In fact, I believe evolution is more akin to a religion: this theory cannot be falsified (and is therefore not a scientific theory) and every evidence presented in support of evolution is questionable. Basically, you subscribe to the theory of evolution through your faith - much like a religion.
This webpage explains the theory of evolution and elaborates on some of the evidences in its support. It also points out the problems with the evidences. Another webpage explores some phenomenom that poses major problems to the theory of evolution (See: click here )
This change happens naturally (a copy mistake in mitosis), or under external influence, such as radiation (sun, cell tower, etc).
#sides + #corners = #faces + 2
A theory is then formulated that:
In this case, the formula is falsified using a polydral with a "protruding block":
|Science must go WHEREEVER the EVIDENCES take it|
|Example: Grativational law:|
In other words, there must be experiments that can be performed and observed and whose outcome will disprove the theorem conclusively.
If a theory is not falsifiable - i.e., we cannot find any experiment to falsify the theory - then the theory is NOT scientific - the "theory" is nothing more than a RELIGION !!!
(If someone propose a theory and there is NOT WAY to find out if it is TRUE or NOT, that theory is NOT SCIENTIFIC, but in reality, a RELIGION)
But it is a religious doctrine,
because there does not exist an experiment that when performed, will allow us to disprove it conclusively.
evolution is an accepted fact for everyone
a fundamentist minority
whose objection are based not on reasoning
but on doctrinairy adherence to religious principles
-- James Watson, 1965, Molecular Biology of the Gene
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"
-- Richard Dawkin, The Blind Watchmaker
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the sense in the light
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973
IF all the information you get on evolution is from school textbooks and television, you will believe that evolution is a proven fact
Only "mindless fools" and "religious zealots" would reject evolution based on "doctrinairy adherence to religious principles"
where they claim that:
Scientists who utterly
REJECT evolution may be one of our
FASTEST-GROWING controversial minorities....
Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science
--- Larry Hatfield in Science Digest
Notice that these are not "mindless fools" or "religious zealots"; many of them work in research areas like micro-biology - they know the stuff on evolution and yet, they have questions of how well the evidence match up with the theory !!!
In the next section in this webpage, I will outline a number of flaws of the "Theory" of Evolution and also a number of examples in nature that this "theorem" is having a hard time explaning
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; then we should call it a duck...
I like to demonstrate that the theory of evolution looks like a religion, quacks like a religion and walks like a religion... yet, it claims to be "science"...
Scientific theories MUST be falsifiable
If a theory CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, it is NOT scientific but a RELIGION (DOCTRINES)
How can the "Theory" of Evolution be FALSIFIED ?
|The "Theory" of Evolution CAN NEVER be FALSIFIED (i.e., disproved) CONCLUSIVELY|
There is not a single experiment/phenomenon that you design/name that when observe will conclusively falsify the theory of evolution !!! (Try it yourself...)
There are NO IMPOSSIBLE OUTCOMES in a RANDOM NATURAL PROCESS
EVERY OUTCOME is possible (although not probable, it is still possible)
The random process could have created one ancester first and then the random mutation of this one ancestor bring forth the existing plants and animals.
But it is also possible that two or more ancester "being" were formed.
So Evolution cannot be falsified either way.
Based on phenotypes (external appearance), humans should be closer related to apes....
HOWEVER, even the discovery the human is closer related to a fruit fly will not disprove the "Theory" of evolution conclusively
The discover will raise some eye-brows.... and MAY even persuade some to reject it.... but will NOT disprove the "Theory of evolution" because the RANDOM mutation COULD have make dogs (or fruit flies) and humans share a common ancestor (rather than humans and chimps)
Consequently, do NOT call the "theory of evolution" a scientific theory - because science deals with falsifiable theories. (You make a hypothesis in Physics and then design experiments to show whether it is true or not).
|Because the "Theory of Evolution" can NEVER be FALSIFIED CONCLUSIVELY it is not a scientific theory, and it is in fact a RELIGION !!!|
Note: protein molecules are not self-replicating; the two candidate molucules are DNA or RNA - something like a virus.
NOTE: Although virusses are "self-replicating", they cannot replicate without a host. In fact, without the "chemical factories" inside a cell, a virus is as dead as a doorknop...
Evolutionists commonly use these examples to showcase that "evolution is a proven fact" (which are debunked by Jonathan Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution"):
Furthermore, Miller assumed that the was no oxygen (O2) (he had to, because when you add O2 to the mixture, one spark and the whole atmosphere will blow up !!!)
Now, ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere are susceptable to high energy radiation and these molecules will be split apart by ultra-violet and gamma raditions !!!
Hence, you will not find ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere.
By mid 1975, Biochemist Marcel Florkin declared that the assumption of the primitive Earth Atmosphere was wrong
In 1995, Science magazine reported that experts now dismissed Miller's experiment because the primitive Earth Atmosphere was nothing like what Miller had assumed:
(And may even contain Oxygen according to NASA scientists !!!)
Now, when Miller's experiment is REPEATED WITHOUT Hydrogen (H2), Ammonia (NH3) and Methane (CH4), we get:
The fossil records DO NOT SUPPORT the "Tree of Life" which is a predictive outcome of the "Theory" of Evolution
In fact, the fossil record supports the creation scenario !!! (But you won't hear that in any public school...)
Other embryo's by Richardson that make the point that they are VERY DIFFERENT:
NOTE: "Science" is NOT some Religious Magazine, but a Scientific publication !!!
Now where did I read something like that.... ???
|2Corinthians 4:3-4 ---- But our gospel is also hidden. It is hidden to those being lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them....|
In other words: The truth is hidden from the Evolutionists !!!
