The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions
-
Salam,
Neo , Neo lsiten carefully. Im ready 2 talk with u at any time. R u ready? Then common n lets talk on any of the three messengers i mentioned or give me ur phone no so i can call u or call me. My no. is there. 2ndly in chat or posts abbrevations like u,4,shld,wht, etc r very common n u shld know this if u have been on the net 4 quite some time. GOD Bless! -
Salam,
R u a Muslim?The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one of scale. To simply call it 'variation' is to say the differences between a dog and a cat is variation.
Khi- A cat n a dog r not the same kind of animal. A cat can never be observed evolving into a dog or vice versa.
The time-scale applied to all macro-evolutionary theories make it hard to observe it in front of one's eye; and even so, there are plenty of evidence for speciation or the on-going process of speciation. The post-chernobyl moth incident is one of them. Thus, looking at the different species in the world doesn't necessarily imply intelligent design, unless you want it to - which is what the creationist's latest bunch of BS comes from. It's extremely presumptious to say 'intelligent design' because then you have to provide proof of who this intelligent designer is, and the proof of god is beyond the realm of science. Also, to assume that it is 'god' is going back one thousand years in terms of scientific progress. I'll tell you one more time intelligent design is not a scientific idea; it is not a scientific inference; there's no observational evidence for intelligent design.
Khi- I said tht by looking for example at the amazing strucure of the DNA we can conclude tht someone must have deigned it n tht it did not come abt by chance. Then if we look at the harmony in the unicerse we again can notice tht there was a Designer unless ofcourse we r blinded by atheistic beliefs. U shld also note tht the atheists have made their own ego into god.
Terming the theory of evolution as a preconceived idea is idiotic. Do you even know what 'preconceived' means? By this regards, the theory of relativity is preconceived and presumptious too. Hell, anything known by science could then be termed as a 'preconceived notion'. No one rearranges the fossils in a way to support the theory, what kind of conspiracy theory crap is that? And what's this about a court accepting fossils as evidence? Do you even know how a scientific theory is accepted? If you think that fossils are just an account of something that died, then you don't understand the concept of fossil analysing (along with everything else you don't understand about science and evolution, but that's not surprising). And I'm slandering creationists on the basis of pure illogicality and irrationality.
Khi- Its always easy 2 say tht we dont understand u know better. See now. Ur a perfect example of an evolutionist who becomes red hot when so much evidence is presented against the theory of evolution. I stand on my pt. Fossils cannot cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
lol This kind of pseudo-logical argument may work with your creationist buddies but please don't bring up this train of thought against me, it's insulting. The notion of everything being 'perfect' is a very subjective idea, so using it in something as objective as science is futile. And what if life's more complex' than computer programs? How does that somehow pertain to an Adam and Eve? I fail to see how complexity is an evidence in favour of creationism and against evolution. Complexity in structure can be defined easily by evolution - so what the hell are you smoking?
Khi- If u see a computer wld u say it evolved or if u see software like microsoft do u say it evolved from random binary mutations over millions of years? The complexity shows tht there was a design indeed. Lemme give u another good example
We have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up
in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the
probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can
get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining
any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability
diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. If we increase
them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and
the probability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720,
0.0014. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed
that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number
of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes
to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000209Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a `simple' cell" is
laughable. As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote
in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus
but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex
unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the
nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws
tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting
sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not
talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of
nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's
gene are 96% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are
still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly
re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws
preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains
30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to|
|the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an|
|explosion in a printing factory. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+Please shut up with some dignity while you still can.
Khi- Is this a way 2 talk? ( GOD Bless!
-
Whether I am a muslim or not is irrelevant in this discussion. And no, a cat won't 'evolve' into a dog because the cat doesn't need to, it's usually in perfect equilibrium with its environment. But this is the point I was trying to draw - variation isn't the word to describe speciation. Especially not in its scientific context.
Going back to 'intelligent design' (which is a nickname for creationism, so I'm going to be using that from now on) - proclaiming the 'DNA' as an amazing structure and saying it's an ode to intelligent design is inaccurate. This kind of reasoning is called inductive reasoning, and it starts with a presumption. The logical line of thinking behind such reasoning is 'well, I believe in God, so let's see how I can get this piece of evidence to fit in with my idea of God'. Well, this is not a scientific process, this is a religious process. So please stop trying to claim intelligent design as a subdivision of science.
Ur a perfect example of an evolutionist who becomes red hot when so much evidence is presented against the theory of evolution. I stand on my pt. Fossils cannot cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
You have no point. Your reasons for not including fossils as evidence are
- Fossils are dead (no, really?!)
- They don't have a time-stamp (actually Einstein, yes, yes they do)
- No court would ever accept them (because it is the justice system that decides the progress of science)
So as you can see, your evidence is largely based on your fallacious understanding of evolution, and are in reality not so much as evidence as it is childish bantering. I'm not 'red hot', I'm just flabbergasted at your lack of knowledge and persistence, that's all.
If u see a computer wld u say it evolved or if u see software like microsoft do u say it evolved from random binary mutations over millions of years?
- Microsoft isn't a software, it's a software company. Get your facts and examples right, especially if you want to prove me wrong with them
- There's no such thing as 'random mutations' in the realm of computers, because computers are deterministic-machines.
