For you stupid atheist who believe in evolution?

Question

pharoahmuhammad
3 minutes ago

Do you believe evolution after you read this?
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

If you think religion has all the answers - good for you, Just don't use pseudoscientific theories with HUGE logical lacunae to try and disprove anything even remotely scientific alright?

Answer 2

There are a few points you fail to recognize. You are right that DNA cannot change, but that's why it is called a MUTATION! It isn't supposed to happen but it did and that is why we have a variety of animals here on earth.
Secondly, it doesn't happen over a few hundred years, it takes millions! Mutations are so rare that it takes that long to get the perfect one to come along, and it has to be a donimant trait so it is passed on too.
Why don't Eskimos have fur? Think about it. What if a mutated eskimo was born with fur. He would probably have an easy life because he wouldn't have to wear a coat. But for the rest of the Eskimos it is just an inconvenience. They simply kill a bear and wear the fur and live. They don't die because they don't have fur, they don't need it. They have inteligence and and opposing thunb which is their mutated trait from apes that allows them to live in those harsh environments. If they needed fur to live for some reason than only those born mutated with fur would live, thus they would all have fur. For the same reason we don't have silver colored skin; because we don't need it and everyone lives to pass on their DNA, not just the silver skinned freak.
But that doesn't mean we only have what we need. Vestigial organs are passed on because they were usefull but not anymore. I mean face it, the human race would still be able to live and function without the sense of smell or hearing. But we have it still because it was important and we evolved.
And if you are refuting the theory of natural selection and evolution because it is not scientifically factual (which is wrong in the first place) then where do you get off in accepting the idea that man was formed by clay!? Do you think that is scientifically 100% correct? If Adam and Eve were the first 2 people on earth, first of all how do we know this and second how was a third generation created without incest? I thought that was a sin? And how do you expect everything in the bible to be true to the word if it was all passed around by word of mouth for at least 500 years before it was written down? You can't pass a rumor around a room in 15 minutes and not have it come out different. If you think God created fish and birds and mammals all seperately from clay and that is scientifically proven then I will believe it too but until then, how do you explain fossils of species in transition like archaeopterix? If Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans how do you explain the fossils of neanderthalls like Lucy and the Iceman being so similar to humans and where did they go? How do you explain the striking similarity between man and ape? Evolution I say!

Answer 3

#1, you don t know what theories hypothesises or laws are. NOTHING in Science is 100% absolute. A hypothesis is what you probably think a theory is, a theory is probably what you think a law is but without the arrogance to think we know everything, and a Law is just something that happens but we haven t actually figured out why it does that yet.

#2 Natural Selection IS the theory of evolution you moron. Also, there is a principal in science and logic that my high school never bothered to teach me because it s so ******* obvious it s baffling I have to explain it now;
Any process that causes small changes over a short period of time, if it continues, will result in larger changes over a longer period of time. I honestly don t get why so many Creationists don t seem to understand linear time, I ve literally heard creationists compare ling periods of time to "magic".

#3 whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! First you deny that Natural Selection has anything to do with Evolution, now you deny natural selection.
...aaand you don t have a clue how Evolution works. WHERE does the Theory of Evolution say that? Where does the theory of evolution say black people should have silver skin? How would that even work? I now suspect you don t just misunderstand evolution, biology in General goes over your head.

#5 yes, Natural Selection does not create new DNA, that s what Mutation does, you ********.

#6 are you under the impression that Evolution is perfect? Nope! Not even by half. An intelligent designer would make everything perfect, random mutations and natural selection would result in improvement but almost never perfection.

Answer 4

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 5

I cannot stand these uneducated hicks that still do not know what a theory is. A fu%king theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and has nothing disproving it. A law is a theory that can explain future observations by using past ones, all laws are theories you idiots that believe a law is absolute. A theory is not just some idea in science but the highest degree anything can have. There is nothing that supports creation and nothing that disproves evolution.

Once again for you idiots out there all LAWS are THEORIES!!!

Answer 6

Hope that it is true. Quite amazing. Fortunately quantity is the quality of evolution. Don't think that I'll say that quite the same but You have to account the theory of Quantum Physics: The observer and the observation are entangled, the observation is only as good as the tools. The evolution of species takes millions of years and of course the observation is another part of the theory.

