Evolution Theory is Error

Gareth37

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:

Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

Zombrex

Gareth37 would you believe me if I told you that all of what you just posted is incorrect?

robindch

Gareth37 wrote: »

Proteins cannot form in the oceans

Worrying news indeed to fish, who are protein-based.

Anyhow -- yay, our very own creationism thread!!!

pH

robindch wrote:

Anyhow -- yay, our very own creationism thread!!!

Can we keep him Dades? .... puuuuulease!

Gareth37

Wicknight wrote: »

Gareth37 would you believe me if I told you that all of what you just posted is incorrect?

If you could prove it then yes.

If a pre-man or ape-man existed then how come no such genuine fossils have been found?

Mitch Connor

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

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."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

fatmammycat

'...it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:"
What rubbish. Frankly, if you're really a scientist the very first thing you might learn is what 'theory' actually means in a scientific model, and guess what, it doesn't mean guess.

Galvasean

Gareth37: So, what will we do tonight Brain?
J C: The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to disprove evolutionary theory!

So Gareth, have you done any Creation science lately?

pH

Gareth37 wrote: »

If you could prove it then yes.

If a pre-man or ape-man existed then how come no such genuine fossils have been found?

Aha! that's where you are wrong, there's a very well known intermediary fossil found in east Sussex in England called "Piltdown Man". Surprised you've never heard of it.

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

If you are actually a scientist you should be able to point out the misrepresentations and incorrect statements in your original post.

To start off, you state that science has not "proven" evolution. But as a scientist you would be well aware that science doesn't try to prove anything.

Science tests and evaluates models of the natural world to judge how accurately these models simulate the phenomena they are attempting to model. If the model is found to inaccurate it is updated to make it more accurate. The goal is increasing accuracy.

"Proof" has nothing to do with it, it is impossible to ever demonstrate that a model perfectly simulates a natural phenomena and thus prove that the model is exactly what is happening.

This holds for all scientific models (theories), from gravity to atomic theory to evolution.

Galvasean

Gareth37 wrote: »

If a pre-man or ape-man existed then how come no such genuine fossils have been found?

Actually they have. I suggest a quick google search.

Gareth37

fatmammycat wrote: »

'...it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:"
What rubbish. Frankly, if you're really a scientist the very first thing you might learn is what 'theory' actually means in a scientific model, and guess what, it doesn't mean guess.

So how can life form from dead chemicals? And again why have no genuine fossils been found?

bubonicus

Gareth37 wrote: »

If you could prove it then yes.

If a pre-man or ape-man existed then how come no such genuine fossils have been found?

I agree, God put fossils on earth to test our faith.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Can we keep him Dades? .... puuuuulease!

A Creationist Thread is for life (literally), not just for Christmas ....

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Aha! that's where you are wrong, there's a very well known intermediary fossil found in east Sussex in England called "Piltdown Man" ". Surprised you've never heard of it.

¬_¬ Let's keep it real pH...

Galvasean

Gareth37 wrote: »

And again why have no genuine fossils been found?

So much ignorance... There have been millions of genuine fossils found.

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

So how can life form from dead chemicals?

Through chemistry dear boy!

Life is at the end of the day is simply a long series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions take place due to energy causing atoms to change configuration.

Gareth37 wrote: »

And again why have no genuine fossils been found?

Considering there have been millions of fossils found perhaps you should define what you mean by "genuine"

Gareth37

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually they have. I suggest a quick google search.

When, in the last 10 years. Why were these not found over the past 2000+ years then? Why are government supported scientists and archeologists just "finding" them now?

So the world starts accepting evolution and Governments start propelling the theory and guess what a find is made. Why no finds in the previous 1000s of years?

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

If a pre-man or ape-man existed then how come no such genuine fossils have been found?

Again, since we have found the fossils of "pre-man" (a whole series of them) perhaps you should define what you mean by "genuine"

By "genuine" do you perhaps mean a fossil with "Made by God" stamped on it?

Mitch Connor

Gareth37 wrote: »

When, in the last 10 years. Why were these not found over the past 2000+ years then? Why are government supported scientists and archeologists just "finding" them now?

So the world starts accepting evolution and Governments start propelling the theory and guess what a find is made. Why no finds in the previous 1000s of years?

I doubt people were actively looking for fossils in 1000AD.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

¬_¬ Let's keep it real pH...

If he can dismiss fossils such as Lucy as not genuine I equally reserve the right to claim Piltdown man as genuine.

Gareth37

Wicknight wrote: »

Through chemistry dear boy!

Life is at the end of the day is simply a long series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions take place due to energy causing atoms to change configuration.

So explain to me then, no other scientist can prove this but you can. Im very interested, you are to become very famous and wealthy.

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering there have been millions of fossils found perhaps you should define what you mean by "genuine"

Millions of pre-man or ape-man? No

The Insider

You do know you can believe in God and still recognise that the evolution theory is correct??

Galvasean

Gareth37 wrote: »

When, in the last 10 years. Why were these not found over the past 2000+ years then? Why are government supported scientists and archeologists just "finding" them now?

So the world starts accepting evolution and Governments start propelling the theory and guess what a find is made. Why no finds in the previous 1000s of years?

re: ape/human transitional forms: Simple, because no one was looking for them since they had no reason (at the time) to believe such things existed.
Also it's worth noting that the ancient Greek civilization found many fossils although they interprated them (due to a lack of understanding of the field) as different things. For example the skull of a mammoth was incorrectly labelled the skull of the monserous Cyclops of legend.
So it turns out the discovery of fossils predate your precious Christianity.

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

When, in the last 10 years. Why were these not found over the past 2000+ years then? Why are government supported scientists and archeologists just "finding" them now?

They aren't just finding them now. Fossils have been dug up for as long as history has been recording things. The ancient Greeks used to document fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology

If you want to be taken seriously Gareth, rather than dismissed as a troll, it would perhaps help to not show jaw dropping ignorance of a subject you assert is nonsense.

Gareth37

Wicknight wrote: »

By "genuine" do you perhaps mean a fossil with "Made by God" stamped on it?

No, you will find no such proof. But its interesting how athiests accept the false doctrine of somebody from the 1800s but deny the doctrine that exists for much longer.

Beruthiel

LOL
Has a creationist just thrown himself to the lions?
/Suscribes to thread.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

If he can dismiss fossils such as Lucy as not genuine I equally reserve the right to claim Piltdown man as genuine.

Let's not transform into a monster in order to fight one. :pac:

Gareth37 wrote: »

Millions of pre-man or ape-man? No

Millions of fossils that pre date man. Only a few hundred ape-men (so far).

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

So explain to me then, no other scientist can prove this but you can. Im very interested, you are to become very famous and wealthy.

Pretty much an 1st year chemistry student with a basic chemistry set and some chemicals can demonstrate this (again your misuse of the word "prove" strongly suggests to me you aren't a scientist as you claim). You have to do a bit more to become "famous and wealthy" in this day and age

Gareth37 wrote: »

Millions of pre-man or ape-man? No

No millions of fossils. Thousands of "pre-man" (if by pre-man you mean members of the homo genus that we descended from)

Galvasean

Gareth37 wrote: »

But its interesting how athiests accept the false doctrine of somebody from the 1800s but deny the doctrine that exists for much longer.

It is interesting how Christians accept the false doctrine of somebody from the 2,000 years ago but deny the doctrine that exists for much longer (The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians etc.).

Gareth37

Wicknight wrote: »

They aren't just finding them now. Fossils have been dug up for as long as history has been recording things. The ancient Greeks used to document fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology

If you want to be taken seriously Gareth, rather than dismissed as a troll, it would perhaps help to not show jaw dropping ignorance of a subject you assert is nonsense.

Yes, but none of them prove the theory. In fact science cannot prove the thoery for if it could the doctrine would not be a theory.