Am I the only one not brainwashed?

Question

It seems to me that I am the only one out here who doesn't believe in evolution. Doesn't anyone else out there know that it isn't a scientific law, that there is more evidence against it than for it, and there are a million missing links(I mean still missing) out there? Most of the "missing links that they've found aren't even missing links!(look up the Nebraska Man) Does anyone out there agree with me?


P.S. Anyone out there who believes in evolution, please look up genetics, mutation, structural homology, molecular biology, and the fossil record.

I'm talking about macro, not micro evolution. Microevolution is a well established theory, and I believe that it is real. All the links that they've found are highly questionable, because they are all very close to one or another of the organisms that they are supposed to be linking. For example, the only reason they think Archaeopteryx is a link between dino and bird is that it has teeth. In all other respects it is a bird. Also, it turns out that teeth aren't that special. There is a whole group of extinct birds that they've found that have teeth. Notice something here? All birds. No feathered velociraptors with future dreams of flying. Also, there is no known way that information can be added to a creature's genetic code. Mutation doesn't do it. And why is it that there are no monkey-men, or dino-birds, or mammalian reptiles out there now? If it all used to happen, why isn't it still? Sure, you can say it is, but mankind has a long recorded history, and we've never seen it.

iprinpretz... if you are studying molecular biology, then you have to admit that it provides sound evidence against macroevolution. The differences in organisms are totally random, and show no macroevolutionary trend whatsoever. If you don't know this you've been badly taught. Ditto if you think that any of the things I listed provide evidence for evolution. Also, how do you know I'm not a scientist myself? Don't assume what you don't know. Actually, you're right, I am only 15. My knowledge of evolution is incomplete, but(no offense) it obviously exceeds yours.

Ken E...Please look up the subjects I listed, especially structural homology. The similar structures on organisms are contained on different parts of the chromosome, so it's impossible for the creatures to be related.

Answer 1

I think it'd take a fool not to believe in natural selection... evolution, however, can be argued (and usually is from a religious standpoint). There are breeds of dogs, but they can all mate and produce non-sterile offspring... they can mate with wolves and have non-sterile offspring, so are wolves and dogs different species? Some argue that evolution is racist idea... have you checked out "Intelligent Design"?

I take an agnostic stance to this, really, because there are so many complexities and one system cannot change on its own without the other systems and they would have had to come into place simultaneously... but I believe that species do change over time. Some questions that have gone through my head have been "Who's to say that monkies aren't an offshoot of us?" and "The Bible didn't say how we got here... who's to say that it wasn't through a process? A day to God is not a day to man." and so on and so forth... you can either look at the similarities between creatures as proof that we have a common origin or that a painter only has so many colors on a canvas. Some mystics have been to look in wonder at the complexity of a leaf and compare with a blade of grass and to know God through the similarities and the differences and the space in between...

Answer 2

Evolution is not something to be "believed" in any more than gravity. They are both theories. The idea that we get sick from "germs" is also a theory, so I guess we should stop believing in viruses too huh?

Scientific theories are actually more advanced than laws. Theories cannot become laws and vice versa. Please learn a bit more about science before you try to argue with a scientist.

And there are about 18 hominids that connect us to chimpanzees. About Nebraska man, please read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html.

Please explore that site as well, talkorigins.org. It seems that you have been brainwashed as you are just regurgitating old creationist arguments that won't hold up with anyone that has a shread of education in science.

And as I am about to graduate with a degree in Cell and Molecular Biology, I don't think you can say I haven't studied any of the "subjects" you list above.

(About irreducible Complexity, see this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU&mode=related&search=

Answer 3

Yes, there are others who agree with you! The best argument against evolution has to do with genetics. It is true that mutations can change genetic code, but it is impossible for a mutation to add more genetic code. Mutations always result in loss of genetic material.

Biochemistry is another area where evolution falls short. A good book to check out is Michael J. Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." In the book, Michael Behe (a former evolutionist) refutes evolution from a purely scientific standpoint.

Answer 4

It's an orchestrated litany of lies.

Gravity is a fact, not a theory or a scientific "law" whatever that is. Isaac Newton had a theory about gravity. It was pretty correct but not complete and has been improved by Albert Einstein. That's science working.

Combustion is a fact, not a theory. Becher and Stahl had a theory about combustion. Lavoisier had a better one. It was fairly correct but not complete and has been improved. That's science working.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had a theory about evolution. Charles Darwin had a better one. It was fairly correct but not complete and has been improved. That's science working.