Answer 7

It's still there, the only reason we haven't come out with another species of something is because it takes thousands of years, as well as the stimulus for change. Why change if it isn't necessary? That is what the "Theory" of evolution is about. It doesn't say that organisms will just change given the fact that they reproduce. It says that the organism will change to fill a niche or to survive better in its environment. That is why there are no "flying rattlesnakes".

Answer 8

The only stupid thing around here is this question.

I don't even know where to begin analzying all the errors in this...

-there is no real difference between a theory and a law other than how accepted they are by people. Look at gravity - what's the difference between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity? Only the level of acceptance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Opponents of evolution refuse to call evolution a law, insisting that it is "only" theory, and then use that very classification to attack evolution on the grounds that it is "not a law," ignoring that they are only arguing with their own terms.

-You cite some good examples of survival of the fittest, such as selective breeding in dogs (in which those dogs which have the desired characteristics are able to pass on their genes at a higher rate than those dogs with undesirable characteristics). Of course you can't develop a cat from breeding dogs, and evolutionary theory gives good reasons why you can't - the specific DNA of the species is so specific that the odds that you would be able to obtain it again are very minute. But given enough time, you can eventually get other species. You state evolution is impossible, while at the same time citing examples of micro-evolution.

- You claim that new species have never been developed by science but this totally untrue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Observed_instances
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/19/1737214&from=rss

- "If natural selection were true eskimos would have fur"? This must be the funniest serious statement I have ever seen on yahoo. Natural selection doesn't happen instanteously, but occurs over a period of time. Given enough time and the proper genetic mutations, yes eskimos would probably have hair. But you have totally demonstrated your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory with this statement. And the statement about humans in the tropics having reflecting skin is even worse. There are many functions of skin, and a black skin is preferable in the tropics since it helps to block out excess sunlight. A pale reflective skin would be disadvantageous, due to cancer and sunburn and a purely reflective skin is highly unlikely to evolve without a large amount of time involved, and even if it were, it would be problematic because it would block out the nutrients obtained from the sun as well.

-"The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn' there from the beginning." This is very ignorant and goes not only against what mainstream science says, but even against what creation "science" says. Mutation in DNA has been observed so much and is so undisputed that even creationists admit it happens, they just deny it can lead to other species. According to you, though, DNA cannot mutate (since that would be "creating something that wasn't there") and so the DNA of the species must remain constant from generation to generation. How the hell is it then that we can breed dogs to get DNA and traits which haven't been present before?

Please try to actually get an elementary understanding of evolutionary theory before writing posts like this.

Emmie S: Has it ever occurred to you that people don't believe in evolution to get away from god, but because that's what the evidence points to?

Answer 9

You really didnt do your homework did you? First, the reason why people of the tropics and warmer climated have darker skin is simply because of a pgment called melonin. This pigment helps protect the skin from the sun. You can even look up statistics and see the diffrence in ratio for skin disorders and cancers of the skin and clearly see that darker skinned people or people with more melonin have a much lower rate of these types of afflictions. That right there is enough to prove your whole little article wrong. And that right there is a clear example of survival of the fittest. Fair skinned people are that way because they dont hve to deal with the harsh sun. Its an adaptation to their enviroment.

Answer 10

Obviously you don't really understand the theory of evolution because it's not exactly about survival of the fittest.

You could read the respective chapter from "Biology" by Campbell and Reece 4th edition.

And by the way... as far as protein synthesis is concerned...
L-amino acids are the natural occuring building blocks of proteins. Proteins are produced daily in laboratories with a lot of ease, using bacteria as "machinery" but also small proteins of L- or even D-amino acids have been synthetically manufactured.
(Proteins with L-amino acids are produced through bacteria because it's cheaper and faster whereas with D-amino acids only synthetically since the machinery of living organsims cannot utilize D-amino acids for protein synthesis).

Answer 11

What a truly stupid post! Several people have already blown you out of the water, so I won't add to the fun. But if you really want to convert us "athiests" (hint: not all evolutionists are athiests), then you should start by not calling us stupid.

And second, if you are so smart, then why is your post nothing but a big copy-and-paste word-for-word from that 'biblelife.org' web site. (Busted!) Can't you make an argument yourself? Did you even read what you are copying? Didn't you see how nonsensical it is?

Just stupid.

(P.S. When you copy a bunch of text from some source such as a book or a web site, it is considered dishonest not to cite your source instead of trying to make it appear like you wrote it yourself.)