evolving

[bippy123]

If macro-evolution is true then it should be very easy to prove in a laboratory would it. For over 20 years scientists exposed fruit flies to every harsh condition they could think of and exposed them to many different types of radiations to induce mutations. Because of the life cycle of the fruit fly it equated to the equivalent of 200,000 years and not only didn't the fruit fly turn into something else but every mutation that it had either crippled the fruit fly or killed them.

Macro evolution not only has never been observed in nature but has never been observed in the fossil record, and they keep throwing this bold face lie at us and expect us to except it as gospel truth. For most of my life I swallowed this malarkey hook line and sinker and I considered myself a theistic evolutionist.

It wasn't until Stephen Meyer and signature in the cell that I started to have full blown reservations about evolution.

In addition to all this scientists could never explain how a sophisticated language like DNA could arise naturally by blind chance. Throughout history language and complex information has only been known to arise from a mind , and yet darwinists just want us to accept evilution just because they say it is right ?

Even the top evolutionary biologists that gathered together in 1980 for the now famous Chicago conference said that you
cannot extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution, so an evolutionary biologist whose last name is Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium that basically said that there are no intermediate fossil forms that Darwinian theory predicted because the evolutionary process magically speeded up to turn one form of animal into another. We have never observed it in nature but the evolutionists want us to believe this because they "Said So"?

This was when I became so ticked of at being lied to that I started using my evolution books as toilet paper literally (I think this was why I developed hemmoroids, but that another storylol).

Macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium are just lies from naturalists to try to explain away the incredible information in DNA and the cell occurring naturally.

[Stu]

Hi bippy, I think you'll find Michael Behe's book The Edge of Evolution a fascinating and enlightening read, if you haven't already done so
Busy on The Mysterious Epigenome myself.

[jlay]

Vestigiality is a dead end road for Darwinism. It is going the opposite direction. It shows a functioning organ atrophying. This in no way accounts for the original function of the organ or its existence to begin with. Only its diminished function. If you put a patch over one of your eyes and left it there for years, guess what? Your eye will atrophy. The muscles will weaken, the receptors will weaken.
So, how does this support molecules to man evolution? Is it change? Yes. And in that sense it is evolution. But it is fallacious reasoning to take an example of evolution (change) and use it to support evolution (Darwinism). That is the common fallacy of equivocation.

This fallacy goes something like this: We see evolution (change, such as vestigiality) happening, therefore evolution (Darwinism) must be true.

The real problem with organs is function. The issue with the appendix has to do with function. It seems apparent that the appendix has lost some functionality. So how does Darwinism account for function in the first place? No scientist in their right mind denies the functionality of the eye, the heart, etc. You take any mechanism today, such as a remote control, and try to explain its function as the result of unguided, mindless processes and you will be rightfully called insane. Yet take something that functions like the human eye, and not only that, but functions in concert with a myriad of other functioning organs and systems, call it the result of mindless chance, and you'll be labeled intelligent. In fact so called 'intelligent' people say we should exclude the option that functionality is the result of conceptualization and design. Sure, no mind conceived of the eye. A functioning eye with all its intricacies and contrivances just happened.

There is no device ever invented where function did not precede existence. Someone wanted to control a TV remotely (function) and they conceived a device, designed it, and then fabricated the device. If I hold a remote, I don't have to personally see it invented to know its function. I also do not have to see the inventor to be 100% certain that an inventor exist. Function tells we with absolute certainty that a mind is responsible. To think otherwise is absurd.

[goldmoor]

THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT

[bippy123]

Stu we are 50 percent related to a banana?????
That's one of my favorite fruits
If I eat it am I committing murder ? Hehe

[bippy123]

Stu thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
Jlay awesome post, and put in an easy way so we can understand .
What darwinists keep trying to propose flies in the face of common sense and logic.

Stu I just wanted to update this post as I was reading some reviews on the epigenome.
Wow, I never knew about this, and they are saying that epigenomes are irreducibly complex which means that they didn't evolve, they came as they were.
I wonder why we don't find this in a high school biology class

[MrRoboto]

I recently had a discussion with someone recently who claimed we had wisdom teeth because the jaw of a monkey was bigger than human's and when we evolved our jaws got smaller but we still have the same number of teeth. I had always heard wisdom teeth were there because of the rough diet of early man required these teeth to come in later. My point is there may have been a time when the appendix had a bigger purpose. We don't need wisdom teeth now because our diet is made up of milder and "chew friendly" food. It's funny how some people want to make what science doesn't know a problem for God.

[dayage]

If anyone cares to read it, here is a short article and a podcast on wisdom teeth.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/wisdom- ... -foresight
http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -ancestors

More about "useless parts."
http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... body-parts

[bippy123]

Another excellent video on a phd who was a Christian teenager who by college converted from Christianity to atheism because his church pastors couldnt answer his questions on evolution and his conversion back to Christianity that started with when one of his students who was a math major told him that the math for evolution and mutations just didn't make sense. Very interesting.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91-ABJ4 ... ata_player

[KBCid]

Do we share 95-99% of our DNA with chimps?

A better question here would be "how much of the human genome is compared to the chimp genome in order to get that shared percentage"?
This is something I think should be addressed on this topic, we should know all the details of what is meant by their percentages.
Consider this reference;

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,6 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

If this is what can be expected as a comparison of genomes then it would appear that the game is rigged. If the 95-99% calculation is based on a selection set of only part of the bases from each of the genomes then making any assertion about how alike they are globally is not back by scientific method. the proper way for them to say the truth would be to say 95-99% of the 1% of each genome we tested has the same or similar bases. This leaves 99% of each genomes untested for similarity. If I were to test only 1% of everything man made how many things would be 95-99% the same?

Have a look at this reference;

Mice, men share 99 percent of genes
When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men. Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.
"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/tech ... _s=PM:TECH

or this one;

It appears that only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... ticle=1038

Suppose for a moment that the coding part of lifes genetic code is simply the coding for the machinery and substrates used to construct the structures. Would it not be logical then that since all living structures require machinery and substrates to be built that all life would share many of these foundational components? It would make sense to me that the so called coding regions are not the blueprint for a specific form of life but rather the tools used to form it from the blueprint which would seem to be contained in the notorious non-coding regions or "junk DNA"

[bippy123]

Kbc excellent post, yet we won't hear about it in our biology classes. Yet we will hear in bold letters the 99% number.
Anything that leads to any evidence for intelligent design must be kept out of high schools and university. This is the so-called science they want us read. How dare we think for ourselves. How dare we have intuitive evidence that leads to an intelligent creator that thought us into existence.

Happy Good Friday everyone
God bless