http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
This may sound complicated—because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines of these particular disciplines start and stop. This has led to much confusion among the general public on which research and evidence is related to which particular discipline of evolution.
For instance, there is ample evidence to prove that micro-evolution is constantly happening around us. When a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is demonstrating micro-evolution. Often, this evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution. Such a case would be a perfect example of a hasty generalization.
This has led to much confusion in the general public, and to heated debates among evolutionists. But the problems in evolution go even deeper. Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
IS EVOLUTION THEORY OR FACT?
Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).
Evolution has not been sufficiently proven in the scientific community to be considered fact!
Further, by true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”
What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!
For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color.
If the same standards are applied to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.
This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin’s] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”
As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly is it scientific?
The Problem With The Theory Of Evolution
A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation).
Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.
Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!
Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
Originally posted by RJHindsno, no, no, no, no, no and no.
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
back to the drawing board with you. get yourself some real books on evolution and read them. start with darwin's origin of species for starters. it's a over 150 years out of date, but still very good introductory material.
let us know when your done reading it. we'll give you a little test to see if you've absorbed any knowledge then suggest other reading material.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI have already read Darwin's "Origin of Species".
no, no, no, no, no, no and no.
back to the drawing board with you. get yourself some real books on evolution and read them. start with darwin's origin of species for starters. it's a over 150 years out of date, but still very good introductory material.
let us know when your done reading it. we'll give you a little test to see if you've absorbed any knowledge then suggest other reading material.
The Evolution Of Life
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? While such questions seem silly, this is, in essence, what the theory of evolution teaches. Evolution stands or falls on whether non-living matter can be transformed, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation,” “chemical evolution,” “abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”
(But even to evolutionists, the topic of life’s origin remains a sticky one. Many even go so far as to assert that the origin of life is not related to the evolution of living matter.)
Renowned evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould stated: “Evolution is not the study of life’s ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life’s origin on our earth lies outside its domain... Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” (“Justice Scalia’s Misunderstanding,” Natural History, October 1987).
But is this really the case? Is evolution only restricted to the study of organic—living—matter? Allow geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer: “Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” (“Changing Man,” Science, January 1963).
While the argument put forth by Mr. Gould sounds logical, if we attempt to limit evolution to biology, one is being “gratuitous”—and perhaps deceitful. If evolutionists separate biological evolution from the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe, it opens a big and completely unanswered door: How did events cause the universe and then life, if evolution applies only to life? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must completely encompass the whole process—from that beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life on earth today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.
Consider: Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts and separate this popular theory from the matter of life’s origins?
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
Originally posted by RJHindsMost natural systems are in a state of dynamic equilibrium and that equilibrium can often be wild or fragile. The system behind it is mathematics.
[bSince all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. [/b] http://rcg.org/books/effai.html[/b]
The Law Of Biogenesis
It states that life can only come from life—that is, only living matter produces living matter. Are you beginning to see the inherent problem with the theory of evolution?
These are three conclusive and irrefutable statements about the force and power of this scientific law. How then did evolutionists seem to bypass this law when trying to prove evolution? Are you beginning to understand why they attempt to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process?
Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer, because they have none. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as fact in schools. Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reason why Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated that “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.”
Originally posted by RJHindsno, that is not what evolution teaches. you failed the test. you'll need to read the origin of species again.
I have already read Darwin's "Origin of Species".
The Evolution Of Life
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? While such questions seem silly, this is, in essence, what the theory of evolution teaches.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritMutations for Improvement?
no, that is not what evolution teaches. you failed the test. you'll need to read the origin of species again.
At the heart of improving a species or organism is the assumption that mutations will produce more and better traits or characteristics. This requires new information.
The source of all information, as discussed, is in the DNA. For new information to form, there would have to be the injection of said information by a mutation. However, the introduction of “positive” new information is fraught with problems.
For one, most all mutations are negative in effect. (As discussed earlier, inferior organisms [mutations] are removed by the process of natural selection.) This is also true of what are termed “neutral” mutations. Natural processes remove these defects from the genetic map of the creature. In the light of proper natural selection, consider the following from the head of the international Human Genome Diversity Project, evolutionist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza:
“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one. Natural selection makes it possible to accept the good ones and eliminate the bad ones” (Genes, Peoples, and Languages, p. 176).
Of course, we have already proven that natural selection does “eliminate the bad ones.” Yet is it true that positive mutations can not only form new information, but cause the formation of new species as well? It is in this hope that evolution must put its trust. Proving that positive, sustainable mutations happen is critical for this assumption.
An often cited example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is stated that bacteria, through mutations, adapt to antibiotics. But as the following quote shows, what actually occurs is an information loss, not a gain: “In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance” (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution).
But evolution cannot sustain itself with loss of information. Over time, the result would be no information. The only way higher life-forms could be created, would be with more—in fact, MUCH more—information. For instance, imagine a fish “evolving” into a bird. While this may sound amazing, and actually be ludicrous, it is considered a valid theory in evolution. How could all the necessary new organs and limbs develop without new information? They simply could not!
A simple analogy may explain it best: Imagine all the parts involved in making a light switch work. There are electricity, wires, devices controlling electricity flow, a switch and finally a light. These were all designed to function in a certain way. If the device controlling the amount of electricity were removed from the system, the light would get much brighter. This may seem like an improvement. The room appears better lit and it seems like the entire system has improved with the loss of a device (information).
But the one who designed the system would know that this is not the case. The wires and the light were designed to handle a certain amount of electricity. While it may not appear to be a problem at first, over time, the circuit will overload and stop functioning. And so is the case with mutations. Even though something may appear to be an improvement (as in the case with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), the overall “health” of the organism is diminished.
Regardless of your belief concerning life’s origin, new information is required for more advanced life forms. And, conversely, any information already present is required to remain—either by evolution or being put there by a Designer. Ultimately, the continued loss of genetic information will result in the destruction of the life form—not an improvement!
Finally, regarding the formation of new forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward stated, “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
Originally posted by RJHindsno, i don't see a problem. evolution only deals with living things. you really need to read the origin of species again. you keep failing the test and you're doing it all on your own.
The Law Of Biogenesis
It states that life can only come from life—that is, only living matter produces living matter. Are you beginning to see the inherent problem with the theory of evolution?
Originally posted by RJHindsare you going to cut and paste the entire fallacy?
Mutations for Improvement?
At the heart of improving a species or organism is the assumption that mutations will produce more and better traits or characteristics. This requires new information.
The source of all information, as discussed, is in the DNA. For new information to form, there would have to be the injection of said information by a mutati ...[text shortened]... f life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
there is no scientific data or proofs presented there, it's just making an appeal to ignorance; by ignoring the vast amount of data that proves evolution.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
are you going to cut and paste the entire fallacy?
there is no scientific data or proofs presented there, it's just making an appeal to ignorance; by ignoring the vast amount of data that proves evolution.
(The Double Helix, p. 14).
Originally posted by RJHindsYour statement 'can a lump of coal produce a chicken'? The answer is yes. Because, among other things, that lump of coal came from a living plant which had a lot of genetic similarity to chickens, reptiles, bacteria, apes, humans and every other living thing.
Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).
You need to do a bit more in your research on analogy.
Perhaps you didn't know coal came directly as the result of living plants.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe theory of evolution is only concerned with an explanation of biological diversity. The author is equivocating on the term 'evolution', trying to blend a specific theory of biology in with the general idea that things change over time.
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this di ...[text shortened]... used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.