Recent research in DNA has shown that the closeness of species relationship CANNOT be concluded based on looks
Case in point: Australian and European birds
|Some Australian birds||Some European birds|
All this example showed is that a changing environment EMPHASIZES a property that is already present in the genome of the peppered moths.
It was then clear that the color of the trees was NOT the determinant factor for the survival of the differently colored moths... (it may still be a case of natural selection).
What happened next was researcher was curious about WHAT really cause the mix in the peppermoth population to shift and what they found was VERY EMBARRSASSING to the Evolutioists' cause....
Research unveiled that peppermoths DO NOT rest of barks of trees, but at tree tops so the coloring of the tree bark has zilt to do with their survival.
Then they wonder how come pictures in Biology text books show peppermoths resting on tree barks.... and they found out that those pictures were taken by some ingenious photigrapher who glued DEAD peppermoths on the tree bark....
This (and many other examples, like Haeckel's embryos) really show you how wonderfully creative some Evolutionists are... Things sure looks a lot like "Enron" or "Worldcom"....
Some school textbook will have you believe that the horse evolved this way:
Students need to be informed that the horse evolution "story" is just that, a story:
George Gaylord Simpson (Paleontologist), Life of the Past, 1953
Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner
In SIMPLER English:
|We do NOT have a CLUE how the horse exactly evolved, but we will teach something to you anyway, because we BELIEVE it is true....|
How is THAT different from religion ????
|Fish living on ocean surface|| ||Fish living in cave|
|In the cave fish, the lens and optic cup develop normally for the first 24 hours; after this, however, the lens cells undergo programmed cell death or apoptosis. The cornea and iris do not form and the retina is extremely disorganized. Growth of the eye stops and photoreceptor cells never develop. The rudimentary eye eventually sinks back and is covered by skin.|
The eyeless fish develops its eyes normally during the first day and then the development stops....
The researchers suspect that some external stimuli is neccessary to promote normal growth.
However, it is a TERRIBLE example for EVOLUTION
This mutation was DEGENERATE i.e., it caused information LOSS,
BTW, LOSING some capability that a specie has is VERY EASY to accomplish - happens MOST of the time in mutation
Most mutations are HARMFUL, which NATURAL SELECTION will root out....
Bacteria sometimes develop resistance to even powerful antibiotics: click here
But is it evolution ? In other words, did bacteria develop new properties ? The answer is not really.
Batteria become resistent to anti-biotics in 2 ways:
Furthermore, it is also known that some batteria that are not harmful to humans (does not cause desease in humans) are in fact resistent to anti-biotics.
The first way that a strain of harmful bacteria can become resistent to anti-biotics is through exchanging genetic information with the harmless strains.
When a person gets sick and uses anti-biotics, it will kill off the non-resistent straint, but not the resistent straint. Through this process of "natural selection" (when you use new anti-biotics to kill off bacteria), you will eventually get a straint of bacteria that is resistant to every anti-biotic we have.
But this is NOT evolution - there are no new information added to the genome of the bateria.
The reason that some bacteria becomes resistent to anti-biotics is the fact that they were "damaged". The anti-biotics need to be "eaten" (transfered) into the bacteria in order to kill them. Bacteria (cells) have a sophisticated "pumping system" to move food from outside through the membrane into the bacteria..... Some bacteria developed a degenerative change that cause this "pumping system" to become less effective, in other words - they eat slower.....
Such bacteria will develop resistance to the antibiotics - because they are unable to take in a sufficiently large amount of poisonous anti-biotics that will kill them off.... HOWEVER, these drug-resistant microbes CANNOT COMPETE with the natural strains in the ABSENCE of antibiotics !!!
So these "super bugs" are WIMPS !!!! - if they are left in the wild to compete with the "normal bugs", they don't stand a change to survive - because they eat slower that the normal bugs, they starved to death.
(That's why the advise of doctors NOT to over-prescibe anti-biotics. Let these super-bugs die a NATURAL death)
Reference:: click here .
This was due to the fact that
In other word: scientists have not been able to come up with something other than fruit flies.....
So natural selection WORKS AGAINST MUTATION in all fruit fly experiments !!!
In other words: when you start with a fruit fly, you ain't gonna get anything BUT fruit flies....
The experiments have only produced geneticists' monster fruit flies - multiple heads, without eyes, etc...
It's kept alive in a lab - try to set it out in the wild and see how long it will survive....
--- James F. Crow, Radiation & mutation specialist.
--- In "Genetic Effects of Radiation" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, p. 19-20
That's indeed how we determine who is the biological father of a child in a paternal lawsuit.
and since the differences in the genome is the ultimate measure that determines how closely two species are related and whether they may have a common ancestor, looking at the outward characteristics will tell you SQUAT (NOTHING) about how closely they are related....
(This reminds me of a story where someone who lost his keys in some bushes in a dark area, but searches his keys in an area under a street light - because he could see there...)
Losos et. al. found that the Anolis lizard have "evolved" into two forms on many islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola).
One form is small and has short legs that live on fragile twigs. The other form is larger, with large toe pads that live on the crown of trees.
This is where it gets interesting:
(In other words: small lizards from island A and small lizards from island B look more alike than small and large lizards from the same island.)
But based on a comparison test of the mitochondrial DNA sequences of the different Anolis lizards, it was discovered that the small versions of the lizards from different island were not very closely related to one another !!! In fact, the small and large variants on the same island are more closely related to each other !!!
So lesson: you can't tell how closely two species are related to one another by their looks.
That is giving a lot of faith to a number of totally random processes (mutations happening to the lizards on different islands) to somehow synchronized themselves... As I mentioned earlier - it is impossible to disprove the religion of evolution, because there is a random component in this religion. This random component can allow any and every possible outcome.