Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

**PRB** · 05-05-2013, 12:18

Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.
I think we all get the micro in species evolving...but that is a totally different deal that new species creation from another.
What I've noted so far, and in other discussions, is the micro evolution process
( dna replication/stacking and dna mutation within a specific species) to support the theory that new additional dna (not duplicate of existing parent dna and including new HOX creation) is possible ergo macro evolution or new species creation exists. That is a great leap scientifically....and not scientifically proven...postulating at best.
The 'charts' we've all seen of apes walking to manhood etc are of the same genre.
The 'assumption' is 'they kind of look like us' have similar dna (as does a pig btw) so it follows we developed from them. The dna barrier/mutation/natural selection process in that high order of developed species would argue directly against that.
The barrier/mutation/nat selection process is observable and quantifiable....there is no species jumping dna in that catagory....none.
The charts also rely on 'time testing' that is very 'objective' extremely so as stated in "The Anthropological Journal of Canada" R. Lee, radiocarbon, Ages of Error comments
"The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious....half of the dates are rejected...there are gross discrepancies...accepted dates are ""selected dates"".
So whomever made the monkey chart lined his primates up in order to support his thesis time wise and that is not science but science fiction.
The 'geological column' has also proven to be about as scientific as the date it was first put forward...the late 1700's.

05-05-2013, 12:18	#43
PRB Quiet Professional Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,333	Gents, I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation. I think we all get the micro in species evolving...but that is a totally different deal that new species creation from another. What I've noted so far, and in other discussions, is the micro evolution process ( dna replication/stacking and dna mutation within a specific species) to support the theory that new additional dna (not duplicate of existing parent dna and including new HOX creation) is possible ergo macro evolution or new species creation exists. That is a great leap scientifically....and not scientifically proven...postulating at best. The 'charts' we've all seen of apes walking to manhood etc are of the same genre. The 'assumption' is 'they kind of look like us' have similar dna (as does a pig btw) so it follows we developed from them. The dna barrier/mutation/natural selection process in that high order of developed species would argue directly against that. The barrier/mutation/nat selection process is observable and quantifiable....there is no species jumping dna in that catagory....none. The charts also rely on 'time testing' that is very 'objective' extremely so as stated in "The Anthropological Journal of Canada" R. Lee, radiocarbon, Ages of Error comments "The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious....half of the dates are rejected...there are gross discrepancies...accepted dates are ""selected dates"". So whomever made the monkey chart lined his primates up in order to support his thesis time wise and that is not science but science fiction. The 'geological column' has also proven to be about as scientific as the date it was first put forward...the late 1700's. Last edited by PRB; 05-05-2013 at 12:23.
PRB is offline