Is evolution proven science or theory

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 15:02

from a scientific focus....why is it proven science?

Dusty · 05-04-2013, 15:05

It's bullshit.

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 15:07

my position is that the DNA code barrier and gene depletion coupled with natural selection make Darwinian style species 'creation' impossible.
Micro, within species development is possible and factual with gene depletion.

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 15:09

Dusty, guys, want to have a scientific discussion only....we all may benefit from that...these evo have been deleted before because it got personal, don't want that.
Just want to deal with the common evo explanations on a 'scientific' basis.

If this is too touchy for you just read and observe....I enjoy the non emotional discourse...if it gets silly I'll delete the thread.

I know we have lots of smarter scientific types than myself but I've never seen a convincing factual presentation....all periphery arguments

GratefulCitizen · 05-04-2013, 15:18

What are the initial assumptions upon which the theory is built?

For example:
What are the initial conditions?
What is the specific time scale/ when does it "start"?
Do the laws of chemistry and physics operate continuously in a manner consistent with what we now understand them to be?

There is nothing wrong with having initial assumptions as every theory has to have a foundation.
They just need to be clearly identified.

Given the initial assumptions, logical conclusions can be drawn and tested against known evidence.

alelks · 05-04-2013, 15:42

Stole this from another site just to kick this off and start some conversation:

Part 1:

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

alelks · 05-04-2013, 15:43

Part 2:

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

Now as a side note, I would like to present this article for discussion also, lets call it # 12 shall we? This one I need to look into as I do not quite follow this as I should even though I took Introductory Geology. I am really having trouble with any scientific explanation for this one.

I know I posted more than I should but most will not follow the link, maybe this way they will actually READ it before responding.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead

A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing intelligent design in nature. One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system called a bacterial flagellum found in many bacteria including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint and flexible propeller. The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much to small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer.

I had always heard that the smallest living thing has 23 parts, and it could not exist without all 23 and therefore could not have evolved. It made sense and I am sorry I do not remember where I heard this but the text directly above is darn near the same thing. How can evolution explain this?

How can these smallest of parts that need to be there in number evolve? It doesnt make sense. Just as the deeper you go into Space, when you travel to the smallest parts of creation, it gets MORE complicated, not less.

It would seem that some scientists at least believe that evolution can not explain this complexity in the world.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Cell
- Overconfidence in Evolution the Problem - Get rid of that fairy tale, and we will begin to deal correctly from effect to cause
- Too Much Complexity in Just One Cell - It is bigger than New York City!
- Cells Only Reproduce after Their Kind - They obey the law of Genesis 1
- Evolutionary Theories Are Ridiculous - They do not explain the facts
- Each Cell Is Full of Complicated Parts - We still do not understand its full complexity
- All its Parts Had to Begin Operating at the Same Time - Gradual changeover could not succeed
- Evolutionary Theory Offers No Solutions - We must look elsewhere for answers

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE CELL

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 15:48

The conditions are our DNA, genetic code, and how 'it' operates. It is why I've always had trouble with macro evolution.
Evolution is explained, generally, as mutations that occur over time evolving a species....that works within a species as a depletion of genetic code, not an addition.
Mutations within DNA are a 'weaker code' (thankfully) and not dominant....for species change to take place the mutation would have to be dominant to 'build' and not devolve.
Natural selection reduces mutation within the same species....like the wild horse herd in Nevada that is so interbred many horses are born blind...a mutation that lead to a loss of DNA building blocks...if a healthy herd were introduced natural selection would 'fix' the mutation in some generations...the healthy DNA would not be overcome it would dominate....so how did mutaion lead to a new species.
The DNA barrier code is also a problem...a mutation will not pass the barrier code to reproduce once removed....Beefalo, close but not exactly the DNA, mate and have an offspring that is incapable of reproduction...the barrier code.
My question then is, how does a mutation build or add huge elements of new DNA over riding natural selection and the DNA barrier code.

Dusty · 05-04-2013, 15:57

PRB, I call bullshit because no evidence has ever been displayed. IMO, it falls into the same category as ghosts, werewolves, fake moon landings and 911 truth.

Any farmer or dog breeder can tell you Gregor Mendel was on the money, but until I see a fossil of whatever evolved into a platypus, I'm gonna remain patently skeptical of Darwin's crap.

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty

PRB, I call bullshit because no evidence has ever been displayed. IMO, it falls into the same category as ghosts, werewolves, fake moon landings and 911 truth.

Any farmer or dog breeder can tell you Gregor Mendel was on the money, but until I see a fossil of whatever evolved into a platypus, I'm gonna remain patently skeptical of Darwin's crap.

Dusty,
I'm in agreement with you but want a scientific counter point based upon our DNA that explains 'how' it could happen when those that deal with DNA know it would have to reverse the nature of DNA's essence.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 05-04-2013, 16:06

You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice.

alelks · 05-04-2013, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice.

As long as we can find a conservative scientist also. Science is WAY OVER MY HEAD!

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice.

as long as he/she can discuss the DNA aspect as that has to be the key....I've never heard a molecular biologist explain away those known factors

btw, I'm not being liberal or conservative about this......I've heard all kinds of theories and almost science, stuff folks accept .... but evolution has to come back to our DNA and how it 'works' not how one thinks it should have happened or 'might have' mutated.
DNA works in a very specific way....even take mutating bacteria/virus's....the mutation is a change of loss of make up, not an addition of new DNA...

Dusty · 05-04-2013, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRB

Dusty,
I'm in agreement with you but want a scientific counter point based upon our DNA that explains 'how' it could happen when those that deal with DNA know it would have to reverse the nature of DNA's essence.

That would definitely be an interesting counter point.

**PRB** · 05-04-2013, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty

That would definitely be an interesting counter point.

Yes, it would...and I'm no scientist just looked into that aspect of the evolution theory.
In what I've seen our DNA is built so as to withstand mutation, to protect the 'species' and has multiple defense systems to do just that.
Evolution, development thru mutation (whatever the cause), says exactly the opposite....that environmentally/specie induced mutations 'created' new DNA to allow one species to become another thus creating a totally dif chain of DNA.
This would nullify the way we scientifically know our DNA works.....or so I believe.