For those who believe the theory of evolution, please explain why the following two creatures have not evolved in millions of years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coelacanth ("see-la-kanth") (a fish ~ 400+ million years old)
Virtually unique in the animal kingdom, with a saga steeped in science and popular imagination, the fabulous Coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), that 400 million year old "living fossil" fish, paddles on. Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth with its "missing link" "proto legs" was "discovered" alive and well in 1938!

details: http://www.dinofish.com/

2. The Laotian rock rat - (a mammal ~ 11+ million years old)
The first images of a live specimen of a small, furry animal once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago have been captured during a Southeast Asian expedition led by a retired Florida State University researcher.

details: http://physorg.com/news69433692.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the theory of evolution works as the believers would have everyone else think, then it stands that these two creatures would have evolved beyond their ancient physicalities. However this is not the case. Both creatures are identical to the millions of years old fossils of their ancestors.

How is this possible and is this yet further proof that the theory of evolution is severly flawed and inconsistant with reality?

You decide. Afterall a theory is just a theory, not fact.

The only ones who stand to gain from the theory are the bible thumpers, as it helps support their beliefs in the stories of their holy book.

There are those that believe in intelligent design, but there are two sides to that theory as well. One would have you believe their god of the bible created everything, the other simply proposes the idea that others brought , engineered or created life on earth. Others being lifeforms from other worlds.

If you can believe in god, a supreme being, the creator of all, then is it not also possible to believe that there are other beings with homeworlds in distant galaxies. Which sounds more plausible? Again you decide.

brain candy galore!

ps. Personal opinions welcome but try to include fact with links to backup your claims and ideas.

Interesting one waxzy ... agreed



That's what I also couldn't understand ...

I'm also looking forwards to an explanation why humans devolve instead of evolve. It is rather obvious that we've been busy going down the sink since the beginning of recorded history. And that's not all thanks to us being collectively repressed by the powers that be. Nope, we WANT to, we love our misery.

Much the same as our ecological pigs are "happy pigs who smiled all the way to your porkchop", we are happy slaves who smile while we're being abused and stripped of our human rights. "Just because the end is bad, doesn't mean you can't smile and be happy till you get to it!"

Right.

Wake up people. Your brain needs a SYS 64738.

Agreed....

I would imagine humans started DEvolving about the time they started using medicine and caring for their infirmed. Surely if you took a group of people and put them in a harsh environment where they had to use their brains and physical prowess to survive... after several generations you would start seeing super-humans. In our case, being smart enough to make our lives safe and comfortable has pretty much put us at a dead end in evolution. Imagine if people were bred for traits, as we have done with dogs... the incredible variety... kind of scary. Probably some mad government scientist is somewhere right now tinkering with just this sort of stuff.

The military does just that

Well I'm no expert on the subject but I do believe there is plenty of proof to back up the claim of evolution of species in general, though just how this theory relates to humans is still not entirely clear. (Sorry just personal opinions being expressed here, I can't point you to any links.)

It is amazing the amount of effort recently that is being put into offering us the alternative viewpoint that the origins of humans on this planet being of "intelligent design". I can't see why so many people would be giving their attention to this theory if there wasn't something to it. In my view, the jury is still out on this one.

I am not familiar with the two particular species that you refer to but I'm NOT sure that the notion "... it stands that these two creatures would have evolved beyond their ancient physicalities..." is completely correct. By that I mean a creature/species that is in balance with it's natural surroundings is unlikely to need to evolve/adapt to survive, e.g. a rat that has lived on the same type of rock and in the same type of caves in the same conditions that have existed for thousands of years unchanged. I think under these circumstances, without the existence of some external stimuli/threat requiring change, or some imbalance meaning that a certain size of that creatures (or length of claws etc etc.) would have an advantage over another, then it is quite possible to suggest that a creature/species could survive over many thousands of years unchanged - this doesn't mean that a species has reached the end of it's evolution, it just means that it has found a balance for now.

Anyway, I agree "probably some mad government scientist is somewhere right now tinkering with just this sort of stuff" - you can be sure of this - against all warnings of introducing dangerous mutations and hyper-resistant super-viruses/bacteria etc. into the world many states seems to be tampering with just this sort of stuff. The thought of how far they may gotten away with human experimentation worries and scares me.


Why so? Why can't I believe that the "One True God(s)" lol created everything, the galaxies and all life that may exist upon them, other beings and us?

Why can't I believe that the supreme being(s) created this receptacle called the universe as well as the conditions/design in order for life to be able to grow and evolve in many complex and interesting ways?

I think Episteme hit the nail right on the head here... these creatures did not evolve, because there was need for them to. They're doing just fine the way they are.


On the fiddling of evolution ... by genetic manipulation or breeding programs, by the military... the more I think about this the more frightening I find it. Logically, along with making specialized humans such as soldiers stronger, faster and smarter ... I think they'd want to remove compassion from them as well. This is a recipie for disaster. Now I've got to go study this stuff...it's driving me crazy pondering all the badness.

"For those who believe the theory of evolution"

You don't 'believe' in a scientific theory. You test, retest, change the theory to meet the observable data, then test again. Belief and faith are reserved for things that cannot be tested.

Find yourself believing a scientific theory and you've strayed into the realms of dogma.

"Virtually unique in the animal kingdom"

Virtually is a fabulous weasel word that negates the following word. The coelacanth shares it's lofty position with scads of reptiles including the rather successful crocodile, alligator, monitor lizard et al. In fact the whole class of reptiles has generally stopped evolving because of it's success.

"How is this possible and is this yet further proof that the theory of evolution is severly flawed and inconsistant with reality?"

Further proof? I've yet to see anything compelling that doesn't require a duality; eg if X is false, then Y must be true. It's a very lazy thought pattern that usually has a compulsion to simply accept another idea because one is distasteful.

Why it's possible is that only species that are significantly unsuccessful in occupying their niche die off, due to large scale nemesis events, such as climatic change, asteroid strikes or geological disturbance, and sometimes simply due to competition in the food chain. Certain animals have proved _extremely_ good at occupying certain niches.

It's not just the animal kingdom. Some plants have barely changed from 200-100 million years ago. Ferns are extremely old plant lines that have a lineage that stretches back far enough to be contemporary with the oldest animal fossils and beyond.

Admittedly we work through inference and stratic records, but that's the best we currently have, coupled with various isotopic dating regimes and a rough idea of what can happen.

"Afterall a theory is just a theory, not fact."

True, but the necessary underpinnings of any great theory are that it'll never be entirely proven, just become darned compelling when you look at the huge body of evidence collected since Darwin's 'origin of the species'. The trick is to look at the confirmatory evidence rather than try to find small examples of incongruity to support a shaky opinion.

"Which sounds more plausible? Again you decide."

Two alternatives? A wealth of thinking there. Tell me if you've ever heard of 'Panspermia'.




I fail to see anything regarding 'devolution' with regards to the human race. We're evolving at an extremely quick rate with regard to abstraction and modalities of thought, but the evolution of homo sapiens has taken the best part of 70,000 years, a significantly longer period than recorded history, from whichever civilisation you decide did the recording.

