Evolution is False

[WanderingLands]

There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution. An argument against evolution would be the fact that a body of all the species on Earth are composed with complexity - almost mechanically but still in an original organic way. Looking at the way live bodies work, there is hardly (if any) observation of any body parts that are evolving into anything new whatsoever. Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', and that it is somehow up to the species to adapt in order for survival. Well, there is obviously no game of chance when you look at the patterns of seasons, weather, and geographical conditions. If they really mean without cause or even without influence, then this would b a serious fluke. Another thing - about adaptability, is that surviving or adapting to environments is different from evolving (let's say from ape to man). Sure genetic make-ups change, but there is definitely no 'macro-evolution' that comes from people like Darwin and those that came after him.

Other points against evolution include the many faked fossils that have been promoted by evolutionary scientists; examples including Brontosauruses, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, etc (view here. There are also new discoveries showing that the '98%' of DNA is not junk, such as found in a 2012 study published in Nature magazine.

Excerpt:

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

You can find more information about this in a website called Darwin Conspiracy (scroll down to find it).

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

Another article on this: http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/j ... after-all/

[WanderingLands]

Another part of the Evolution, the Out of Africa theory, has been also debunked by two Russian scientists. They found out that African haplogroups A and B were distant in other races, namely Caucasian races.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... E1ay_nF_mt

[Ginkgo]

There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution. An argument against evolution would be the fact that a body of all the species on Earth are composed with complexity - almost mechanically but still in an original organic way. Looking at the way live bodies work, there is hardly (if any) observation of any body parts that are evolving into anything new whatsoever. Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', and that it is somehow up to the species to adapt in order for survival. Well, there is obviously no game of chance when you look at the patterns of seasons, weather, and geographical conditions. If they really mean without cause or even without influence, then this would b a serious fluke. Another thing - about adaptability, is that surviving or adapting to environments is different from evolving (let's say from ape to man). Sure genetic make-ups change, but there is definitely no 'macro-evolution' that comes from people like Darwin and those that came after him.

Other points against evolution include the many faked fossils that have been promoted by evolutionary scientists; examples including Brontosauruses, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, etc (view here. There are also new discoveries showing that the '98%' of DNA is not junk, such as found in a 2012 study published in Nature magazine.

Excerpt:

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

You can find more information about this in a website called Darwin Conspiracy (scroll down to find it).

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

Another article on this: http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/j ... after-all/

Nowhere does evolutionary theory posit that humans evolved from apes. On this basis the first article is a nonsense.

[WanderingLands]

Nowhere does evolutionary theory posit that humans evolved from apes. On this basis the first article is a nonsense.

Ginkgo, that is just flat-out bullshit what you have just said. You couldn't honesty just said that.

[Ginkgo]

Nowhere does evolutionary theory posit that humans evolved from apes. On this basis the first article is a nonsense.

That is just flat-out bullshit what you have just said.

Wanderinglands, if you do some research you will find there is no ape to man biological evolutionary theory. It is a popular misconception.

It is actually true.

[WanderingLands]

Nowhere does evolutionary theory posit that humans evolved from apes. On this basis the first article is a nonsense.

That is just flat-out bullshit what you have just said.

Wanderinglands, if you do some research you will find there is no ape to man biological evolutionary theory. It is a popular misconception.

It is actually true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evol ... f_primates

[Ginkgo]

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. At some stage in history, probably about 5 to 8 million years ago this species divided into two distinct lineages. One lineage being the hominids, or human like species and the other lineage giving rise to the African apes that we see today. So the scholarly articles tell us.

http://whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatetree.jpg

[Wyman]

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. At some stage in history, probably about 5 to 8 million years ago this species divided into two distinct lineages. One lineage being the hominids, or human like species and the other lineage giving rise to the African apes that we see today. So the scholarly articles tell us.

http://whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatetree.jpg

We have a common ancestor with every species. Why people target apes and monkeys has always puzzled me. I guess it's because they are our 'closest' cousins. But I think it carries more impact to say that we share a common ancestor with, for instance, Geckos.

