Science Disproves Evolution

[Autodidact]

Also, Walt Brown is coo coo for cocoa puffs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your math is probably impeccable. The problem is you are making some false assumptions. Before the flood, Mt. Everest, the Himalayas, and other mountain ranges did not exist. They are one of the results of the flood. If we took the amount of water on earth now, it would cover the earth to a depth of about 9,000 feet if those mountain ranges did not exist.

Ahem....

Lets look at that, shall we...

We are not just talking about mountain peaks here buddy. We are talking about the deep depressions, crevasses, canyons and rifts that hold the oceans.
What Geophysical explanation do you or your "credible source" have for that? Remember, that's ten times the volume of water to surface area.

 

[Autodidact]

tumble, for a decent summary of Mr. Brown's whacked out hypothesis of amazing events, none of them described anywhere in the Bible or consistent with the Bible, see here. According to Walt "hydroplate" Brown, the water was in a deep chamber trapped by impervious smooth rock held up by pillars. The earth cracked, the pillars broke and massive fountains burst out, spewing super-heated water into the air that does amazing things--carves mountains, and sends the continents skidding around like shuffleboard pucks. Oh, and shooting asteroids into outer space. No, I'm not making this up.

You do have to give it to him for creativity, though, and for demonstrating just how wild you have to get to make up a scenario that permits a global flood.

The man is nutso even for a creationist, where the competition is steep.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Auto, your right. I am done feeding this troll.

 

[AxisMundi]

Your math is probably impeccable. The problem is you are making some false assumptions. Before the flood, Mt. Everest, the Himalayas, and other mountain ranges did not exist. They are one of the results of the flood. If we took the amount of water on earth now, it would cover the earth to a depth of about 9,000 feet if those mountain ranges did not exist.

The rainfall was quite different than we experience today, even under the most torrential conditions. The historical record reveals that the fountains of the great deep were released. If you are interested in all the details from a scientific point of view, go here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

Oh horse-poo.

Your bible talks plenty on mountain ranges prior tot he flood.

And there are no "fountains of the deep. Magma and water aren't found in the same place.

 

[AxisMundi]

You will find the answer here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

You are assuming the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth are accurate. There is evidence they are not.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 63.** Radiometric Dating

Where was anything said about flattening?

I know exactly why you post this garbage. You, personally, find it compelling evidence for something you believe in, and post it hoping others will read it and believe as you do.

It's the same motivation behind theospammers, the hope that people will read their spammed scripture quotes and suddenly believe as they do.

Unfortunately, when your "information" is examined with a critical mind, one sees it for what it is, nothing better than misinformed apologetics and outright empty propaganda.

For example, the earth's age isn't arrived at merely by radiometric means, a very accurate dating system when it is applied where and when it was designed to be, by the way.

There are dozens of types of dating methods, and all arrive at the same conclusions.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Your math is probably impeccable. The problem is you are making some false assumptions. Before the flood, Mt. Everest, the Himalayas, and other mountain ranges did not exist. They are one of the results of the flood. If we took the amount of water on earth now, it would cover the earth to a depth of about 9,000 feet if those mountain ranges did not exist.

Got some SCIENTIFIC evidence to back that up? Besides, even if Mt. Everest somehow grew nearly 20,000 feet in a month and a half, we're still looking at a rainfall rate of 112.43 inches per hour--still absurdly high. What is the scientific mechanism for such a deluge?

The rainfall was quite different than we experience today, even under the most torrential conditions. The historical record reveals that the fountains of the great deep were released. If you are interested in all the details from a scientific point of view, go here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

Not a scientific website. We want SCIENTIFIC evidence for an event that you allege is historic and scientific.

 

[Pahu]

Bounded Variations


Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 4.** Bounded Variations

 

[Gunfingers]

I hope for your sake that your aren't this Walt Brown guy you keep quoting, because he's lazy and dishonest.

Bounded Variations
Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

The problem here is that you started with a false assumption: that humans are "more evolved" than bacteria. We are not. Modern bacteria are products of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, just like we are. Just like us they are adapted to reproduce as much as possible, but for them that can happen much more quickly due to their small size and rapid growth.
Although, interestingly, they DO get less variation per generation than organisms that reproduce sexually.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

A study of 1 liter of seawater found 20,000 species of bacteria. Some estimates put the number of bacteria species around the world at 1 billion. Compare this to an estimated 30 million species of animals.
Also new features have been observed to evolve. There's the famous example of bacteria found in the wild that eat nylon, a material that did not exist until the 20th century.
Richard Lenski has been growing 12 separate populations of bacteria for 22 years. One population actually developed the ability to survive in citrus, something previous generations not only couldn't do, but didn't even have deactivated genes for. It was literally a completely new development.