I'm fairly concerned that we're currently deluged with opinions regarding mates from the mass media that has changed our habits, and that medical science is increasing the number of congenital defects that are staying in the genepool, but the alternative is ludicrous given the ability to reduce suffering in our fellow man.

Can you quantify 'going down the sink'?




And a lot of dead humans. Mutation wouldn't take hold in several generations as we're measured by fairly long generations in opposition to say, bacteria. MRSA is a case in point. The crucible of hospitals has created superbugs as an inevitable consequence of trying to maintain sterile environments through chemicals. Other diseases mutate extremely quckly, Influenza being one of the quickest and least stable organsims. HIV attacks white blood cells and mutates to 'fit' the hosts immune system within a single generation dependent on viral load, etc.

Adaption relies on a lot of bodies for unsuccessful organisms and the occasional one that makes it through.




You can start with mitochondrial Eve, who's one of the oldest human ancestors that we can trace, putting the birth of the human race in Africa.



It's a 'wedge' issue, intended to insert doubt into the minds of children in an effort to get them slightly more interested in religion than science. Religion is easy. Science is hard.

As for the jury being out, you might want to read the judicial commentary on the Dover school board. This isn't about competing theories, it's about accepting three hundred years of science on the subject and doing the homework on the subject, or simply putting it to something that cannot be tested. Seriously, go find a test for intelligent design. Even the flagellae example can be shown to have evolved from simpler biological mechanisms.

The missing links get smaller, and the flimflammery of trying to introduce the unknown into scientific enquiry will get steadily harder.



Exactly right.



Certainly not in the USA, if Bush is to be believed. I chuckled at his dire warning of 'Animal/Human hybrids' during the State of the Union. Hundreds of scientists will have had to pick their jaws off the floor, and it really pinned his colours to the mast.

There really is no mileage in producing a super human, militarily or otherwise. Why bother spending money on something like a 'super soldier' when you can simply recruit poor kids to act as cannon fodder? The Air Force gets a stupendous amount of cash for technology, but there is very little government backed biological research because private industry is currently milking human conditions for all it's worth.

OTOH, everyone tends to show this fear of human V2.0 as if their children aren't an evolution in themselves. Two completely different cellular lines producing another human life is pretty mind-blowing in it's own right because of the self-organising nature of such an event that we have a terribly difficult time reproducing without shotgunning the whole thing.

Draconis

Thanks for your thoughts Draconis... its seems this discussion is set to continue

Biological evolution doesn't force every single species to evolve proportional to time, for all eternity.
If it did, we can ask why any form of organism exists,
and why it hasn't yet evolved to something more efficient.
Be it a 1000 year old, or a 3 billion year old.
If you argue like that, you may as well argue that a cat will become infinitely agile
given close to an eternity to evolve ( ragardless of physical limitations )
or that all species will someday be replaced by one superior, extincting them all.
Well, that has already happened, if you look at microbial levels
we are already cousins and brothers with trees and bacteria.

Further there is not a single string of evolution, set and planned beforehand.
We still have living bacteria and viruses as old as biological evolution on earth
even being building blocks of our bodies.

If you want an easy explanation of darwinian evolution
consider it the DNA fight for survival.
The fight for survival of complexed self-organising systems
that defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Many variations of theories on evolution exist
but that doesn't mean that evolution as a whole is just a theory.
It has very practical implications when you breed animals in Zoos
and when you try to refine agriculture.
When you can make enormous amounts of money on a theory
and when it is apparent in all kinds of different professions and fields
it often becomes a practical fact.
Darwinain evolution doesn't give detalied explanation of societies of organisms.
It is mostly baced on individual level.
It doesn't explain LOVE either.
However a theory doesnt have to explain every single phenomenon in the universe to be a fact.
Only the bible can do that. ( or claim to do it )

Hi Stoj,
Welcome to the Conspiracy Research

Your post is very interesting, and makes many valid points. As you mentioned, speciation, as we see in agriculture and zoos, is certainly an observable fact, which I'm sure no-one would deny. The interesting thing about speciation, I find, is that it has never been seen to gain any information - only lose it.

However, there have been rare occasions where one organism has been observed to gain genetic information from another - already existing - species, which is not the same as spontaneously generating new information. In line with the second Law of Thermodynamics, this phenomenon is best described as devolution - the exact opposite of evolution.

Yes.
To refine a crop you have to alter evolution.
It will have a big advantage over other crops
as long as you keep the synthetic environment intact.
If manufactured crop is thrown into a forest it will probably be extinct
or resemble its original set within a few generations, if it survives.
I argue that even synthetic environments are natural ones
but with the exception of being consciously made.
Because farms constitute such big areas that they effectively interact with native environments.
There are no rules as to what is natural or not, in evolution.
Or to what is human or not.
( for that we need the Bible again )

As to the amount of information lost or gained
it drops only when a specie gets extinct.
The concern that you might weaken an organism ( or lose information ) by interfering
is where we mix moral with evolution.
Evolution doesnt need a specific amount of information, it is merely a blind result of it.
The best thing is to give time for a organism to adapt ( without dying )
if you change its environment, which can be hard.
Further DNA doesn't care if its part of a pig, or a human
as long as it can duplicate and thrive.
However, it is 1000 times safer inside a human body.

This is my first post, so first things first - Hello to everyone at this very interesting site that I just stumbled on!!!!!

I thought it best that when I did my first post that it be on a subject that I can sound at the very least, reasonable intelligent, so here goes.

Though "Charles Darwin" was given credit for constructing the "Theory of Evolution", as in all things clandestine, he was nothing more than a front man. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin wrote extensively on the subject long before Charles' name was firmly attached to the theory. What the "theory of evoluction" really is, is a high masonic doctrine of "eugenics" which is veiled in man evolving from animals. What they are really talking about is man's ability to evolve to "Godhood" without the aid of God ( Luciferian doctrine). Along with Erasmus who was well past the 33rd degree of masonry, you had at that time, Cecil Rhodes, Lord Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley and a few others putting out mounds of literature, for the brotherhood, mind you, on how to achieve "apotheosis". Their belief was that this could only be achieved through "selective breeding" and that inferior cultures had to be eradicated.

All of the above mentioned were members of the "Royal Institute for International Affairs" which spawned what is known in america as the "Council on Foreign Relations", the american arm of the organization. They can also be given credit for the "League of Nations" which spawned the "United Nations".

As in all of the highly occult doctrines, they are always veiled and are only revealed to a selected few. But, fortunately, the outcome of what they are really saying and doing is manifested in the open to society for those that have "eyes to see and ears to hear"!!!

And, just as a reference Lord Bertrand Russell wrote "The impact of science on society" and many of you may well know that Cecil Rhodes is who the "Rhodes Scholarship" is named after. He is also the person that "Rhodesia" in africa is named after for the wonderful work he did in pilfering the gold mines in africa. As a sidebar, he was very close to and good friends with "A. Yale" the founder of Yale University.

These people travel in a very small circles and are of the same mindset. So when thinking of the theory of evolution, think in terms of man's ability to rise above nature, and in essence, become masters of it.

In conclusion, when you hear talk and read documents of "depopulation" and all the tools that are used to bring them to fruition, this is the occult aspect of the "Theory of Evolution". The next step is to fuse science with religous doctrine (for public consumption, mind you).

Thanks for entertaining my little point of view and I enjoy reading all of your posts!!!!!

Strength and Honor

Going back to the first link within this discussion - I agree with the final coments and add that is it not possible that creation, evolution, and intelligent design are all working together at differnent times and different circumstances?

For example - Could not the creator have created life from say the big bang, or whatever you imagine the ultimate creation to have come from, and then fast forward to earth... could not the life on earth be evolvolving based on its environment?

I believe we as humans are a product of life (see Jordan Maxwells 'Sons of God'), I don't know who or what created life nor do I think that it matters - We evolved on earth through the stages to Homo Sapiens or whatever the one before man was called (honestly don't know or have time right now to find out - sorry) - then it gets tricky when our development sped up quickly, is it possible that we were genticly modifed? I think it is. But whatever you believe. The basis of this post is that we currently as Humans are unlocking the secrets of life - we can clone, and gentically modify species as we like for whatever reasons we like....

So. We were created and evolved to a point when we ourselves can be creators of a sort. Bit of a ramble I know...

*** Note:
This post, and some subsequent to it, have been split from the "Brainwashed by the Corporate Media" thread


That's absolutely correct - the trouble with "evolution" is that no-one has ever seen any evidence whatsoever of new genetic material coming into being. That's correct - never.

Every single instance of supposed evolution (better termed "speciation") is as a result of a loss of genetic information. Hence you start with e.g. two wolf-type creatures, of medium height, and medium-length fur, and by the time several generations have passed, you can obtain several different "breeds" of dog. This trend can also easily be seen within a person's lifetime - no need for millions or billions of years!

The other very telling thing about this process is that the resulting "breeds" - take Great Danes & Chihuhuas, for example, often diversify to such a great extent - losing so much of the original genetic material in the process - that they can no longer interbreed. They are, in effect, entirely seperate species. This is what Darwin witnessed when he studied finches in the Galapagos Islands, prior to publishing his theory of evolution.

Darwin's idea seemd like a good one at the time, but he himself even claimed that, without "intermediate species" in the fossil record, his theory would be null and void. This is precisely what we see today - no "intermediates" at all - unless you include the many fakes & bogus reconstructions (for that truly is the level that some evolutionists will stoop to, in their desperation to prove their conviction that evolution is correct - contrary to all of the actual evidence).

From this page (a good place to start):
The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

QUOTE

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

(emphasis mine)

To sum it up:

• The "greatest evidence of evolution" - the Peppered Moth - was achieved by glueing and pinning the moths to trees, so that the "evidence of evolution" could be photographed!
• "Piltdown Man", & all of the other supposed predecessors to today's humans have also been proven to be frauds.
• There is not one single transitional fossil in existance, not even one. That is to say, there is absolutely no phyysical evidence to support the theory that evolution occurred in the past.
• No-one has ever seen evolution occur in the present - speciation is always a result of loss of genetic information, never a gain in it.

It's been my experience that the advocates of evolution are a lot more dogmatic and often vitriolic than the advocates of Creation Science - and generally a lot less honest, to boot. Christians start from a standpoint of firm faith that their worldview will ultimately be proven to be correct - to date, there is nothing in the Bible that has been properly "debunked" by science. The jury may still be out on some matters, but there is nothing in the Bible that has today been proven to be false. On the contrary, archaology and science continue to make more & more discoveries which actually prove the validity of the Bible.

On the other hand, many evolutionists are becomming increasingly aggressive, and, rather than sticking to science to defend their beliefs, they are resorting to immature insults and name-calling. Richard Dawkins, who is probably the formest proponent of evolution today, is a case in point.

Moreover, evolution is not the only scientific theory in deep water. The Big Bang theory has been attacked and criticised by scientists from the most highly esteemed Max Planck Institute of Astrophysics downwards. It is quite apparent that true science is being stifled by dogma - not by dogmatic Christians, as one might suspect, but by dogmatic evolutionists who need the theory of evolution to exist, otherwise their atheistic belief system crumbles.

Here is the Open Letter to the Scientific Community, originally published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004: Science is a process of uncovering truth. Where scientists are not given funding or avenues to investigate the truth, we run the risk of believing in a lie - simply because our grades at school depended on our ability to recite it.

Here's a BitTorrent file I uploaded yesterday, which goes into many of the reasons why our educational system is being changed and distorted out of all recognition. Students of my generation and older will be particularly shocked.
Click to view attachment

Mairi

Yup, i think Cypher pretty much summed it up. I kinda believe in micro-evolution but no proof still exists on a missing link or one species converting into a totally new species. I believe evolution has its credibility but one must admit it is just a theory for now.

Sorry Cypher,

Could you please clarify... How exactly do you presume that speciation is always the result of a "loss of genetic information" ...and never a gain?

I mean ignoring the fact that Great Danes and Chihuhuas had not actually evolved by natural means but by artificial human breeding selections, one could still certainly make the claim that at least some of the slight genetic mutations in every generation leading from wolf-like creature to Great Dane were additive in genetic information--in that the subsequent breeds or species did become better adapted to their environment (ie. more susceptible to domestication and obedience to humans) and therefore they thrived. Your statement has an air of genetic entropy about it I can’t quite swallow.

I’m also wondering where you might have gotten that argument from because I’d be interested in exploring it further.

Thanks,
Justin

Hi Justin, & thanks for your post

That speciation is always a result of losing genetic information isn't a presumption - it remains an observable scientific fact. Although the example I used was dogs (which would be un-natural, or accelerated selection), the premise remains the same.

Certainly, one may make the claim that, in becoming better adapted to their environment, creatures may appear to be have genetic information added, but despite the longevity of the theory of evolution, science has been unable to prove this assumption - no-one has ever witnessed any spontaneous increase in the quantity and quality of genetic material (i.e. useful new DNA code) in any organism. On the contrary, mutations are almost invariably fatal to the organism, & in the rare exceptions where they are not fatal, mutations are highly deleterious (corrupt DNA is the cause of a whole host of medical conditions).

Even the most cursory websearch will highlight the multitude of health problems caused by genetic mutation - e.g. try search criteria: genetic mutation dna fatal (which will return many verifiable results) and also: genetic mutation dna beneficial / advantageous / other synonyms (which only returns theoretical results – never any concrete evidence). It soon becomes apparent that, even with all of these mutations that are demonstrably occurring, there are no reports whatsoever of any beneficial mutations. Conversely, when e.g. a strain of bacteria becomes resistant to penicillin / anti-biotics, this is usually due to the organism losing genetic material, which results in it losing the ability to attempt to absorb or process the medicine (which would otherwise kill it).

Another manner in which some bacteria have become resistant results from the DNA of another micro-organism combining with their own. Scientists have frequently identified chunks of DNA that have been transferred in this manner across different bacterial strains, but again, this is an entirely different thing from new, useful DNA "evolving" (the implications of cross-species DNA transference as a result of "genetic modification" should not be under-estimated). Emergence of useful new DNA has never been proven to happen, & I challenge anyone to provide a non-theoretical example that it has. All available scientific proof evidences that mutations destroy and corrupt genetic information, but never been observed to increase it in any meaningful way.

Back to the apparent increase in genetic material.
When a genotype is recessive, it effectively lies dormant, which means that it is not evident in the phenotype until such time as the gene is passed to offspring by both parents. In the most straightforward (non sex-linked etc) example of the monohybrid cross, a punnet square setup shows that 25% of F1 offspring are double-recessive - i.e. the recessive characteristic would be observable in the phenotype of some of the gametes.

Of course, monohybrid cross gametes account for only 50% of the theoretical gene pool (under the most favourable conditions) with the other 50% comprising equal numbers of double-recessive & double dominant genotypes. A punnet square cross of all available genotypes in their average distribution (assuming no other complications) results in only 1/16 of double-recessive gametes – which is to say, only 6.25% of F1 gametes.

Gametes and progeny are, however, entirely different things. Sex-linked genes and incomplete dominance additionally complicate matters, in many cases further suppressing the emergence of the double-recessive phenotype; the percentage of gametes does not reflect the chances of success or otherwise of the progeny surviving until reproductive age. The long list of examples of fatal double-recessives include: cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anaemia & haemophilia, & there are also many autosomnal recessive disorders which, although not fatal, are so disadvantageous to the chances of survival until reproductive age that the prospect of raising progeny is highly unlikely.

Statistically, the chances of a "beneficial mutation" occurring are, in real-world terms, nil. Even giving it the benefit of the doubt that one *might* occur, the chances of a recessive mutation flourishing are nil X nil. (Conventional Darwinian theory at this point in time adheres to the "sudden emergence" theory relating to recessive genetics, so, to argue the case for Darwinism / evolution, we should heed the pitfalls of their past (fallacious) arguments and stick with their current ones (albeit that they are just as wrong, but there is no need to revisit any argument which even ardent Darwinists accept to be false.)

Regarding entropy - thank you for raising this Justin- it's yet another critical point in negating the possibility of supposed "evolution". Provable (not abstract / theoretical) Physics shows that an isolated system only degenerates - the exact opposite of theoretical evolution - which is once more very much at odds with all provable science and methods.

As an aside, critical thinking is no longer the predominant element of today's educational system; the transformational methods geared towards a globalist society (ruled by an un-elected elite) preclude this, yet it is fundamental to understanding science and mathematics. There IS such a thing as absolute truth - that is what mathematics is, & that which science aspires to understand. It is not the place of mankind to dictate what ultimate truth should be; rather, we need to discover and understand it for ourselves.
Mairi

Mairi (Cypher),

While, I certainly have no argument that you could probably spend every waking hour searching Google and find an endless supply of documentation illustrating that genetic mutations (from our biased human perspective) will generally produce ghastly results in the offspring of most organisms, I hardly think one could conclude from such a web surfing exercise that occasional beneficial mutations will absolutely never occur.

In fact I tried the Google search exactly as you specified it--“genetic mutation dna beneficial / advantageous”
...and found among several other interesting pages, this (examples and summaries of experiments demonstrating beneficial mutations and natural selection in action):
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Now it states right up front, “Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population.” From my understanding (albeit limited I will admit) brand new genetic information most certainly springs up in organisms’ gene pools through a process called polyploidy—a doubling, tripling, quadrupling...etc of it’s chromosomes producing new, identical alleles that can evolve freely through mutations over many generations with few initial constraints from the natural selection process because of the fact that they start out as redundant copies essentially. And it seems this is rather well documented as one of the driving forces behind speciation.

But am I understanding you correctly that you would still consider this to be only “apparent increases in genetic material”? ...because it’s the deleting and refining mutations that under very slim chances end up resulting in a net positive evolutionary benefit to a species? Okay, so would this be an example of what you’re talking about ...an observation of a specific gene deletion responsible for a beneficial genetic adaptation in the human genome (the strangest part is that I actually found this on Conservapedia.com during the search you suggested above—and here I thought all right-winger’s were staunch creationists! LOL)

“...a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[1] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-32 in the European population is that is conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe.[2]”

...so in this case a deletion of genetic information is considered beneficial. In fact, losing genetic information isn’t such a bad thing if it means you’re better able to live longer and reproduce amongst a growing HIV positive population. In my humble opinion, that’s an incredibly positive evolutionary step forward for a species!

I’m not aware that anyone in the Darwin camp has seriously suggested that evolution involves “entirely different new useful DNA” strands just spontaneously appearing in a genome one day like you seemed to suggest. It’s a refinement (sometimes a weeding out of detrimental genes) process that occurs very slowly and generally over lengths of time humans have trouble fully comprehending. This is why I stressed the phrase “biased human perspective” above. Our sense of time on the evolutionary scale is generally inadequate. Likewise, our collective sense of genetic morality is highly skewed. Humans also have trouble getting past this egocentric notion that we are the pinnacle of evolution. Which is why even on an individual genetic mutation by mutation basis perhaps we should really be reluctant to judge one mutation as “good” or “bad” ...”beneficial” or “detrimental” to the species’ gene pool as a whole because only lots of time and natural selection will tell.

Regarding entropy... yeah, the known universe generally seems to be an entropic system, however complexity often arises from chaos. This is observable throughout nature without supernatural explanations.

So your argument, correct me if I’m wrong, seems to be in support of an intelligent designer?

I will readily admit that I am by no means a geneticist or even a biologist. Mind if I ask if you are Mairi?

Justin
jisnut(at)yahoo.com

PS. Sorry that I've helped steer this conversation WAY off the original topic, I just found Mairi's comments interesting and apparently I was looking for a good debate.

Hi Justin, great to see you again - I was hoping that you might return

You are absolutely correct in saying that searching Google every waking hour for any scientific documents proving that beneficial mutations may occur is a somewhat fruitless exercise, yet when you asked for evidence, I found it a bigger hurdle to find documentation proving that they don't: this is the null-hypothesis theory. Science can only disprove a theory by discovering evidence contrary to it, but lack of evidence doesn't prove the theory to be true. However, in the case of supposed evolution, lack of evidence supporting the theory of evolution would be highly indicative of a flawed theory - since we are all supposed to have descended from the same single-celled organisms, evolution should be a very active and easily-observable phenomenon. Apart from this, there is a wealth of evidence stacked against evolutionary theory.

I read through the page that you found, and, while the results there were interesting, there was nothing to suggest actual evolution, per se - the slight changes & benefits there certainly indicate natural selection - which only a fool would argue does not happen - but none of the organisms in these studies spontaneously grew feathers where they previously had none, they didn't grow new fur where they had scales, and none of the organisms developed a new tail, or any other complex appendage for that matter. The above are all examples of evolution - macro-evolution, as defined by Darwin's theory. These are all examples of changes which require an organism to develop brand new DNA in order to produce the change.

I'll touch on the conclusions of the experiments listed on the page you provided, as I can identify problems in the conclusions drawn in each experiment:
1) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
Organisms from e.g. the 42C culture may well be 20% fitter at that temperature, but how well do these lines adapt if placed in a culture at 32C? If they failed to adapt to become 10% fitter than the original organisms at that temperature, that would indicate that their adaptation has cost them genetic material, not gained any. As it stands, the experiment is incomplete and inconclusive.

2) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
This proves only that selection does occur, which no-one has ever denied since Mendel discovered this with his peas in the monastery/

3) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
This is the same argument I used in the medium-sized dog to great Dane argument, except this experiment uses unnatural selection of Chlamydomonas (which also need to change their name if they want to achieve household pet staus like Great Danes )

4) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
Look at te unscientific language used here: " presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule" and: "(This is just speculation on my part...") However, further down, this is interesting:
"This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders". This points to the hypothesis that the yeasts already possessed the required genes, which were suppressed in that particular clonal line. Once again, this indicates that loss of a suppressant gene would free the other genes to become dominant in the phenotype as being more likely than the emergence of new genetic material.

5) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
"most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations" Translated into English, this means that most of the changes were actually due to chunks of DNA turning back to front, rather than actual mutations - except in very rare instances. The extract does not state whether the mutated bacteria were healthy enough to survive; one could equally assume that they did not, and the 10,00th generation of bacteria still surviving were all simply due to the changes of order in the DNA strands, as described above.
I do entirely agree with this comment: "...candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find".

6)Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
The title says it all - gene duplications and natural selection - no new DNA at all there, just re-hashing the old.

7) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
Same as the above, but the important question here is: if you simply duplicate a yeast gene enough times, does that eventually make a banana, a rhinocerous, or a human? Nope - as the article says, most of the duplications were deleted (DNA has an incredibly complex inbuilt error-correcting mechanism, so mutations - real mutations - are really very rare).

8) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene
When 2 different genes are present, a third, new characteristic appears. This is frequently seen when incomplete dominance occurs, leading to an otherwise recessive characteristic appearing in the phenotype.

I'll deal with the other examples when I have more time, but I hope that you would agree that the results of the above experiments are at the very least inconclusive in their goal to identify the formation of new DNA, if not fully agree that they offer stronger proof of the arguments I raised, rather than evidence of new DNA being formed.

Although I wan't being serious about the idea of microbes forming fur or feathers, we should certainly be able to witness the creation of a new appendage, such as a flagellum (tail) for propelling bacteria, or other new developments taking place. Although Darwin's original theory was that these changes take place very slowly, modern science has found this to be impossible (the irreducible complexity problem). Since an organism will not survive to procreation with e.g. half a wing, half a leg or anything else (the useless appendage becomes dead weight, which natural selection would weed out of the population before it was able to eventually form a full limb.

Therefore, current evolutionary thinking is that new appendages etc must in fact "evolve" very quickly indeed. This creates a further set of problems, of course:

1) Since evolution, if it occurred, would HAVE to happen very quickly, we should easily be able to see this going on all of the time. Yet we don't.... I wonder why?
2) We still have no "intermediate species". No half-formed dinosaurs, no evidence of anything changing today.
3) Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Scientists still cannot come up with any satisfactory explanation for how even a bacterial flagellum could have arisen by natural selection - a bacteria, nothing more complex than that! The flagellum comprises over 40 parts to this miniature motor, and if any one of these is absent, the entire mechanism fails. This means that a bacteria with half a flagellum is at an evolutionary disadvantage, and will die off before the full flagellum can form. Apart from that, the mathematical probability against evolution ever happening at all is astronomically high. Worse than impossible.

It's far more likely that a hurricaine could blow through a junkyard and leave a fully-assembled Boeing 747 in its wake than for evolution to ever occur.

Regarding your quote on the appearance of HIV, there is very good evidence pointing to its origins in US laboratories; documentation abounds that such a project was given the go-ahead for development by the secret services several decades before the "emergence" of AIDS. Genetic manipulation by humans is, as you pointed out in my example with dogs, probably not the best to quote in arguing for or against macro-evolution.

If no-one in the Darwinian camp seriously suggests that entirely new DNA appears, then how else did it get there - or are you suggesting it was created?

Joking aside, you asked if I was supporting the ID theory, but I assure you that wasn't my intention at all. Whatever I believe or don't believe in isn't something I would wish to impose on anyone else, rather, I would prefer to be able to identify & break down fallacious arguments, to leave the way clear for others to make up their own minds.

It is clear that there is a huge amount of propaganda linked to a hidden agenda that is being pushed onto people by The Powers That Be, via the educational system, the mainstream media etc and that agenda does in fact add up to part of a larger picture. Whatever part of this agenda is interesting enough to people to start to question the facts for themselves is good enough for me to argue against it. I hope that sounds suitably mysterious to make you curious to learn more

Mairi

With all due respect Mairi, no serious scientist would ever hypothesize the spontaneous appearance of a feathered wing on an amphibian, fur on a lizard, or other wacky complex appendages as you've suggested even after perhaps thousands of closely scrutinized generations. In fact, if I were a biologist who left a petri dish of E. coli bacterium to grow in the lab one night only to return the next morning to find they had spontaneously mutated into jellyfish, I may have no choice but to declare it a divine miracle and retract any argument I've ever made in support of evolution. I'd also probably check myself into the nearest psychiatric hospital.

While I do appreciate your efforts in trying to debunk the experiments very briefly summarized on that page I happened to run across, I didn't expect you to address each one. I certainly didn't perform them. Hell, I honestly can't completely follow along with what they're even doing in some of them—it does make me wanna go back to school to study stuff like this though! What I could comprehend however I just thought was a pretty decent sample.

Reading your comments though, I do think you seemed to have misunderstood some of the evidence they presented. Are you under the impression that these researchers are forcing gene duplication artificially somehow through genetic modifications or something? If you read it more carefully I think you'll recognize that they are only applying artificial selection constraints as an evolutionary catalyst on the organisms (ie. limiting food, altering temperatures) and after several generations of observation only they are actually noticing gene duplications as a result—in other words, yes the subjects have actually evolved new genetic material to help them better cope in their altered environments. The scientists are not manually manipulating the organism's genes or adding strange genes from other creatures (...like Monsanto does—now there are some true conspiracy stories you need to research!) if that's how you were interpreting these accounts. They simply recorded individual gene duplications and in some cases they mention direct evidence of beneficial paleopolyploidy—ancient whole genome duplications—which is indeed a case of brand new genetic material being introduced into the gene pool. So it seems this is completely contradictory to your "no new useful genetic material claim". I'm not sure how else that can be disputed or what additional evidence one needs to feel more comfortable with this concept of how evolution works at the genetic scale. Again, I do not believe everything I read on the Internet. I suppose this could all be a big lie, but if I took the time I bet I could find a lot more examples from different reputable sources. I'd love to try these experiments myself in my basement, but I wouldn't really know where to start and I'm no good at writing grant requests to obtain funding for all the equipment necessary.

Ah, I was expecting you'd mention the "irreducible complexity problem". Actually I completely disagree with the argument that half a wing, or half an arm or half an eye is no better than no wing, no arm or no eye. I dare you to threaten a half blind, partial amputee with removing the rest of his eyesight and the rest of his limbs. I guarantee he'll put up the best fight he can to keep what little he's got.