The complexity shows tht there was a design indeed.
No, it doesn't. There's no objective measure of what 'complexity' is, therefore it does not pertain to a design, or anything really. Saying something is 'complex' and therefore must be designed is like saying 'it's black, so it must have come from africa'. There's really no relation.
The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting
sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over.Evolution does not deal with the creation of DNA, it deals with its progression. Case closed.
-
Whether I am a muslim or not is irrelevant in this discussion. And no, a cat won't 'evolve' into a dog because the cat doesn't need to, it's usually in perfect equilibrium with its environment. But this is the point I was trying to draw - variation isn't the word to describe speciation. Especially not in its scientific context.
Khi- Can u plz define speciation 4 me?
Going back to 'intelligent design' (which is a nickname for creationism, so I'm going to be using that from now on) - proclaiming the 'DNA' as an amazing structure and saying it's an ode to intelligent design is inaccurate. This kind of reasoning is called inductive reasoning, and it starts with a presumption. The logical line of thinking behind such reasoning is 'well, I believe in God, so let's see how I can get this piece of evidence to fit in with my idea of God'. Well, this is not a scientific process, this is a religious process. So please stop trying to claim intelligent design as a subdivision of science.
Khi- So evolution is the same. U find a bunch of bones in the dirt then arrange them according 2 ur preconceived idea of evolution. Both r religious but the idea of a Desgner makes much more sense.
You have no point. Your reasons for not including fossils as evidence are
- Fossils are dead (no, really?!)
- They don't have a time-stamp (actually Einstein, yes, yes they do)
- No court would ever accept them (because it is the justice system that decides the progress of science)
So as you can see, your evidence is largely based on your fallacious understanding of evolution, and are in reality not so much as evidence as it is childish bantering. I'm not 'red hot', I'm just flabbergasted at your lack of knowledge and persistence, that's all.
Khi- More gobbledygook. I hear such stetements from evolutionists every time.
- Microsoft isn't a software, it's a software company. Get your facts and examples right, especially if you want to prove me wrong with them
- There's no such thing as 'random mutations' in the realm of computers, because computers are deterministic-machines.
Khi- Sorry forgot the 's i.e. microsoft's. Is the DNA not a deterministic "machine". The codes there r fixed by the Designer.
No, it doesn't. There's no objective measure of what 'complexity' is, therefore it does not pertain to a design, or anything really. Saying something is 'complex' and therefore must be designed is like saying 'it's black, so it must have come from africa'. There's really no relation.
Khi- Ok so tht means watches, pyramids, etc all evolved too. If evolution were true we wld have found such simple things evolving 1st. The cells structure indicates design just like looking at a watch or a painting wld make any of us conclude tht it had a designer.
Evolution does not deal with the creation of DNA, it deals with its progression. Case closed.
Khi- But the DNAs of different animals r designed differently. Thts the whole pt. Therefore an ape cannot evolve into a human by random chance mutations. Case Closed! GOD Bless!
-
SaLaM bmbmm and idmkhizar
Here is one How is the genome get reprogrammed through evolution?
Since im no scientist, i will assume that this depends on the surrounding of the species. For example, giraffs have longer necks becoz their source of food came from high branches. Hence over time ( probably 100s of years ), their genes reprogrammed themselves to give the species a longer neck.
Another example would be, and correct me if im wrong, is that people living in africa, not all maybe, have a higher resistance to the UV light.
-
Hi Jaxal,
Good speculation. Actually adaptation is mostly true, when particular set of genes are activated and transcribed to produce an RNA and hence a change, but the DNA does not change. It is impossible to reprogramme DNA, undernormal conditions, and if it do occur it leads to diseases, hence evolution is rejected.
Peace
-
Dear Jaxal,
If you take 20 different amino acids, 100 each. Put them is a basket (if its possible) and see whether you will come up with a correct protein sequence. Its funny that the Evolutionist are not just saying this, what they are suggesting that the DNA (which codes for this protein) is to be reprogrammed (although they can't say this...because it will be a joke!).
The complexity of the DNA is so huge that if everyone try to create a fly they will not be able to...and what is evolution? what can evolution do? Allah created everything and given everything its nature. One should understand whats the real motive(s) behind the evolution theory. -
Not always the case, but some mutations giving rise to a functional protein is 1100000000000000000000000000000 chance
Mutation giving you new functional extra nose on your face - it does not work that way. Mutative changes are very small and their effects are accumulative over thousands if not millions of years...
Regards,
-
SaLaM bmbmm
but i can assure you that its not from evolution.
I beg to differ. I think it has everything to do with evolution. From a lion to a cat. De-evolution looooooolll no just kidding. But seriously, its not like the lion woke up one day and found it has shurnk in size. Or the other way round.
-
Salam,
I was just kidding, giving the nose example...Mutations can be millions of years, but will they change a fish to a lizard?The evidence that we have is the fossil records and the comparison of DNA sequences between species...
Regards,
-
Hi LotTree,
I think fossil records does not mean anything as far as evolution is concerned. We have to deal evolution at the molecular level. There is resemblence in the DNA seqience within various species, because they are part of the system, such as there is resemblence between various planets etc.
If you can show me an example or condition under which the genomic DNA is changed for the benefit of a particular species than I will acknowledge evolution. Just give me one example.
Please