, spiel. You apparently have this need to disparage anyone who doesn’t believe in your gods or anyone who concludes that the natural world has no need for any gods is somehow your enemy. Try being less defensive. Did you expect that hurling your gods at others in a public forum would result in everyone converting?

I’m not clear on what “revision science” is. As to theories and laws, can you take a look at the science forum you opened earlier and get back to us on those definitions. Contrast those definitions with religious belief and contemplate how science can test theories and make predictions. Let us know how we test for supernaturalism. We know the planet is not flat. We can test for that.
 
Last edited:
You drop the Jimmy Swaggert bullshit and I won't respond to it. See how that works?

Back mutation means that DNA is programed to correct itself. To revert back to the original if a mutation in a gene takes place. DNA does not make the exact same mistake over and over, years after years to ultimately create a new species. Back mutation makes that impossible. Science said so...
 
You drop the Jimmy Swaggert bullshit and I won't respond to it. See how that works?

Back mutation means that DNA is programed to correct itself. To revert back to the original if a mutation in a gene takes place. DNA does not make the exact same mistake over and over, years after years to ultimately create a new species. Back mutation makes that impossible. Science said so...
No. You’re wrong. Simple as that. You provide nothing but, ‘“because I say so”, for your skewed understanding of evolution and biology, no doubt taken from creation ministries.

You display many misunderstandings implicit in your comments. There is no such thing as "retroevolution" in the sense that biological systems are “programed to correct”. Biological processes have no programmed direction that can precisely reverse course. Evolution is not ascending a ladder of perfection or progressing in a particular direction - There is just change to meet local exigencies (or not meeting those exigencies in which case the result is extinction).

What you don’t understand is that a mutation is only important in an evolutionary sense if it spreads through a population. That is the result of processes other than just mutation - it requires genetic drift or selection. Once the mutation is into the population, it can't be stopped. This is just simple probability theory.

Mutations are driving force of new species. I gave you a peer reviewed study showing that. There are lots more.

Present your peer reviewed study supporting your claim that “ back mutations” make anything impossible.
 
You're rambling on.
REVERSION <<< to return to the previous state.
DNA does that. It is programed to return to the original order. It is coded to correct itself. It does not make the same mistake for the millions of years it would take to produce a new species.
The auto correct mechanism of DNA is a design to prevent a cow from turning into a hamster.
Science says so, you loon.
 
Evolutionary biologists have spent decades breeding bacteria and fruit flies in a futile attempt to demonstrate evolutionary progress. They have failed miserably and admitted as much. The fruit flies which mutated, had four wings, couldn't fly and couldn't possibly survive except in the lab where they were lovingly cared for. Darwin's Zombies ignore science and shoot their mouths off feigning knowledge that they so obviously lack.

Incidentally, everyone has seen nature programs where narrators, such as David Attenborough, invariably state, "This animal is perfectly adapted for its environment." They NEVER SAY "perfectly evolved" for obvious reasons.

His Zombies don't want to learn because that would mean they have to admit that they were wrong - something they utterly refuse even to consider.

Thank you Ram Tough!!!
Good points. It could be that the most successful life forms that ADAPT to their environmental conditions are successful because, over time, DNA favors those adaptations in order to keep those life forms thriving. Playing with DNA in a lab would naturally not work because there is no real need for it.
 
I have you on my Ignore List for your cowardly, reprehensible insults which are devoid of science and understanding.
But just to make my point, why don't you retrieve your most brilliant and original post educating readers on the scientific subject of your choice. I don't recall you or Hollie every saying anything educational that you created yourself.
This isn't about me, it's about you. But just for the record, my published book of inspirational science can be purchased on Amazon.com where a medical doctor in Buffalo, New York, reviewed it with Five Stars and said it "is beyond outstanding."
A dentist in Tennessee said "it should be required reading for every high school student." The doctor said "it should be required reading for every literate person." Book Commentary gave it a Five Star Review and said it "is pure genius."

So your calling me "science illiterate" is bitter, hateful gaslighting, nothing more.
You’re totally disregarding what science is about…..it proves nothing, but adds understanding because it depends the evidence available. So the idea that science is either right or wrong is absurd. Your ignorance is absolute when it comes to science. It’s not like every accredited university in the world can’t straighten your craziness out; you just have to go to their web sites and ask. But, no…..just keep repeating the same tripe.
Btw, you still want respect in a discussion on a topic you know nothing about. You’re a fraud.
 
Good points. It could be that the most successful life forms that ADAPT to their environmental conditions are successful because, over time, DNA favors those adaptations in order to keep those life forms thriving. Playing with DNA in a lab would naturally not work because there is no real need for it.
Don’t humor him. He’s just making up sht.
 
You're rambling on.
REVERSION <<< to return to the previous state.
DNA does that. It is programed to return to the original order. It is coded to correct itself. It does not make the same mistake for the millions of years it would take to produce a new species.
The auto correct mechanism of DNA is a design to prevent a cow from turning into a hamster.
Science says so, you loon.

I see you’re angry but rather than flailing around, provide something, other than unsourced copying and pasting, that shows DNA is “coded to correct itself”. Your, “science says so because I say so”, is no where to be found in your post.

Provide a peer reviewed study that shows an “auto correct” mechanism in DNA. I see nothing in your post to indicate that DNA has any design. I see nothing in your post to indicate that DNA will magically, auto-correct to revert to a previous state. That’s just silly.

I’m not convinced that your, “because I say so”, admonitions are convincing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top