Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree14Likes
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 4 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Is this article scientifically accurate?

  1. #1 Is this article scientifically accurate? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1
    Hello, i would like to know if there is anything wrong with this one, verbis:
    How Evolution Flunked Science Test
    (...) Mutations—How Big the Changes?<br>
    Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism that are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular<br>
    number of chromosomes that contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else—with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or<br>
    half-men.<br>
    Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist!<br>
    He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong. But let's look at the vehicle that the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:<br>
    "Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all … heritable variation" (Evolution in Action, p. 38).<br>
    Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement:<br>
    "Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on" (Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170).<br>
    Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species that changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT—the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism<br>
    worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism" (Ibid. p. 39).<br>
    Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:<br>
    "Obviously … such a process has played no part whatever in evolution" (The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96).<br>
    (...) The Mystery of the Empty Strata<br>
    Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to<br>
    the succession of strata that pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as the scientists have tagged them.<br>
    Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving<br>
    creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.<br>
    Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:<br>
    "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (p. 309).<br>
    How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.<br>
    Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axeliod of the University of California calls it:<br>
    "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution" (Science, July 4, 1958).<br>
    Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:<br>
    "Strange as it may seem … mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably as they are now" (The<br>
    New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101).<br>
    Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these<br>
    words:<br>
    "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent<br>
    or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? … If there has been evolution<br>
    of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling"<br>
    (Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102).<br>
    George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it:<br>
    "The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record<br>
    but also its greatest apparent inadequacy" (The Evolution of Life, p.144).<br>
    In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can<br>
    these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they<br>
    fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble<br>
    under the impartial investigation of honest research.<br>
    The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists—a<br>
    sudden creative act of God that brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time.<br>
    Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true<br>
    evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.<br>
    Uniformity or the Flood?<br>
    The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of how these layers were formed,<br>
    and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years. The dating of<br>
    those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that<br>
    all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other<br>
    words, the creation of those strata can only be explained on the basis of what we see happening<br>
    in the world now. Scientists must calculate how long it takes for sedimentation to build a footdeep<br>
    stratum. Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located<br>
    within the earth.<br>
    Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural forces of the past been just what we<br>
    can demonstrate and understand today? How naive and conceited to compel ages past to<br>
    conform to our limited observation and experience! We can assume what we please, but it<br>
    proves absolutely nothing except our own gullibility (...)"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    It falls back on the creationist claim of "transitional fossils."
    Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists.
    It is not just inaccurate, but dishonest.
    It goes on to misrepresent all it can, in the hopes of validation primitive superstitious beliefs that the author simply cannot let go of and is perfectly willing to lie, mislead and distort to protect.

    The beauty of the scientific method is that it relies on independent verification. You don't have to take it on faith as to how an author will lead you to water- you can go straight to the source:
    JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else—with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or<br>
    half-men.<br>
    You have to ask if this is scientifically accurate?

    It's rubbish.
    Neverfly and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    when was this article written?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I don't know when, but it's from a site called amazingfacts.org, which is a fundamentalist bible site.

    We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. (See 2 Timothy 3:16.)
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I don't know when, but it's from a site called amazingfacts.org, which is a fundamentalist bible site.

    We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. (See 2 Timothy 3:16.)
    ah well that should clarify things well enough.

    I was also just thinking, (stand back), doesn't evolution of single cell organisms happen very quickly, for instance the constant mutation (ie evolution) of the influenza virus, or countless bacterium that have now become extremely resistant to antibiotics?

    If this is correct, then evolution has been observed and the observation of unicellular organisms is not a new thing. To observe evolution in complex organisms takes exponentially more time because the complexity of the cooperative nature of all the cells involved and because the changes appear more subtle.

    If a change is seen as a minnow and the environment the minnow is in is the life form it is a part of. The minnow(change) will be much more obvious if the minnow is in a cup of water rather than in the deepest ocean.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    The title itself is false.
    After that it just gets worse.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I was also just thinking, (stand back), doesn't evolution of single cell organisms happen very quickly, for instance the constant mutation (ie evolution) of the influenza virus, or countless bacterium that have now become extremely resistant to antibiotics?
    Probably more accurate to say it CAN happen very quickly when put under extreme selective pressure.
    --

    As for the OP quotes, the article is junk starting the illusion to the Cambrian "explosion" which actually spans tens of millions of years and does in fact have many phenotypes that are gone or exceeding rare today and a simple google search will reveal that pre-cambrian fossils do exist and are consistent in form with simpler life as evolution suggest should be the case.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I notice that the O.P. pasted a full article but did not link the source. Am I the only one left with the feeling that we've been had?
    seagypsy and astromark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    It's just a religious fundy, taking advantage of an opportunity to post his screed.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I would ask that ' Abedenego' be directed to study some science as seen on the Islands of 'Galapagos'..

    and just take deep breaths for a while.. that tirade of text was a dreadful stream of junk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Almost every single sentence of that article contains an error, misinformation, or a flat out lie.

    It isn't just inaccurate on a scientific level, it is wholly and completely disingenuous and appears to have been written for the sole purpose of misdirecting the ignorant away from the truth and back into the warm comfortable arms of willful stupidity.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How accurate is CARBON DATING?
    By BioHazard in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 30th, 2014, 04:25 PM
  2. THERMODYNAMIC CIVILIZATION: ACCURATE
    By Schizo in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 14th, 2011, 03:33 AM
  3. Is this video scientifically accurate?
    By Raymond K in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 19th, 2008, 08:44 AM
  4. carbon dating accurate?
    By xenobiology in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2007, 11:56 AM
  5. More accurate user count
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2004, 11:52 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •