Tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery.

That is fact because i have a friend who has had his tonsils removed and he does suffer a lot from upper respiratory tract infections.

cc seun

More Is being discovered daily. So if you are jumping around using atavism as proof of human ancestry then you need to discard it and stop.

Extract from

http://www.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html

Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

I suggest you read the entire article.

cc seun

Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"


You can imagine teaching Children falsehood and assumptions as evolutionary fact! Someone is trying too hard to ensure evolution is seen as fact even in the face of all the lies.

I thank God its exposing itself gradually.

cc seun

hopefulLandlord:


you keep repeating the same empty things that I've shown to be ineffably stupid

Satanists' version of atheism is no more/less atheist than my Pastafarianism version of atheism and not more/less atheists than Seun's version of atheism

that's because we don't have a book and a promised spirit that would tell us the meaning

Christianity however does

Holy Spirit never claimed to reveal himself to specific Christians at a particular level

once you have Christ, accept him, love him, obey his commandments, you should be able to talk to the same holy spirit and he should reveal straightforward truth to you, many Christians like Anas09 and cohorts even believe you should start speaking in tongues immediately you receive Christ because the holy spirit would descend on you

and I don't even know where you're going with this "level" talk; are you saying you're levels above kingebuka or vice versa? which is it

Lol, you cant stay without mentioning me right? Guy you are demon possessed. Go for deliverance let the devils jump off you.

4kings:

Which kain wahala be this one.
So u have a deep conviction that hardmirror was lying how? , but a book saying that all living things were able to enter one ship was not abi?

Where you in that thread or not?

Shd i ask you the same questions i asked him which till today he has not answered? Will you like to take his place?

The liar said he was a Pastor. To be a Pastor there must be certain spiritual attainments one gets to before that office is conferred on the person, the questions i asked him are related to what every born again believer goes through, pls shd i turn the questions to you?

Anas09:

Where you in that thread or not?

Shd i ask you the same questions i asked him which till today he has not answered? Will you like to take his place?

The liar said he was a Pastor. To be a Pastor there must be certain spiritual attainments one gets to before that office is conferred on the person, the questions i asked him are related to what every born again believer goes through, pls shd i turn the questions to you?

Please do

MrMontella:

the bolded is highly wrong and a misunderstanding of the experiment itself...

I'd advise you read the article published by the researchers themselves to see how wrong you are and how information was accumulated over generations with mutations
www.myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html


[s]I dont understand what you mean by information ''cant'' be added..

See..if this --- ATGCATGCGTA is a genome sequence...
And GTA is a stop codon...
If during replication...a mutation occurs on the stop codon and the stop codon is not intolerant to mutation...
E.g ATGCATGC''GTA''--replicates to ATGCATGC''GCA''...The mutation is GTA to GCA...if GCA happens to be a viable amino acid...the new genome sequence would be a different allele which means new information has been added..
Or has it not?
Read up :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation[/s]

I did not say "if". In Lenski's experiment, no novel information was gained by the E.coli.

MrMontella:

the bolded is highly wrong and a misunderstanding of the experiment itself...

I'd advise you read the article published by the researchers themselves to see how wrong you are and how information was accumulated over generations with mutations
www.myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html

You're a seriously confused human being. The link you gave me as the "article published by the researchers themselves" is nonfunctional.

Provide in clear terms the novel information which the E.coli gained through mutation in their genetic makeup. Rearrangement of existing information is not the same as GONI.

If you cannot produce it, but are only intent on posting irrelevant sentences, back off!

DoctorAlien:


You're a seriously confused human being. The link you gave me as the "article published by the researchers themselves" is nonfunctional.

Provide in clear terms the novel information which the E.coli gained through mutation in their genetic makeup. Rearrangement of existing information is not the same as GONI.

If you cannot produce it, but are only intent on posting irrelevant sentences, back off!

He is making BASELESS claims.

damogul:


Did you know that in the 1900s there were about 180 assumed vestigial organs before the number began being trimmed down when they discovered their functions? Now we have just 5 and even those 5 are still being trimmed down because the Appendix and the coccyx are almost as good as out of that list of 5.

There is no absolute empirical data backing up atavism...merely assumptions and speculations. If the evolutionary link between mans ancestors and man are still speculative then where did the fact that the tail bone being a vestigial organ come from?

Can you show me this empirical truthful link data?





cc seun

Allow him to swim in his "vestigial" swimming pool.

Even scientists have admitted that they are still learning the physiology of organs.

The guy is wishing the unknown.
"
If we dont know the function. Then it must have belonged to "ancestors"

What a funny thought.

LENSKI'S EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF FITNESS GAINS ARE AS A RESULT OF LOSS, DISRUPTION OR DEGRADATION OF GENETIC INFORMATION

Publications allege that several genes underwent a genetic mutation that conferred a benefit to the bacteria. In no particular order, I will review each of these examples and discuss the known or hypothesized biochemical basis of how this benefit was achieved. The scientific jargon may be confusing, but take special note of the bolded phrases.

1. First is the pykF gene. This gene encodes one of two pyruvate kinase enzymes that catalyzes the transfer of a phosphate group from phosphoenolpyruvate(PEP) to adenosine diphosphate(ADP) yielding a molecule of adenosine triphosphate(ATP). PEP is also used to help drive the uptake of glucose, a limited energy source in the experiment. The researches noted an insertion in this genetic region that they hypothesized to have inactivated this gene leading to a greater amount of PEP available to drive glucose uptake.

2. Second was an insertion mutation in the regulatory region of the pbpA-rodA operon. This operon (which is a cluster of genes under the control of a similar regulatory unit) encodes two important proteins involved with cell wall synthesis. As all 12 E. coli populations evolved larger cell volumes, the authors hypothesized that altered cell wall synthesis or timing of synthesis may have been beneficial. , The exact mechanism of this mutation regarding a gain or loss of novel information is unknown.

3. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation was found in the mutS gene. This SNP produced a premature stop codon and truncated the MutS protein leading to a defect in DNA repair. This particular mutation was of importance because it greatly increases the number of mutations a bacterial population will accumulate over time.

Blitzerz:


Allow him to swim in his "vestigial" swimming pool.

Even scientists have admitted that they are still learning the physiology of organs.

The guy is wishing the unknown.
"
If we dont know the function. Then it must have belonged to "ancestors"

What a funny thought.

Its called HASTY GENERALIZATION already mentioned at the beginning of the OP. All evolutionists do is ASSUME ASSUME ASSUME! Nothing beyond that. Its absolute stupidity to declare we have an apelike ancestor simply because of the coccyx and then tag it a vestigial organ without any proof. Like i said they believed we had 180 of such vestigial organs and gradually it has been trimmed down to 5 and now probably 3. So why have they not given it a large scale coverage declaring their error so everyone would know? They would give a wide coverage to lies but when those lies are exposed they refuse to give the same coverage so as to make amends for their error and lies.

Evolution is a farce and a big lie.

4. The hokB-sokB gene locus in E. coli is a toxin-antitoxin system. When found in bacterial chromosomes, these systems are commonly involved in responding to stresses and bringing about programmed cell death. The authors hypothesized that the observed insertion mutation would have knocked out this gene, and a disruption of hokB/sokB would likely be beneficial in the experimental environment.

5. The researchers observed that all 12 populations of E. coli lost the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that was not available in this experimental environment. Furthermore, this loss of function was remarkably quick—within 2,000 generations all populations had lost the ability. It was noted that this loss was caused by deletion mutations in the rbs operon. Interestingly, ribose is one of the energy sources that commensal E. coli use in the intestine.

The OP kept demanding for a rebuttal but till now there has been no single evidence for evolution. WHY? BECAUSE NONE EXISTS! Just postulations and assumptions and people would sit here and shout EVOLUTION IS A FACT! Where the hell did they get these facts from when even the scientific community is as confused today as they were 100yrs ago?

All the evolutionary proof they have been trying to gather keeps pointing to creationism as they are yet to come to grips with anything and only resort to assumptions nd words like "Probably, most likely, it is believed, we assume, we imagine, etc"

Its madness to push evolution to anyone as truth and fact. Its simply madness!

6. DNA coiling is an important factor in gene regulation. and a mutation was found in the topA gene that encodes an enzyme that relaxes DNA coils. Along with this, a mutation was found in the genetic region upstream of thefis gene. The product of fis reduces activity of DNA gyrase which itself increases DNA supercoiling. A loss or decrease of function in the protein products of both the topA and fis genes would contribute to the observed increase in DNA supercoiling.