The evidence for evolution covers hundreds of library shelves in publications like Journal of Biology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Science, Nature, Comptes Rendues, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA and hundreds of other journals in English, French, Russian, German, Japanese, Chinese, Italian and Spanish just to name some. These include every geological, biological and medical topic known to humans and are chock-a-block full of facts that support evolution directly or are consistent with it.

The evidence for evolution is also all around us and includes everyday “non-scientific” observations

1. The anatomical arrangements of land mammals are analogous to each other. For instance, horses breathe through their mouths or two nostrils just as humans do, rather than through holes in their sides. Fish, reptiles, birds and mammals have two eyes and one mouth. Lizards, humans and eagles have four limbs, one heart, one set of lungs, one set of digestive organs, one brain, two ears and so on and so forth. These numbers do not vary across very wide differences in environment and immediate heredity.

2. Nearly all land animals (excepting insects, spiders etc) have red blood.

3. Pig insulin has been used to treat human diabetes.

4. The gene "eyeless" may be found in insects and vertebrates. When blocked at the egg stage, the resulting adult has no eyes. This is true of fruit flies and rabbits.

5. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c.

The evidence for creation consists of an old English translation of a book perhaps 2500 years old written by people who had never been outside their own country. Edited perhaps by others in antiquity for one local political or cultic reason or another. It is thoroughly misinterpreted by a few, mainly American based pastors whose education is mostly in a peculiar form of theology that most other churches regard as erroneous or even heretical.

The physical evidence cited by creationists such as the bombardier beetle, the Paluxy footprints and a few dozen other phenomena has been thoroughly debunked many times. In some cases the "evidence" has been concocted and at worst is no more than a direct lie. Most of the material they cite as evidence for intelligent design is nothing of the kind and in some cases actually shows that the design is faulty. The human eye is a glaring example.

The few scientific frauds that may have been said to support evolutionary theory, eg Haeckels faked embryos and the Piltdown skull (which was not faked to support evolutionary theory) have been exposed by evolutionists. No pontificating from pulpits, rantings at revivals nor screechings from soapboxes had anything to do with the exposures. The frauds were exposed by evolutionists. The Piltdown fraud was publicised by evolutionists within weeks of the fraud being detected.

Contrast that with the activities of a "creation researcher" whose fraudulent material has been exposed by scientists and others time after time. Yet he still continued to use it on unsuspecting audiences. And so do some pastors who are "unaware" of the fraud.

Some creationists have claimed that there is conspiracy against them and that scientists are hiding the truth. Sheer paranoia and no different in kind from the nonsense promoted by alien abduction ratbags. There are millions of scientists of one kind or another today. If the truth were being hidden by scientists there must be tens or hundreds of thousands of them in on it. Some must have come out with real testable evidence that the truth is being hidden by now. The only secure conspiracy is a conspiracy of one.

The poor mugs who actually believe the creationists have been warned to ignore counter arguments as the work of Satan. Of course they have. If they saw they were being sold a bill of shoddy goods their financial contributions might peter out.

Answer 5

So, because we cannot say with 100% certainy how a system works, we are to throw it all out the window and believe that some divine force created life? I think not. I'd prefer to admit that I do not know, and try and explain it through observation and experimentation than submit to the ignorance of letting religion cover for me.

Answer 6

The good news: You are not "the only one not brainwashed"

The bad news: You ARE "The one brainwashed"

Evolution is not what you think it is.

Here we go:
The theory of evolution is that there will be an average genetic difference per generation.

How often is that talked about in anti-evolution circles? Freaking never.

Answer 7

You are definitely the one "brain washed"
come on, there is more evidence for than against!
genetic mutations occur in species to accomodate changes in environment, and to survive better against competitors and preditors. it happens
get used to it. monkey boy. :D

Answer 8

Doesn't irreducible complexity cause serious issues with the theory of evolution?

Answer 9

Sorry, you appear to be the brainwashed one. If you actually looked up those subjects, you'd understand that. Have fun reading about retroviruses, millions of fossils, and what science acutally is.

Answer 10

hi thr. so, u dont believe in evolution. y so? neway, im not an expert in this but i think organism need to adapt to certain situation where they live in order to survive. so they change accordingly or evolve. thts y they take years. this is nt logic enough is it??