May I ask what exactly would you expect a half-formed dinosaur to look like. And if I were a to present you with a fossilized example closely resembling perhaps a smaller lizard type animal only half-as mean looking as a Tyrannosaurs Rex, would you not then ask for an example of a quarter-formed dinosaur? ...a one-eighth-formed dinosaur? Sure, why not! That would be perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence in support of the evolution of a dinosaur? However there are obviously going to be some physical, and economical limits to what paleontologists are going to be able to dig up to provide an absolutely continuous fossil record of the complete evolution of a species. I for one am continually awestruck by what the earth has preserved for us, and by what scientists have managed to find and reconstruct and of course by how well it supports evolutionary theory! Just because they can't possibly extract every possible fossil that ever existed and lies somewhere under the vast surface of the Earth is not a reason to discount what amazing fossils they have uncovered. In one of your comments above you alluded to some hoax the paleontologist have pulled on us—"fakes and bogus reconstructions" ...do you have references? And what may I ask would be their motive in dreaming up such lies?

My quote regarding HIV was in fact not at all relating to the appearance of the human immunodeficiency virus itself, but a particular beneficial gene mutation in certain humans that evidently makes them less susceptible to contracting HIV and delays the onset of AIDS (...even if they do still contract it I suppose) In any case, you seem more interested in drumming up government involvement in mad scientist genetic modification conspiracy theories. Now I love conspiracy theories as much as, well, anyone else apparently reading the original post. But trust me, NO ONE in any government on this planet (particularly the morons running the United States government) is intelligent nor sophisticated nor powerful enough to have dreamt up and staged all the evolutionary evidence and awesome and beautiful genetic diversity that currently exists on our planet. No way! I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

Now I realize the name of this site suggests that you research conspiracies and feel free to give me just about any ridiculous or evil scenario involving George W. Bu$h and company and if it's truly vile and evil enough, I'll be apt to believe it at this point. I'll be the first to argue that he and Cheney are some of the most vile and evil dictators we've seen in quite a while! But seriously, please ask yourself why the particular "powers that be" would want to feed us a bogus story about evolution as a lie. Seems to me they'd rather feed us a creation myth backed by their version of moral dogma and authority as evil dictators have throughout the majority of recorded history. And guess what, they do ...or they try! Religion has proven to be the time tested way to keep the masses subservient.

I can argue for a long time that we do in fact see evolution happening around us all the time and suggest again with all due respect that perhaps you're observing your natural environment thru a somewhat biased filter—picking and choosing which elements of the evolutionary evidence you're willing to even consider for whatever reason. That reason is none of my business. Like you, I have no real desire to win converts to my side of the argument necessarily, but I am interested in setting records straight wherever possible. If there is ample evidence where someone says there's not, I feel the need to point that out. This discussion has been delightful and given me a good diversion from my boring job the last couple days, but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to debate with you in this circle:
you: "There is no evidence."
me: "Yes there is. It's right here."
you: "That's not real evidence"
me: "Well, what more besides links on a blog post comment could I provide?"
So I think I'll just drop it here. But feel free to drop me a line sometime if you care to discuss another deep dark universal mystery. I love that 5h!t!

Cheers,
Justin

jisnutatyahoo.com

Incredible ...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...E49809EC588EEDF

Actually Justin, that is precisely what evolutionary scientists claim - that reptiles suddenly grew feathers & became birds, etc etc. Further, the current theory of evolution states that "sudden emergence" - rather than slow development - is the only way that evolution could possibly happen. They call this "punctuated equilibrium".

Excellent question - and you might well ask - because no-one knows. No "intermediate species" has ever been found. A fossilised ichthyosaur in the process of giving birth has been found, but no intermediates. None. Not one. None at all. Nil. Zip. Zilch. I shall refer you once more to the words of Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum - the largest collection of fossils in the world - so one could reasonably expect him to be an expert in this matter. When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded: There is no fossil evidence whatsoever for evolution ever having happened. Darwin himself was aware of this problem:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

I wasn't attempting to debunk the experiments, rather, I merely tried to show how the conclusions drawn from these experiments are faulty - none of them actually demonstrate conclusive proof for new genetic material being formed, yet this is what the page claims. Jumping to illogical conclusions is a fundamental part of evolutionary theory - micro-evolution (speciation) is observable, but the theory of evolution demands an illogical leap of faith into believing that macro-evolution (one species evolving into another) is also possible. This has still not been proven. The fossil record bears no evidence, and we do not see this happening today.

No, I understand them perfectly well, hence I pointed out the faulty reasoning leading to the conclusions that were reached. If I said to you: "Sheep are wooly, you are wearing a wooly jumper, therefore you must be a sheep" you would quite rightly point out that this is irrational, unreasonable, and based on a false assumption. Yet the argument that micro-evolution = macro-evolution uses precisely the same flawed logic, but you appear to accept this without question.

Aargh!!! NO!!! That is false assumption - it is equally possible (and far more likely) that they have lost genetic information to cope with their new environments. Since none of the scientists bothered to check this possibility - i.e. by introducing the subjects newly-adapted to the hot environment into the cold environment (if new genetic information was added, then the organisms should have no trouble re-adapting, but there is no proof of this ever having happened - no-one has EVER bothered - or successfully concluded & published - any conclusive results). If, however, genetic information was lost, then the "adapted" organisms would fail to thrive when placed into the cold environment. Unless you know of any experimental data where "adapted" organisms HAVE been subjected to the opposite extreme - to test the hypothesis that new genetic information spontaneously evolved - then the results you cited may only be assumed to provide evidence, when in fact they only provide proof of an assumption).

1) I couldn't agree with you more regarding Monsanto -there's more on that in the forums here, and also files on our tracker about this
2) New genetic material? I think we disagree on the meaning of the word "new". To me "new" means: "of dissimilar origin and usually of superior quality" (Merriam Webster). To duplicate genetic material that already exists is not, strictly speaking "new" in that sense of the word.

I would expect that we agree that any creature with half an anything is at a distinct procreational disadvantage to any creature with an entire, whole, and functional version of the same. For evolution to happen, you must have a variety of organism that is already successful (or it would otherwise have died out), and then introduce a non-functional lump onto it - until it "evolves" into a wing / leg / whatever.
Such an organism would obviously need to consume more food compared to its peers (in order to carry the weight of this non-functional lump around with it). This quite obviously puts it at a disadvantage from an evolutionary perspective. This is totally contradictory to the idea that "only the fittest survive", where the "non-evolved" and already successful organisms actually have an advantage over the "evolving" organism.
Try competing in a marathon while carrying a full rucksack, against unburdened competitors as an experiment. Who would be more likely to outrun a predator (and therefore survive)? Not you!
The "irreducible complexity problem" was one identified by Darwin himself:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

However, he also said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess absurd in the highest degree." (Ibid)

... and then he went on to argue that it happened anyway.
Excellent question - thank you for asking this
First, we have "Piltdown Man"
No common ancestry between Neanderthals & humans
the Moulin Quignon animal remains
Bird-to-Dinosaur fake
I already highlighted the fact that the Peppered Moth fake evidence is still perpetuated in Biology textbooks - despite the fact it is long known to be false (glueing moths to trees to provide "the best evidence of evolution" - which actually only indicates natural selection, which I completely agree does happen - it is an observable fact.) Please note that, although I point out that the manner in which the "evidence" was gathered is bogus, I don't dispute that the the theory is valid.

Darwinism - a Theory in Crisis is a site that I highly recommend that you spend some time checking out; it does not take any stance other than pure science, and in doing so it scientifically proves that the theory of evolution is utterly without any factual scientific basis whatsoever.

This is very true; however, without understanding the deeper purpose of the Human Genome Research Project (and the history of Eugenics), it's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to join the dots in correlating cause and effect.

Then I invite you to investigate further. Bush is most certainly a muppet (few would disagree with this) but he is equally certainly a puppet in the whole scenario. Anyone looking at Bush as a representation of "leadership" will obviously conclude that ineptitude is the overwhelming driving force behind government! However - and this is a big "however" - you need to realise that our "leaders" are pre-selected for suitability by the Bilderbergers - a meeting of select leaders of government & industry, behind closed doors, with nothing whatsoever to do with democratic process. You may need to watch this presentation to understand that - in the case of our smarter leaders - they universally conclude that they too have been conned.

Plausible deniability.

The fact remains that:

1) "Education" these days is geared to producing docile & compliant members of society
2) "Education" these days has NOTHING to do with teaching any form of logical thought process; it is merely about teaching a set of finely-honed presets & programming set reactions.
3) Freemasons / secret societies dictated that "education" (read: indoctrination) should be forced upon all people, according to freemasonic standards (amongst which include - in the higher degrees of Freemasonry: destroying government, eliminating religion, and unleashing the "seething energies of Lucifer"

"When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly handle energy." (Manly P. Hall, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, p. 124;)

This, by the way, is not a quote from your average common or garden Freemason, but rather straight from the mouth of the most respected Freemason of the past century. (Albert Pike being the leading authority prior to that - check him out too.)

Respectfully,
Cypher
PS - I already added you to my messenger contacts (still awaiting a response) so I have also removed your full email address details (that you gave in full the second time) since I would strongly advise against publishing these specifics anywhere online (due to the nuisance of email-harvesting spambots)

Disrespectfully:
"Talented"Chump - anonymously resorting to quoting UN-Scientific American does you no favours whatsoever.

Attempting to imply (erroneously) that my argument is nothing to do with science, but rather creationist beliefs is hugely ironic & demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this subject.
1) Darwin was not a scientist, nor did he have any scientific training or knowldge. He was ecucated as an Episcopal pastor.
2) Resorting to tactics of "you must be a Creationist and not a real scientist" are poor in the extreme. To insinuate that disbelief of Darwinism = belief in Creation Science is as illogical as the sheep / wool argument I gave above. I believe you would greatly benefit from spending time on the "Darwinism Refuted" site, although, if you are deeply committed to the athiest religion, you will likely find that true science - and hence that site - is far too disturbing to your psyche, and therefore best avoided.
Sincerely,
Mairi

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I'm new here and I found it interesting. A few things caught my eye and I just wanted to note a few observations, rather than start a flame war! Apologies for not including your names at the appropriate point but there you are. NOI.

“Surely if you took a group of people and put them in a harsh environment where they had to use their brains and physical prowess to survive... after several generations you would start seeing super-humans.”

I've heard that line of reasoning before. If it worked in reverse too, would that mean that our current cosseted generation in the western world with most of its immediate needs satisfied are on the road to becoming sub-human? Hmm. Perhaps labour camps are good for us?

“I do believe there is plenty of proof to back up the claim of evolution of species in general”

and

“. . .if I took the time I bet I could find a lot more examples from different reputable sources”

Excellent. I look forward to seeing them.

“You can start with mitochondrial Eve, who's one of the oldest human ancestors that we can trace, putting the birth of the human race in Africa.”

This doesn't actually tell us anything about evolutionary mutations – or how a fish or a bird became Eve for that matter. Or am I missing something?

“The missing links get smaller, and the flimflammery of trying to introduce the unknown into scientific enquiry will get steadily harder.”

Well, if evolution is “known”, please show me some of these missing links. (I think we should skip the fraudulent ones though eh?)

“. . .the necessary underpinnings of any great theory are that it'll never be entirely proven, just become darned compelling when you look at the huge body of evidence collected since Darwin's 'origin of the species'. The trick is to look at the confirmatory evidence rather than try to find small examples of incongruity to support a shaky opinion.”

Please, bring on the huge body of confirmatory evidence already.

“Adaption relies on a lot of bodies for unsuccessful organisms and the occasional one that makes it through.”

Is there evidence of this in the fossil record then? I'd like to see it.

It's all a bit hard to swallow so far, I must confess – and I can't help but refer back to this:

“scientists claim . . . that reptiles suddenly grew feathers & became birds, etc etc. Further, the current theory of evolution states that "sudden emergence" - rather than slow development - is the only way that evolution could possibly happen. They call this "punctuated equilibrium".

OK, starting right there (unless this is untrue), please could someone show me one piece of evidence. . .? 

NOI guys, but you have to do better than this. I mean, how hard can it be to find a transitory species? It only takes one and I'm in – a true believer!

Until then, I have to accept that “there is no fossil evidence whatsoever for evolution ever having happened”

Over to you.

By the way, I wondered about a couple of other things too:

“There really is no mileage in producing a super human, militarily or otherwise. Why bother spending money on something like a 'super soldier' when you can simply recruit poor kids to act as cannon fodder?”

Are you serious? Aren't special forces super soldiers? Why do you think they bother with all that costly training? Do you think it's to use them as cannon fodder?

“Further DNA doesn't care if its part of a pig, or a human as long as it can duplicate and thrive.
However, it is 1000 times safer inside a human body.”

Ooooo, I know I shouldn't say this. I just know it, but I can't help thinking that if I were a strand of DNA hanging out in, say, Iraq, I'd rather be inside a pig right now.

Peace and love all.

This happens to be an area I have studied a great deal about. The fact is just how the OP says. When Charles Darwin came up with his idea that one form may have become another and another over billions of years, he assumed archeaological evidence would come along to back it up. EVERY TRANSITIONAL HUMAN BEING WE HAVE STUDIED HAS EITHER BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MONKEY OR A HUMAN. Charles Dawrwin himself later refuted that statement in his published works. MANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS HAVE SHOWN THE EXISTENCE OF THE HUMAN RACE LONG BEFORE ACCEPTED HISTORY ALLOWS. Of note in the field of archaeology are the works of Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. NBC aired a documentary called "The Mysterious Origins Of Man" by these two, exposing the "knowledge filter" that exists in the scientific community, rejecting any evidences that defy current theories as anomolies. NBC WAS SUED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR AIRING THIS DOCUMENTARY. NBC then made a video about the response to the movie. here is a link to the movie on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNU6_er3Ks...ted&search=


Every land mass has a mysterious ancient culture, more civilized than the one that currently occupies it. India has amazing documentation of its history and culture, and while they were almost destroyed culturally, they still maintain more ancient arts, sciences, and history than perhaps any other. They speak of a time when the land masses were united, and an evolved population was able to live in unity under one banner. over time the land would seperate, and the potency of the individual, his duration of life, intelligence, self control, etc. would all diminish. the earths production of gold and precious stones would decrease, and the people would be terrorized by cutthroat leaders, running away to the forests and mountains for safety. This was predicted by the Vedas, the ancient historical and scientific texts of india, and the sages of old. where is the evidence of this one may ask. well, it is all around you! every ancient structure follows the sacred astrologically based system of architecture, the science is known as vastu shastra in india and feng shui in china. these two cultures alone parallel each other in almost every scientific field imagineable. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/ has amassed quite a collection of this kind of work.

there is much more but I hope this gets you greedy enough for it that when I finally post more you have already read about it

Thanks for the links inahd. Enjoyed the vid very much. I look forward to those future posts!