7. The researchers found a small insertion mutation upstream of glmUS, an operon involved in cell wall biosynthesis. It was hypothesized that this mutation inhibited normal binding of a transcriptional activator to this region thereby reducing glmUS expression.

@ joyContraMundum and wirinet you called the OP a mumu and the thread Bullshit why dont you guys come and show us what made the OP bullshit and mumu?

Talk is cheap. Show us your scientific knowledge by refuting the OP. I dare you!

8. The nadR gene encodes a bi functional protein involved in aspects of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) metabolism. Specifically, this protein represses several genes involved in NAD synthesis so a disruption of this gene and its corresponding protein, especially the repressor function of the protein, would result in more NAD. Dr. Lenski and colleagues observed an insertion mutation into the nadR gene and hypothesized that an increased intracellular concentration of NAD may be beneficial in this environment. This increase in NAD would be due to a loss of function in the repressor component of the protein.

9. Dr. Lenski and colleagues noted a mutation in spoT, the product of which is involved in the stringent response through a cell signaling molecule (ppGpp). The precise physiological basis for this advantage is unknown; however no two mutations were identical among bacterial populations that evolved a mutation in this gene.

This finding suggests that any fitness benefits from these mutations were due to a disruption of function.

10. Interestingly, many bacterial populations evolved resistance to a certain virus even though they were not exposed to that virus throughout the experiment. The protein that the bacteria use to transport and metabolize maltose, an energy source that was not present in their experimental environment, is the same protein that the virus targets to infect the bacteria. Since there is no maltose in the growth media, downregulating this unused metabolic pathway would be beneficial for the bacteria and just so happens to confer viral resistance as well. Genetically this change resulted from a mutation in the malT gene, the regulator of maltose metabolism through positive regulation of the LamB surface protein. Mutation in malT likely rendered its protein product nonfunctional thereby eliminating expression of LamB.

There you have it people! Richard Lenski's experiment did not prove "molecules-to-man" evolution, as many deluded people think. Instead, it showed that the E. coli couldn't have turned into another species because they gained no new information in their genetic makeup. The existing information was either disrupted, degraded, lost or rearranged.

Jonbellion any comment beside memes?

DeepSight:


And that has everything to do with science.



In the first place, this was not the statement for which the issue of logic and science arose.

In the second place, I make that statement with reference to energy and power - and how these require a source. In case it missed you, the word "heartbeat" there refers not only to your physical heart beat, but more importantly to the living energy that rests within you and enables you to be alive in the first place.

That living energy has a source and that is what I referred to.

What the heck is living energy and how did you arrive at it? Logic? Do plants and animals possess this energy? What about bacteria and fungi? Obligate intracellular parasites (eg viruses) are only alive when they are in a living host; does this 'energy' abandon them when they suddenly are, for one reason or the other expelled from their host only to reappear when they find another host? How do you know?

MrMontella:

check your mentions...
I know you love listing out logical fallacies to appear smart
Even though you're a well known commiter of fallacies...

Flesh and blood could not have revealed this to you...I thought I knew fallacies until I met that guy.

4everGod:
[b]Continuation......Part 4

[s]Is it possible for a rock to come to become alive? Could a rat grow from a lump of coal? You would agree that Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non living matter can change, through a series of random events, into organic living matter. This concept is called by several names and explained in several ways, but often, it is said to be known as “spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, abiogenesis” or biopoiesis.

Do not allow evolution pundits to avoid the “origin of matter” question. Many claim that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.

Should evolution be limited to the study of organic matter? Allow noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer:

“Evolution is made up of all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to limit 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”

If evolution pundits try to split biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), an overwhelming question remains: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must totally embrace the whole process from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific rigmaroll can change this.

Why would such a prominent evolutionist veil the facts?

Unbreakable Laws

At the very core of the “origin of life” quagmire is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the process that new life can come only from existing life that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.

Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook titled, Life: An Introduction to Biology is definite about this: “There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life emerges only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the offspring of another cell.”

Martin Mooe, who writes for Science Digest, declared, “A century of startling discoveries in the biological science has shown us that life emerges only from life...”

These are two plain, conclusive and irrefutable statements. How then do evolution pundits bypass something as vital as biology? Again, throwing aside the something so obvious, they are forced to split the origin of life from the evolutionary process.

Do not be deceived by discussions of scientists who claim to be able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Every honest and even minimaly trained biologist knows that viruses are non living organisms, because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who claims otherwise is either untrained or dishonest.

