Thursday, October 13, 2016
9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False. Apparently!
"The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science"
Theories don't become laws in science.
"because it is wrought with errors"
Presumably we'll find out those errors in this article.
"still called a theory"
Theories are the highest form of knowledge in science. They become theories because they have explanatory and predictive powers and have done so many times. Also, because they have never been disproven.
"they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs"
Evolution doesn't say they could. And if they did manage that it would disprove evolution.
"Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit"
Natural selection can't but mutations do. That is, in fact, what a mutation is.
"New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science"
They are. And they are observed in nature too. I think he may misunderstand what a "species" is here. I think he means it as equating to things with different names. So because Darwin's finches always remain birds, he thinks a bird is a species.
"the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans "
That's simply untrue.
"Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way"
That will be because species do evolve.
"Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof."
Science doesn't work in proofs.
"If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm"
He doesn't understand how slowly evolution happens or that it is undirected. However, in a way they have evolved to have fur. Like all humans, they have evolved intelligence and can catch other animals and use the fur from them.
" If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin"
Same point as above. In addition, if he knows of a "silver, reflective" compound that isn't toxic to humans in quantities high enough to reflect light, let us know.
"If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin"
Why? Black skin protects from harmful radiation but also prevents Vitamin D production. So is only useful in climates with lots of sun.
"They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle."
I'm not sure there skin is as dark as you think it is but also, it's not the only reason for having darker skin.
"dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate."
Is it? Where's the reference?
"Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment."
They absolutely do. And dark skin is one of them.
"New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution."
Simply a list of unsupported assertions with no references.
"Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists."
Does he mean abiogenesis? I think he means abiogenesis. I'm not sure he understands abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a long, slow process. Life started over a long period of time. There was no point at which nothing was alive and then suddenly something was alive. "Life" is not that clear cut.
"What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)"
He's half right. the likelihood of a modern, single celled organism suddenly appearing is vanishingly small (although not "impossible" as he claims). However, the modern single cell didn't just pop into existence, it evolved. The natural selection part of evolution allows each generation to "keep the sixes" from the past generation without keeping the duds.
"those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate"
It's not stronger, larger or faster. It's fitter. Fitter means better adapted to it's environment. That could mean smaller.
"wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?"
Ostrich, Penguin, Chicken.
"Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? "
There is no direction in evolution.
"A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage"
Compared to one with a wing? Yes. Not compared to it's siblings that don't. The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind and all that.
"According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable"
No. At the point they'd have a small wing, but a wing larger than the others who have no wing.
"We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees."
No "we" are not. Birds didn't "get tired" of carrying around wings.
"Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing?"
There was no plan. Birds with lighter bones than their siblings would tend to be slightly more successful than those with slightly heavier bones. Over many generations, the entire population has slightly lighter bones. This continues over 1000s of generations and will keep happening as long as lighter wings give some organisms an advantage.
"The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection."
I've just shown you how natural selection is involved in the process.
"We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature."
No we're not. Are you getting your information from cartoons?
"Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? "
No. No-one thinks that and evolution doesn't suggest that either. They beach because they get lost.
"The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. "
"One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard."
Who is this "he"? Evolution doesn't happen in one generation.
"Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve."
Firstly Every single creature, living or fossilised is transitional. Secondly, there are 1000s of dinosaur fossils.
"One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie."
No, that shows the explanation for a long neck may be wrong. Not that evolution is wrong.
"The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment"
So you are saying god created the dinosaur with a disadvantage?
"Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist."
Yes. Everythng has to have an advantage, or at least be neutral, otherwise the extra energy expended on having a longer neck would put the this particular dinosaur at a disadvantage and it would be surpassed by others. And maybe that did happen.
"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution."
I have never heard any specialist in evolution claim that. Evolution is the explanation for diversity, not the other way round.
"Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."
Yet if you ask creationists to specify which are human and which are monkey, they can't agree.
"This procedure can be done with humans only"
It's done with all sorts of species.
"The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution."
No, but genomics, and the dates of the skulls does strongly support evolution.
"Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species."
They have been found