Here's another similar vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSoH7YANptM

Don't let the You Tube title put you off. It's got tons of evidence in there and it's worth a watch if you'e not seen it.

thanks, very interesting. i would like to know more about the ancient technologies of egypt actually. i also like how the man talks about his own "evolution", from evolutionist, to theistic evolutionist, and finally to a de-evolutionist essentially. this is also a path I followed in my journey through science and history. i would like to encourage everyone that if you are interested enough to put in the time, there is a world of evidence to be had supporting what every ancient body of history suggests; we come from intelligent, highly civilized ancestors.

If you've not seen Magical Egypt I'd recommend it. It's an 8 part documentary series (8hrs total). I don't recall everything that's in it but it touches on many of the things you mention above and I certainly found it fascinating.

Aah, unfortunately, both of the videos linked to above have now been taken down - can anyone please supply the names of them, so that I can look them up again?

The RATE (Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth) project has been unearthing some incredible discoveries lately, and some very compelling evidence that the earth isn't anywhere as old as is needed by Darwinists / uniformitarian science (or rather: philosophy - it has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical science).

If the assumed timeframe of billions of years can be shown to be false, Darwin's whole theory is dashed to pieces.

I posted a presentation on the tracker yesterday, one of a series of DVDs reporting on the RATE findings. I'll post the others this week (if I can get my PC to stay up while I shrink them - I'm having issues with my video card overheating / crashing my system ).

The first one is here on the tracker, called "Helium Leaks and the Age of the Earth (semi-technical):
Click to view attachment
Azureus Magnet: Helium Leaks and the Age of the Earth (semi-technical)

It is my admittedly shallow understanding that the current theory of evolution has as a basic tenet random mutation. I think this is what separates the issue for me. I can see little or no reason to disbelieve evolution -- that everything is changing and perhaps improving itself (as far as life at least). I even find that this idea is harmonious with how I imagine that the universe started and how it works.

However, random mutation as being the driving force behind evolution, where mutation is occurring all the time, and only the mutations that are beneficial to the species cause it to spawn descendants, just doesn't work in my mind. And -- I think it doesn't really work with the coelacanth either -- that there have been no beneficial mutations to this species that enable greater adaptation to its environment in 400 million years?

On the other hand, the idea that species don't evolve at all and sprang into existence any number of years ago is equally or more dissatisfying. It seems clear to me that evolution is alive and well regardless how we think about it, but it is far more interesting than perhaps anybody imagines.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the random mutation thing.

Hey all, I'm new here, and, having special interest in this subject, I'ld like to share some info with you. I am 52 years old, and have a 16yr old stepson intent on being a budding paleontologist. He already has taken several college classes and has been given a direct scholarship by a wealthy oil man. It would be apparent though, that at his volunteering workplace, his professor encourages atheism! My family holds our religious beliefs near and dear, to find him proclaiming to believe in NO God was very disheartening indeed. I have always held the long belief that evolution was merely a tool to foster the furthering of non-believers. (just as Carl Sagan was used in the seventies to debunk ufo's. i.e. use a celebrity status "expert" that the common people will believe. "Government funded" scientists to explain things away, or like Johnny Cockran at the O.J. Simpson trial)

In one discussion with him (my son), we agreed that if INBREEDING and/or cross-breeding were involved, that by definition, evolution then would not have been the result. As to say, all the breeds of dogs we have today, are not the result of evolution, but cross breeding. As soo many fossil sites are basically mass burials from a catstrophic event (such as a flood or landslide), then this leads evidence to the turmulous world of that date. The devastation could clearly lead to circumstances that could lead to animals of similar but different breeding to cross-breed. Clearly, several million years of these events could and definately would, generate entirely new species. This then, being a plausible theory, simply wipes out evolution as it is being taught and defined today.

Why, do so many professors seem to think that their students should be athiests to fully grasp their teachings?

Have you seen the creepy videos about the "Indigo" children?

See what you think of this broncojoe. If you've not heard it before I think you'll appreciate it. It's a five minute excerpt from a recent radio show by a guy who calls himself Latin American View.

Here he's talking about the ideology of the elite (esp. bankers) and in the excerpt he draws a fascinating (and to my mind absolutely crucial) link between evolutionary thinking and elite dominance.

Click to view attachment

(Contains some strong language.)

WOW! Haven't heard it before. But I really don't believe it's important what label you attach to it. Elitism, Nazism, etc, it's really screwed up. My other computer crashed (using the laptop that Oilman gave my son) or I would post the video I had saved there. It was put out by former executives and producers of CNN, and made statements like "you'll be glad your children are at least safe, after they are taken away".......this is surrounding a global catastrophic event around 2012, and the rest of us will be left to die while they all hide in underground cities and shelters. After carefully selecting only "gifted" children to carry on the Human race.

I think the terminology used in the radio show (concerning the usage of evolution) could be debateable. If for example, one man is such a gifted liar and manipulator, that others believe him and therefore suffer, does that necessarilly make him superior? Or genetically advanced?

It is one of the things that make humans more unique, we can be trusting, deceptive, evil, and emotionally and prejudicially led. Not too many in the animal kingdom that can match that. Therefore, different standards would need to be employed to account for our misgivings. Otherwise, very good intelligent people with the best intentions, greatest intent, and with the most to offer mankind, could be "bumped" off the evolutioary ladder by common street thugs.

I appreciate your sharing that radio show. It does show how the elite may think.

I'd like to recommend a book and some videos to those who are interested in this topic.
Forbidden Archaeology and its condensed version The Hidden History of the Human Race by M. Cremo and R. Thompson. You can find various interviews with Mr. Cremo on youtube and google video.

The book describes some of the incredibly numerous archaeological and anthropological discoveries that contradict the current model of human evolution. (not necessarily the idea of evolution in general). There is plenty of evidence that anatomically modern human beings existed millions of years ago that has been swept under the rug because it does not fit in with the model.

The subpoint of this book is the identification of that 'knowledge filter' that disposes of evidence that goes against the model. A fascinating read.

I just had to add this in response to your last Scarnaby. Great recommendations BTW, but I'd like to throw this into the ring too.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

Now, it most certainly IS the case that the site puts forward a seemingly ridiculous hypothesis and it's VERY likely most will stop reading after the first few paragraphs. However, persist as I did and I think you'll find that, against all the odds, it goes on to make a fairly convincing case for... well... I'll leave you to discover the ramifications for yourself. I'm not saying I support the hypothesis - necessarily - but it's given me a lot to think about since I came across it.

Check it out. I'd be really interested to hear what someone else thinks of the ideas.