 

[Pahu]

I hope for your sake that your aren't this Walt Brown guy you keep quoting, because he's lazy and dishonest.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

How does your resume compare to his?

The problem here is that you started with a false assumption: that humans are "more evolved" than bacteria. We are not. Modern bacteria are products of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, just like we are.

Why do you believe that assumption?

 

[Gunfingers]

How does your resume compare to his?

I'm at work arguing with creationists. I feel that describes my productivity level pretty well. That doesn't change the fact that if he'd bothered to spend five minutes googling the things he says he'd know that he was full of crap. If you're too lazy for five minutes of research you shouldn't be writing a book.

Why do you believe that assumption?

Why do i believe one of the most well established scientific principles in the world, the one upon which all of biology is based on: evolution? We've spent this whole thread, and the whole EvC subforum, explaining that.

 

[Pahu]

Also new features have been observed to evolve. There's the famous example of bacteria found in the wild that eat nylon, a material that did not exist until the 20th century.
Richard Lenski has been growing 12 separate populations of bacteria for 22 years. One population actually developed the ability to survive in citrus, something previous generations not only couldn't do, but didn't even have deactivated genes for. It was literally a completely new development.

A New Scientist article proclaims:

“’Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists,’ notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. ‘The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,’ he says. ‘That’s just what creationists say can’t happen (1).’"

The many comments posted on the New Scientist website shows just how excited the atheists are about this report. They are positively gloating.

The science: what did they find?

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions (3).

This happened by the 31,500th generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000th generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times (4). With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates (5).

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell (6). This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate (3), which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive) (7), but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

Much ado about nothing (again)

Behe is quite right; there is nothing here that is beyond ‘the edge of evolution’, which means it has no relevance to the origin of enzymes and catalytic pathways that evolution is supposed to explain (8).

References

1. Holmes, Bob, Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab, NewScientist.com news service, 09 June 2008. Return to text.
2. This is explained in Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic computer demonstrations of evolution—see the section headed ‘Error catastrophe’. A mutation rate of one per million bases per generation generates 1 or 2 new mutations per cell for a typical bacterium, with the chance of some missing out on harmful mutations, but the same mutation rate with a human would create more than a 1,000 new ones per individual and every individual would acquire multiple harmful mutations. Return to text.
3. Blount, Z.D., Borland, C.Z. and Lenski, R.E., Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 105: 7899–7906; published online on June 4, 2008, 10.1073/pnas.0803151105. This is Lenski’s inaugural paper as a newly inducted member of the National Academy of Sciences, USA—yet another dyed-in-the-wool atheistic evolutionist in that august body (see: National Academy of Science is godless to the core Nature survey). Return to text.
4. See Batten, D., Clarity and confusion, a review of The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, Journal of Creation 22(1):28–32, April 2008. Return to text.
5. The existence of the TCA cycle in all free-living things is another huge obstacle for evolutionists to explain: a complex cycle involving a dozen different enzymes and cofactors that is necessary for a huge part of a cell’s biochemistry. Return to text.
6. Pos, K.M., Dimroth, P. and Bott, M., The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-Oxoglutarate/Malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts, J. Bacteriol. 180(16):4160–4165, 1998; <www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=107412>. Return to text.
7. See, for example, Beetle Bloopers (defects can be an advantage sometimes). Return to text.
8. Michael Behe’s Amazon Blog, 6 June 2008. Return to text.

Bacteria &lsquo;evolving in the lab&rsquo;? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli)

 

[Gunfingers]

If you wanna go further into a discussion on Lenski's experiment i recommend this thread, which includes our resident biologist, Painted Wolf. She can provide you with much better info than i can.

 

[Nepenthe]

Natural Selection 1

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.”
In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.

Why? What does this mean?

This is called natural selection (a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Eiseley was wrong and Brown is (surprise!) dishonest for perpetuating this claim. First of all Darwin wrote in the first chapter of On the Origins of Species,

"Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one". (p. 18)
​

Hardly a failure to credit him. And Blyth also never used the words "natural selection" but wrote about a variation of selection where animals maintained an "archetype", where transmutation of species did not occur since it would destroy what he referred to as their integrity. There was no plagiarism and no need to credit him since Darwin's natural selection bore only a passing resemblance to Blyth's views.

