Do you believe evolution after you read this?

Question

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

Answer 1

First, nothing is science is 100% correct. In science, there is ALWAYS the possibility of new evidence modifying an existing law, even though that's rare. Evolution (like Newton's theory of gravity) has such a huge body of evidence behind it that it fully deserves the title of scientific law.

Here's some of that evidence:

Apparently you are unaware that there are in fact flying snakes. That do in fact jump from trees and glide through the air.

Apparently you are unaware that speciation, the process of creating new species, has BEEN OBSERVED not just once but many times.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection ceases to operate on humans when humans take action -- such as wearing clothing -- that negates its effect.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection is just one part of the theory of evolution, and that mutation is another part.

Write back after you've read more about evolution than you've read about the Bible. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 2

I believe it's writer is illiterate in the facts about evolution.
He/she also neds to correct the use of the word 'regressive' in the bit about dogs, the word is 'recessive'.

A scientific law refers only to a very specific thing, like newton's second law, which deals with thrust. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." See a 'scientific law' deals only with one very small functioning piece of the material world.

A theory has a broader scope and deals with large systems.

Theory of relativity, deals with mass, gravity, acceleration, energy. Pretty much the whole universe.

Game theory deals mathematicaly with any kind of contest that has specific rules or is affected by statistical probabilty. Every kind of game.

Music theory, pretty much what it says, deals with the structure of music, no matter the genre or note structure, all music.

Theory of evolution, deals with every biological entity that has genes and the interaction between genes and environment over time. All life on earth that is or ever was or ever will be.

Why would you want to turn a dog into a cat? Breeding of the different varieties of dogs relied on mutations that happened after they separated from wolves. Hairlessness, exttreme short leggedness, anyone who's seen a mixbreed dog knows that the characters of the parents tend to blend, frequently with comical results, german shepard head on a stubby legged body. If these traits were RECESSIVE they would vanish in mixbreeds and mutts would look like wolves instead of chimeric clowns.

Actually seveal new plant species have been created via hybrid polyploidy. Several existing plant species have been recreated by hybrid polyploidy as well, explaining one method of speciation.

Natural selection refers to maladaptations resulting in death and benificial adaptations resulting in enhnced survival and reproductive rates. Your 'friend' needs to learn about the different kinds of mutations before he/she says that DNA can't be extended or shortened. There are several different kinds of mutation and one(duplication) can extend DNA and another (deletion) can shorten it. Mutatuion is the agent of change, natural selection just weeds out the failures.

Actually both handedness of proteins are produced, but the variaties have to be seperated from each other as they have different properties. You need to read the creationist bullsheets a little closer. If they couldn't make them they would have a hard time recognizing that the handedness was important in relation to chemical properties.

Humans need some UV exposure to process vitamin d, hunter gaterers can be darker because they get more than enough from their diet and only need a little help from the sun, pasty europeans didn't get enough from the neolithic farming diet so they got lighter to maximise UV exposure in the cloudy realm of northern europe. The sun's intensity is greater at the equator, but frequent cloud cover can cancel out any benefit that dark skin offers. It's more sunny were the eskimos live than in northern europe. No evolutionist makes the claim that lattitude and melenation are locked together, several creationists did prior to Darwin though.

Cheetahs came very close to extinction not too long ago geologicaly speaking, those that still exist are all very closely related to one another. We haven't given them any chance to recover either, that's why they are so geneticly similar.
No, they do not look like identical twins, they can be recognized individualy by their markings which are all slightly different.

In closing I would observe that scientific theries are based on proof, and biological evolution is on more solid ground than many other scientific theories. Evolution is not 'believed in' it is aknowlaged based on observable fact and tesed proofs.

Answer 3

Yes.


You are right though, it is not the law of evolutution, just the theory of evolution. Until a better choice sprouts legs and crawls up here, I can go for this 'theory'.

Answer 4

The only thing wrought with errors is your understanding of science, logic and evolution.