The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[Ringtone]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

 

[Votto]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

 

[konradv]

Evolution is 100 percent fact. I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Predictable! From the above:

And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

I know all about your religious conviction and its supposed supports. I brought down virtually straight A's in advanced courses on the topic in college, and my professors never had the slightest inkling that I regarded the doctrine as a giant myth built on nothing more than the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

No
He was 100 percent right on the main premise of evolution
Not new news

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact. I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.

The genes and DNA don’t lie !!
Plus you have the huge fossil record
You have many evolutionary remnants in your body and the human body is riddled with errors

 

[Votto]

Evolution is 100 percent fact. I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.

It is relevant since he came up with the theory.

So what about the theory was he wrong if anything?

 

[Hollie]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.
So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.
Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existinggenetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.
From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.

More of the fear, ignorance and superstitions which afflict the hyper-religious.

 

[Votto]

1. 
   

2. The Failure Of Evolution Theory
   by Christian von Wielligh
   
   
   Excerpt:
   
   

   For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

   
   Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.
   So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.
   Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existinggenetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.
   
   Read More
   
   Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory
   
   Excerpt:
   
   

   Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

   
   Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.
   From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.

   More of the fear, ignorance and superstitions which afflict the hyper-religious.

Fear? Fear of what exactly?

I sense fear from those who are not religious in this thread.

 

[Ringtone]

Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.

How do "the advances in DNA technology" support Neo-Darwinism?

 

[Ringtone]

The genes and DNA don’t lie !!
Plus you have the huge fossil record
You have many evolutionary remnants in your body and the human body is riddled with errors.

How do degenerate genomes support evolution?

 

[Hollie]

1. 
   

2. The Failure Of Evolution Theory
   by Christian von Wielligh
   
   
   Excerpt:
   
   

   For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

   
   Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.
   So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.
   Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existinggenetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.
   
   Read More
   
   Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory
   
   Excerpt:
   
   

   Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

   
   Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.
   From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.

   More of the fear, ignorance and superstitions which afflict the hyper-religious.

Fear? Fear of what exactly?

I sense fear from those who are not religious in this thread.

Fear of knowledge, clearly. YEC'ers such as the OP tend to launch into anti-science cut and paste tirades when their sacred cows of supernatural events are dismissed as coming from fear and superstition.

 

[toobfreak]

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible,

Don't you mean neo-Wallacism? For it was just a theory to Darwin, Wallace proved it and Darwin stole the credit.

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism

Easy. It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared to where life evolved into a eukaryote. And that was after more than 500 million years of sunlight, UV, lightning and chemical reactions in a liquid ocean.

And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.

Easy. Nature is a mad scientist who tries unlimited combinations until it finds what works best and those better solutions are encoded into the new organism because they SURVIVE BETTER. For more rapid informational changes than biochemically possible, organisms develop a nervous system able to understand, react to their environment and REMEMBER a new set of instructions making it better able to SURVIVE. Beyond that, it's all a matter of GOD.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.

WHAT advances in DNA tech by evolutionists/scientists?! God put it together...it's just taking us a long time to figure out what he arranged. AND as the OP stated...whenever ya go messing with stuff God set up, all you do is to corrupt it and cause misery and death.

 

[Ringtone]

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible,

Don't you mean neo-Wallacism? For it was just a theory to Darwin, Wallace proved it and Darwin stole the credit.

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism

Easy. It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared to where life evolved into a eukaryote. And that was after more than 500 million years of sunlight, UV, lightning and chemical reactions in a liquid ocean.

And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.

Easy. Nature is a mad scientist who tries unlimited combinations until it finds what works best and those better solutions are encoded into the new organism because they SURVIVE BETTER. For more rapid informational changes than biochemically possible, organisms develop a nervous system able to understand, react to their environment and REMEMBER a new set of instructions making it better able to SURVIVE. Beyond that, it's all a matter of GOD.


View attachment 465529

So mere chemistry did all that, eh?

Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .

No matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

 

[toobfreak]

So mere chemistry did all that, eh?

What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry? Unless you want to include some undefined supernatural influence of God, which no one can show, define, prove or disprove?

Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .

Whatever reality that might be.

No matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves

No one can say what is possible under conditions we don't know over a time interval of 500-600 million years, a time interval we can't even imagine as beings who only live 60-80 years conducting tests for days, weeks to a few years.

That is like asking a raindrop to imagine the ocean.

 

[Hollie]

The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.

 

[Ringtone]

What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry?

So prebiotic, organic material = biochemical organisms?!

Unless you want to include some undefined supernatural influence of God, which no one can show, define, prove or disprove?

Nonsense. The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.

No one can say what is possible under conditions we don't know over a time interval of 500-600 million years, a time interval we can't even imagine as beings who only live 60-80 years conducting tests for days, weeks to a few years.

That is like asking a raindrop to imagine the ocean.

60-80 years of tests?! LOL! You don't seem to even grasp what abiogenesis would be.

There's no way in hell the rudimentary chemistry of prebiotic materials could ever produce even the simplest life form, and abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated, let alone observed—not now, not ever!

You really have no idea about the realities of chemical evolution. I'll tell you what, you read my article on abiogenesis and then get back to me: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[Hollie]

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible,

Don't you mean neo-Wallacism? For it was just a theory to Darwin, Wallace proved it and Darwin stole the credit.

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism

Easy. It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared to where life evolved into a eukaryote. And that was after more than 500 million years of sunlight, UV, lightning and chemical reactions in a liquid ocean.

And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.

Easy. Nature is a mad scientist who tries unlimited combinations until it finds what works best and those better solutions are encoded into the new organism because they SURVIVE BETTER. For more rapid informational changes than biochemically possible, organisms develop a nervous system able to understand, react to their environment and REMEMBER a new set of instructions making it better able to SURVIVE. Beyond that, it's all a matter of GOD.


View attachment 465529

So mere chemistry did all that, eh?

Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .

No matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

"Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .''

I see, Back to the reality of supernatural gods.

How cute,