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

Darwin's work on natural selection began in the late 1830s and he polished it in relative quiet for 20 years. Darwin was meticulous and wanted his work to be air tight before presenting it. In 1858 Darwin was shocked when Wallace sent him his theory which was remarkably similar. Darwin and Wallace's theories were presented to the Linnaean Society in 1858 and Darwin then felt pressured to publish On the Origins of Species in 1859. There's no question Wallace was brilliant but there's also no question that Darwin had formulated the theory long before Wallace and had amassed such a vast amount of evidence that his theory was indisputable. While I do think wallace got screwed over to some degree, it's also true that Wallace was impetuous- he came up with his version of natural selection during a malarial fever while Darwin meticulously whittled away at his theory for over two decades. Darwin was simply the better scientist who accumulated the evidence far more conclusively and convincingly than Wallace.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

And Darwin successfully refuted it.

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

Not really. Lyell was one of the first enthusiastic supporters of On the Origins of Species though he didn't accept all of Darwin's propositions including natural selection. On May 3rd, 1860 Lyell wrote in his notebook,

"Mr. Darwin has written a work which will constitute an era in geology & natural history to show that... the descendants of common parents may become in the course of ages so unlike each other as to be entitled to rank as a distinct species, from each other or from some of their progenitors."
​

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 5.** Natural Selection

Nonsense. Darwin never claimed he came up with natural selection out of whole cloth. Natural selection had many precursors and several great minds came up with similar concepts. Darwin was the genius who accumulated such a vast amount of detailed evidence and such a refined presentation of the theory he is justifiably considered the founder of the theory.

Pahu just copy and pastes the same creationist sites onto various forums. I've seen him at JREF and TR where he simply pastes the exact same info' and rarely engages in any kind of discussion. In fact as this thread on RF was being copy/paste posted by Pahu he did the same thing at JREF. :sleep:I had a long post refuting Pahu's copying/paste nonsense of Brown's site on the Lenski nylon eating bacteria study but Dr. Batten has been debunked so many times it's not worth finishing. Debating creationists is a waste of time; talking to them is pretty much like this:
[youtube]8SaeEQWkVJ0[/youtube]

 

[LuisDantas]

Natural Selection 1

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its &#8220;parents.&#8221; Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more &#8220;children.&#8221; In this sense, nature &#8220;selects&#8221; genetic characteristics suited to an environment&#8212;and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism&#8217;s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).

As you mention, Darwin himself addressed that misrepresentation of Evolution way back in 1859. And a serious misrepresentation it is. It ignores or misunderstands how Natural Selection works, lending it a ficticious desire to wipe out whole parts of the gene pool. It simply doesn't work that way.

The frequency of existing alleles among a population can, did and does change, of course. But the is no magical force aiming to erradicate any of them completely. Less advantageous alleles simply become rarer along generations. When environment change or other factors make those alleles more competitive, their reproductive rate may rise again. It helps that many genes present dominance patterns which allow recessive alleles to be kept for a long time.

Also, you are failing to recognize that new alleles can be introduced by random chance, due to mutation and perhaps other factors.

 

[AxisMundi]

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

How does your resume compare to his?



Why do you believe that assumption?

Notice Walt Brown does NOT have a PhD in hydro-dynamics, geology, plate tectonics, or any other discipline in the areas he attempts to apply pseudoscience.

His military career is also moot for this discussion, and his involvement with the "Creation Science" crows, an oxymoron in itself, should tell you instantly he has no credibility.

His "hydroplaning continents" BS is like a gynecologist attempting to talk with authority about brain surgery.

 

[AxisMundi]

Wanna know something, Pahu?

You're a thief, a thief stealing bandwidth.

I will no longer participate in your criminality, and will put you on my ignore list.

 

[RickDeVon]

This was a lot to read...Noah and the Ark..All you really need to know is to have Faith in Him and the Word

 

[Skwim]

This was a lot to read...Noah and the Ark..All you really need to know is to have Faith in Him and the Word

To accept the Noah and the ark fable faith is mandatory. No two ways about it.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

'Bout time for me to check out of this thread.

Pahu, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Nobody other than you is taking you seriously.