Wanderlands, evolution seems to me to be a broad framework for interpreting the history of life on Earth. Since that history spans billions of years, there are huge gaps in the evidence and our knowledge and many of those gaps will never be filled. But the evidence we do have is quite convincing as to the broad theory. Why don't we ever find any fully formed species, without also finding predecessors to that species? Just one would disprove the entire theory, but it is never found.

[Greylorn Ell]

There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution.... Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', ...

etc. etc.

WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

[Ginkgo]

There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution.... Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', ...

etc. etc.

WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

Saying that evolution is the same as Darwinism would be an association fallacy, not a category error.

[Wyman]

There are some evidence and arguments that can be made against Evolution.... Of course, many scientists defending evolution would say that it takes somewhere between millions (or to possibly billions) of years to somehow 'evolve', which is of course a poor ad hoc reasoning for why we don't see any evolving creatures.

Then there is also idea that we evolve due to 'chance' by 'mutation', ...

etc. etc.

WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

Biological evolution v. evolution v. Evolution v. Natural selection - aren't they all different? Do you ever watch the 'Shark Tank?' I'm going to start calling you 'Mr. Wonderful.'

[uwot]

You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

C'mon Greylorn; you know full well that irrefutable arguments are ten a penny. Gimme a couple of premises and I'll prove whatever you want. The skill is to construct premises that support and are supported by evidence.
The day you make a claim that could be verified by means you can outline is the day I buy your book.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why don't you actually learn some science before you comment on it? And I don't mean pseudo-science. We evolved INTO apes. Other apes, like chimpanzees, are modern animals, just as evolved as we are.
If you spent more time reading about science instead of the crap you fill your head with then this thread wouldn't exist.

[WanderingLands]

Why don't you actually learn some science before you comment on it? And I don't mean pseudo-science. We evolved INTO apes. Other apes, like chimpanzees, are modern animals, just as evolved as we are.
If you spent more time reading about science instead of the crap you fill your head with then this thread wouldn't exist.

If you looked into the Darwin Conspiracy site, you would see that there are differences between the DNA structure of humans and that of chimpanzees. The website shows a study from Nature magazine, that was commenting on how humans actually have 78 genes and that chimpanzees only have 37 in comparing the Y chromosomes. May I show you an excerpt of this?

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image001.gif

The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened.

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image002.gif

APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home_files/image004.jpg

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

Perhaps another article, at the end of the OP, is another one you can read, entitled, "Junk DNA - Not So Useless After All". Then again, I'll leave it up to you.

[WanderingLands]

WL,
You have made a serious error in your OP, but a common one. A philosophy student would probably label it a category mistake.

Evolution is not the same as Darwinism.

Evolution is the general name given to processes of incremental progressive changes to something, over the course of time. It applies to "species" that are engineered by intelligent beings, e.g. weapons, automobiles, computers. It also applies to species believed by many to have come into existence via "natural," or non-intelligent causes, such as bacteria, dinosaurs, and monkeys.

Your misdirected argument needs to be redirected, because biological evolution is perhaps the most obvious complex truth in all of science. It is as real and factual as the rotation of the earth/moon system around the sun.

May I recommend that you direct your complaints where they belong --to neo-Darwinism, the absurd theory that poorly informed and illogical atheists promote by way of an explanation for evolution?

From the responses to your post it would appear that you've sucked a number of other wanna-be philosophers into your category mistake. What a surprise.

BTW, the arguments that you chose, presumably against Darwinism, are dreadfully weak. They have all been refuted by professional Darwinist apologists to the satisfaction of pseudo-science camp followers. You will find irrefutable arguments in Chapter XIII, "Beon Theory vs. Darwinism," in my politically incorrect book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

Yes - I am familiar with the fact that there are other evolutionary theories that are separate from Darwinianism, but my post nonetheless was meant to challenge and/or bring refutation to the common essential within evolution itself; that there is some sort of 'evolutionary change' within human and other animal organisms. I prefer you bring your arguments to this thread, and see how it can debunk my sources, which challenges the ideas of evolution by positing that human DNA is different from other animal DNA.