Even if this was true, it took decades of scientific research and advancement to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to create synthetic polio. Random events did not create it!

So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?

A Land Far, Far Away!

When one tries to push a false assertion, he must quickly change focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes thus, if abiogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.

What should be seen as irrational insanity is entertained as a valid hypothesis. This does not follow the scientific process.

Evolution seems immune from basic logic. The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.

These highly unstable, simple forms of life must survive being ejected from a faraway planet (customarily by a catastrophic event or explosion), peregrinate through the rigors of space (radiation, acerbic cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of perforating earth’s atmosphere and, determinately, survive the rigorous surface impact. How cockamamy! One does not require a degree in science to visually perceive cockamamy nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!

Recollect. This hypothesis is not designated to be an authentic theory. The attention had to be taken away from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific “bait and switch.” In lieu of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot circumvent, they endeavor to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus evading the pristine quandary.

Biogenesis is a ECUMENICAL law. Just as it applies on earth, it must apply throughout the macrocosm. Moving the quandary to outer space is silly and mendacious!

So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least veracious enough to admit no reply to biogenesis ? They simply parrot a non-answer, and apply the argument to future logical fallacy, claiming further scientific improvement will reveal the inception for life story on terra firma.

Evolutionist avoid the doubt and springiness no real number response —because they have no answer! Such fallacies and lack of grounds are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Inquiry at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated, “Theory of evolution is a poove tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

The Law of Laws

For the next posit, we can play the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose the anterior postulation was not erroneous, and that at some future time we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into subsistence.

Conspicuously, with the proof, logic and verbalizations above, this is quite the supposition. But for the sake of argument, postulate there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, subsisted. We can even elongate the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already composed into enzymes. This is an exorbitantly munificent leap, but it will accommodate to prove a point.

With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science come into play the Laws of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington verbalized, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation

These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.

The Natural law of Thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of skill . To even be considered, evolution must function within the restraint of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics

Open or Closed—Still Impossible

Thermodynamics emanates from two Greek words, therme, designating “heat,” and dunamis, designating “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a system, all processes will result in incremented entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.

The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things incline to even out in an isolated system. And entropy is a quantification of how stabilized—or evened out—a system has progressed.

Another way to optically canvass it is best expounded by world-famous science inditer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of verbalizing the second law then is ‘The macrocosm is perpetually getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can visually perceive the second law all about us. We have to work strenuously to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very expeditiously and very facilely. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How arduous to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How facile to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.

This poses quite a challenge for a theory predicated on an incrementation of order, involution and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!

In an endeavor to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The distinction between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the second law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disorderly, entropic and stable over time stringently in line with the second law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy sanctions a process to have more sustained energy—increase in useable energy.

In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more utilizable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, efficaciously transferring energy, all of the Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the macrocosm) are satiated

Energy Alone does not Make Evolution

Can simply applying raw, undirected energy to a system sanction a lower caliber of entropy? Can it authentically be that simple? There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Withal, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.

While many evolutionists endeavor to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, there are some that are more veracious. Charles J. Smith verbalized, “The thermodynamicist immediately elucidates the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explication, however, is not thoroughly satiating, because it still leaves open the quandary of how or why the injuctively authorizing process has arisen (an ostensible lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the cognation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved quandaries in biology”

Decades ago it was understood there are “fundamental unsolved problems.” Nothing has changed today.

Raw energy alone is not enough to reduce entropy! For this to transpire, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from Life: A Prelude to Biology: “But the simple expenditure of energy is not ample to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither engenders nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow designations; it requires information on how to proceed” (accentuation mine).

“Particular work” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only ravages! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and eradicates. There must additionally be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a categorical application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that eradicates.

Consider the process at work in plants, photosynthesis. The parallel is most intriguing because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This involute energy conversion system is the process utilized by plants to transmute sunlight into utilizable energy needed to grow. Because this is biological, we are dealing with the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have information-opulent DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed designation for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in utilizable energy.

There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory, etc. Yet in all cases, the three conditions are satisfied.

To perform concrete work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those injuctive authorizations to be carried out. This transpires in the leaves of plants, as well as with the systems in the human body.

Highly concrete work—evolution—is infeasible by supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” The work must be categorical, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed injuctive authorization. No matter the argument, no matter how stentorian voices get or how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.

Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are plenarily incompatible: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (macrocosmically accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will incline to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would scarcely be possible to conceive of two more thoroughly antithesis principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of intricacy. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” .

Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Mendacious, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

The fundaments of science are predicated on these laws. They are SURE! They are absolute and have subsisted since the commencement of our macrocosm. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution infeasible![/s][/b]

Bullshit
It is extremely wrong to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the biosphere or life
Entropy is not "disorder" in the broad sense
It is the degree of dispersion of energy in a system
Disorder is a stupid oversimplification
Entropy decreases when water freezes
So basically ice is more "ordered" than liquid water
Your misconception will ultimately disprove
-the formation of snowflakes
-orbits in the solar system
-growth in living organisms
And
-the formation of rocks
Say NO to pseudoscience

4everGod:
[b]Continuation...Part 2

[s]Having an Origin as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, Darwin said that all living creatures (inclusive of even matter) evolved from a simple less complex life form or substance. His theory pushes forward that life began by accident blind chance and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.

As far as we know, the common view of evolution is still debated, even among pundits of evolution, we can possibly split up it into 6 major sections: stellar & planetary, cosmic, chemical, organic, macro, and micro. 

Cosmic evolution is made up of the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this area.

Chemical evolution talks about the origin of complex elements. This aspect also attempts to explain the process in which those elements came to be.

Stellar and planetary evolution zooms in on the origin of stars and planets. This is not the same thing as cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.

Organic evolution attempts to shed some light on the origin of living matter. Origin of life study is concentrated upon this area.

The 2 bottom areas, macro & micro evolution, are often erroneously mish mashed. They are not meant to offer explanations to the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the uncountable variety of flora and fauna.

Micro evolution says that every living organism experiences mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro evolution goes beyond this by stating that such adaptations and mutations will, in time, bring about a new species of flora and fauna.

This surely sounds complex doesnt it? Well thats because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the roles begin and end. They even say that macro evolution is just micro evolution over extremely long periods of time.

There is enough proof supporting micro evolution. For example, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is a pointer to micro evolution. Such proof is often used to “prove” macro evolution, thereby employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution...... absolutely none!

Putting a veil over these specialties has led to much confusion among the general public and to heated debate among scientists.

Assumptions Are Not Proof

Remember the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. So many areas of evolution’s position are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method and not how legitimate science operates!

I implore every reader to approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false or impossible to validate, any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.

To erase all doubt, most of the core foundations of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.

As we go step by step over each point, the logical lies evolution makes use of will become clear. Get ready to be amazed by the “science” used to substantiate this nearly globally believed theory.

Neither Theory nor Fact

The first assumption is the slow metamorphosis of referring to the theory as a tried, tested and proven scientific fact in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The sureness with which such statements are declared leaves a lot of people convinced that scientists have supporting proof.

Such blind trust and belief among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.

Pierre-Paul Gressé, a world renowned zoologist and author of more than 300 publications, 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”

Even though these quotes are very profound the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.

A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From just the quote above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that such a well respected zoologist did not accept evolution as fact. How could evolution be considered fact when such divergent opinions exist?

Speaking realistically, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory! A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”

To make it through as a genuine theory, there must be some test or tests attesting to its validity or else it should be tossed out. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.

For example, a theory arising from observing a blue sunset could state that the sunset is always bblue. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a year and record their color.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a purple, green or pink sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.

Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be said that with no observed examples of macro evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific study. Going further, nearly all evolutionists declare that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven. True or False?

When evidence that is no longer accessible or available (because it is very old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!

Evolutionists should realize that their “theory” is neither a scientific fact nor even a theory.

Such thinking is aptly summarized by world renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Denton:

“Darwins general theory that all life on earth began and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of chance 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”

Evolution is not a fact; it is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton stated, it is no more than a “extremely speculative hypothesis.” Again we have to ask: How can something so debated, even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?

Survivors Survive

One of the most basic foundations of evolution is the assumption of “survival of the fittest.” in a nutshell, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained bias.

Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well:

“Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature encouraged the fit with a reward for survival and punished the unfit with the curse of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are trapped in a circular argument which totally begs the question of what it is that makes evolution evolve”?

Another way of saying it is that the fittest are those who survive; and those who survive are considered the fittest. This is circular logic! It presumes that simply because something survived, it is the fittest.

