Do you firmly believe in Evolution theory as facts?
Yes? Rethink again! Have you had great leap of faith?
Here below is a very thorough research paper and a related You Tube for you to examine and judge for yourself.
Debunking Evolution:
Problems between the theory and reality
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
...Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."
...
Debunking Evolution - main points
from www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
By John Michael Fischer, 2013
This list is a summary. More information is on the webpage.
A. Evolutionists usually talk about small differences in creatures, but the claim of evolution theory is enormous – the invention of every form of life that exists or ever existed on Earth without using any intelligent guidance. The small differences are called “micro-evolution” but that is not evolution; it is variation. Every creature has limits to how much it can change or adapt - limits to its variation. Disease bacteria have mutations constantly and become resistant to drugs, but they always remain bacteria. “Macro-evolution”, big change, is what the theory of evolution is about.
B. To get past the limits of variation, mutations are supposed to provide information to build new organs. But all known mutations result in the loss of information. There are cases where such loss has a selective advantage in certain situations, and disadvantages in other situations. Certainly, no new structure is invented. A shortcircuit in a computer is like a mutation in DNA, and no-one would expect to upgrade their computer that way.
C. Every structure and function in a creature takes much more than one change to "invent". It must be in the body-plan of the developing embryo, must differentiate stem cells into the proper type, must be able to receive nutrients, do waste removal and repair, must have nerves and muscles or other devices linked to a control center, and must integrate with the other elements of the biological system. If all these changes in the DNA do not happen randomly at the same time, it is impossible for a new, working organ to be made.
D. There should be many more transitional creatures in the fossil record than distinct species, many times more. But there are none - not even Archaeopteryx.
E. If life did not begin by chemicals coming together, there could be no evolution. Specialists have been working for 60 years on how this might have happened, and all they can produce "naturally" (without laboratory equipment and techniques to isolate and concentrate chemicals) are some of the many nucleotides and amino acids. They cannot make cell walls, RNA, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, cytoplasm, or cilia of even a cell or bacterium in a natural environment. After 60 years they have nothing to show but speculation and eternal hope. It is hard to prove a negative, but these origin-of-life specialists have come close. What we learn from their work is that life cannot arise on its own from chemicals, and thus there could never be evolution.
F. Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.
G. Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.
H. In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are socalled “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.
I. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires all natural processes to become more disordered over time. It prevents the invention of new organs by mutations, because without a construction system already in place, things naturally fall apart – they don’t get more complex.
J. The Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) has never been seen to have been violated. But evolutionists believe it must have happened, and maybe more than once!
K. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of chirality for evolution theory.
L. The minimum number of genes needed for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. And there are at least 17 basic things necessary for a cell to function, which must be working or it cannot live.This is the minimum level of complexity that must be met for a cell to exist:
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.
...Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's onlytool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
...Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."
...
Debunking Evolution - main points
from www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
By John Michael Fischer, 2013
This list is a summary. More information is on the webpage.
A. Evolutionists usually talk about small differences in creatures, but the claim of evolution theory is enormous – the invention of every form of life that exists or ever existed on Earth without using any intelligent guidance. The small differences are called “micro-evolution” but that is not evolution; it is variation. Every creature has limits to how much it can change or adapt - limits to its variation. Disease bacteria have mutations constantly and become resistant to drugs, but they always remain bacteria. “Macro-evolution”, big change, is what the theory of evolution is about.
B. To get past the limits of variation, mutations are supposed to provide information to build new organs. But all known mutations result in the loss of information. There are cases where such loss has a selective advantage in certain situations, and disadvantages in other situations. Certainly, no new structure is invented. A shortcircuit in a computer is like a mutation in DNA, and no-one would expect to upgrade their computer that way.
C. Every structure and function in a creature takes much more than one change to "invent". It must be in the body-plan of the developing embryo, must differentiate stem cells into the proper type, must be able to receive nutrients, do waste removal and repair, must have nerves and muscles or other devices linked to a control center, and must integrate with the other elements of the biological system. If all these changes in the DNA do not happen randomly at the same time, it is impossible for a new, working organ to be made.
D. There should be many more transitional creatures in the fossil record than distinct species, many times more. But there are none - not even Archaeopteryx.
E. If life did not begin by chemicals coming together, there could be no evolution. Specialists have been working for 60 years on how this might have happened, and all they can produce "naturally" (without laboratory equipment and techniques to isolate and concentrate chemicals) are some of the many nucleotides and amino acids. They cannot make cell walls, RNA, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, cytoplasm, or cilia of even a cell or bacterium in a natural environment. After 60 years they have nothing to show but speculation and eternal hope. It is hard to prove a negative, but these origin-of-life specialists have come close. What we learn from their work is that life cannot arise on its own from chemicals, and thus there could never be evolution.
F. Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.
G. Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.
H. In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are socalled “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.
I. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires all natural processes to become more disordered over time. It prevents the invention of new organs by mutations, because without a construction system already in place, things naturally fall apart – they don’t get more complex.
J. The Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) has never been seen to have been violated. But evolutionists believe it must have happened, and maybe more than once!
K. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of chirality for evolution theory.
L. The minimum number of genes needed for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. And there are at least 17 basic things necessary for a cell to function, which must be working or it cannot live.This is the minimum level of complexity that must be met for a cell to exist:
**Bottom line: Macro-evolution is physically impossible. It cannot happen; it has never
happened. It is up to evolutionists, the ones making the claim, to prove otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment