The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century. The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution: The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time. The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...) The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...) The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals. The question of irreducible complexity. The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals. The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgias dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types. The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands). The dna analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors. The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. Punctuated Equilibria in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own... The question of genetic entropy. The obvious evidence of design in nature. The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations. Heres what I mean when I use the term combinatoric considerations... The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs. Take flying birds for example; suppose you arent one, and you want to become one. Youll need a bakers dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc. For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number. In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitesimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelfth-order infinitesimal. The whole history of the universe isnt long enough for that to happen once. All of that was the best case. In real life, its even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all youd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires. And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature youd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial. Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE. Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
Posted on: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:15:19 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015