In science,you can't build a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass scrutiny in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.

Survival of the fittest is a careless and floppy “tautology,” a way of saying something in a loquacious manner. For instance, survivors survive; water is wet; matter is material; etc. statements of this nature do not prove anything, because they are nothing more than truisms.

Yet even in the face of such information, pundits of evolution "willingly" ignore the facts:

“What is most troubling is that some evolutionary biologists have no problem with proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by same, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology”

Surviving vs. Arriving

Some scientists may declare, “We have witnessed natural selection. It happens everywhere in the world on a daily basis. It is provable!” They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit not a process that favors the “fittest.” At best, you could call natural selection a “survival of the average.”

Natural selection is a method that removes the weak and unfit from species. This makes sure that populations are healthy and flourishing. It can be seen by the instinctive actions of a cheetah attacking the weakest of a Gazelle herd. The herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed. In no way at all does it propel some supposed “fittest” to the front! Pundits of Evolution must account for new species by, as Darwin declared, successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolution pundits require!

A famous Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries aptly explained this problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”

Shockingly, natural selection did not begin with Darwin. In fact, it was recorded about 20 years earlier by Edwarrd Bllyth, a Chemist and zoologist. Darwin changed the proper observation of a passive “natural process of selection” to the active “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic cliche!

Like all such attempts, the fallacious interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain all about evolution, but, in reality, explains absolutely nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this foundation of evolution is nothing more than a useless statement proving nothing!

A House of Cards

Even with just 2 assumptions of evolution presented, you should already have begun to decipher how so many scientists unjustifiably see evolution as fact. The scientific theory of evolution has already fallen apart just by the use of logic

I ended Part One by asking the question, why should it be taught in high schools; we could now go further to ask why it is believed by anyone. There is a whole lot more to cover as this faulty science is laid bare and the house of cards completely falls.

To be continued shortly[/s]...[/b]

bull
Bull
Bull
Bull
What the heck is macro evolution
There is nothing like that
It is evolution
You admit that "microevolution" or adaptation, occurs infact you require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage your global flood theology, but will state emphatically that "macroevolution" is impossible
Bullcrap
And you are still comparing evolution to social Darwinism and dishonestly putting it in the evolutionist camp
You told me it builds up to the next
I just took time to read it again because you were making assumptions that it knocked evolutionists hard
There is nothing mind blowing

jonbellion:
bull
Bull
Bull
Bull
What the heck is macro evolution
There is nothing like that
It is evolution
You admit that "microevolution" or adaptation, occurs infact you require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage your global flood theology, but will state emphatically that "macroevolution" is impossible
Bullcrap
And you are still comparing evolution to social Darwinism and dishonestly putting it in the evolutionist camp
You told me it builds up to the next
I just took time to read it again because you were making assumptions that it knocked evolutionists hard
There is nothing mind blowing

The way you bloviate can leave any one nonplussed .

jonbellion:
bull
Bull
Bull
Bull
What the heck is macro evolution
There is nothing like that
It is evolution
You admit that "microevolution" or adaptation, occurs infact you require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage your global flood theology, but will state emphatically that "macroevolution" is impossible
Bullcrap
And you are still comparing evolution to social Darwinism and dishonestly putting it in the evolutionist camp
You told me it builds up to the next
I just took time to read it again because you were making assumptions that it knocked evolutionists hard
There is nothing mind blowing

There is no excuse for stupidity

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

This alone shows you have no knowledge to disprove the OP with so kindly stick to posting memes

jonbellion:

Bullshit
It is extremely wrong to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the biosphere or life
Entropy is not "disorder" in the broad sense
It is the degree of dispersion of energy in a system
Disorder is a stupid oversimplification
Entropy decreases when water freezes
So basically ice is more "ordered" than liquid water
Your misconception will ultimately disprove
-the formation of snowflakes
-orbits in the solar system
-growth in living organisms
And
-the formation of rocks
Say NO to pseudoscience

Entropy is not disorder in the broad sense? Can you kindly define entropy to the world so we would see your version.

damogul:



There is no excuse for stupidity

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

This alone shows you have no knowledge to disprove the OP with so kindly stick to posting memes

nr man macro evolution is nit widely used in scientific circles
It's a creationist thing
Evolution is evolution
What you creationists assume is that it means evolution above the species level or the evolution of one species from another, something that science considers to be merely one aspect of evolution