19,576
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 49:
Line 49: − − The whale is known to have came from ungulates using water flotation. − "The legless leviathans, he suggested, had evolved from mammals known as ungulates, a group whose best-known characteristic is a set of hoofed feet. In other words, dolphins, porpoises, humpbacks, orcas, and ail other whales are close kin of cows, horses, pigs, and related barnyard stock. More than a century after Flower raised his audacious hypothesis, it no longer stirs even a whiff of controversy. Dozens of scientific studies over the past 3 decades have convinced biologists that cetaceans are the progeny of hoofed mammals." − − − Distinctions are manmade. Every species or fossil disovered is a transition between two things. − − I do suppose it is possible to win by claiming literally metric tons and tons of fossils frauds. In reality, fossils only form under certain conditions, and some object fosssilize much better. Even then, tons have filled the gaps. For every gap filled creationists claim two more arose. − − − Biologists have been studying the evolution of hair for several years, and most biologists believe that the evolution of hair is associated with the evolution of endoderms--based on the role of hair in thermal regulation. Endotherms, biologists suggest, evolved a mechanism in which a signal is sent from the hypothalamus to receptors in the hair follicle, triggering the "goosebump" response, and thus conserving heat. − Although, due to the nature of hair follicles (soft-tissue), it was impossible to tell by the fossil records when or exactly how hair evolved. However, the development of the DNA record enabled scientists to develop a better understanding of how hair evolved, and the time-line in which it did so (Dhouailly 2009). Recent study by Eckart et al. 2008 supports the idea that evolution of mammalian hair involved the co-operation of pre-existing structural proteins and that cysteine-rich alfa-keratins which are the main components of mammalian hair are not restricted to mammals. − The study by Eckhart et. al (2008) conducted at the Medical University of Vienna, revolutionized the evolution of hair by using DNA to trace back its origins. The study concluded that chickens, lizards as well as humans all possessed variations of the type I and type II keratin gene clusters which are involved in the production of α-keratin. In both chickens and lizards, these genes were located in their claws. However, in humans these genes were used to produce hair. This study traces the origins of hair back to the common ancestors of mammals- birds and lizards. Hair keratin genes are located within the type I and II gene clusters, and have previously been found to be contained in the genomes of all mammals. These keratins are expressed in different regions on the animals, in their fur as well as claws and nails. Historically these genes have been reported to be absent in non-mammalian species; such as chickens and reptilesa family of sauropside_specific proteins that are similar to mammalian keratin _associated proteins are the main components of integumentary structures in sauropsids. Eckhart et al. 2008 preformed a genetic analysis in attempts to find homologues of mammalian hair keratins in non-mammalian species. The researchers were successful, and found homologues of hair keratins in the genome of the green anole lizard and chickens. Furthermore the same study indicates that hard alfa-keratins of Anolis and chicken contained asimilar number of cysteine residues as human hair keratins and the position of these residues were conserved between Anolis and human. In addition although there are homologies between Anolis, chicken and human keratin, another group of anole and chicken cystein-rich keratins differed from that of the human hair keratins, which suggests a sauropsid-specific molecular innovation. (Eckhart et al. 2008) − According to Dhouailly (2009), in birds, the avian ectoderm is the main structure that is dedicated to producing feathers as the mammalian ectoderm is to producing hairs in mammals. Dhouailly (2009) hypothesizes that the glandular integument of the first amniotes evolved into the alpha-keratinized hairs of mammals. Moreover, another hypothesis that is parallel to Dhouailly's is that mammalian hair, which is composed of alpha-keratins also known as cysteine-rich type I and type II keratins, evolved from amniotic lineage (Eckhart et al., 2008). Since no other vertebrates have hair as a central feature it is believed to have evolved, roughly 310 to 330 million years ago, after a discrepancy of the therapsid ancestry from the sauropsid ancestry. (Eckhart et al., 2008) − − Stubs would in fact have a lot of use. To keep warm, to glide, to slow falls. Please stop the reiteration of the same disproved points over and over again. − Line 94:
Line 77: − − This is likely because most scientists are atheists. For example, 60% of American scientists without eminence are atheists, and 93% in the National Academy of Science are atheists. Line 102:
Line 83: − − However, not a single point has disproved evolution, evolution still stands.
Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 17:25, August 15, 2012
, 17:25, August 15, 2012Reverted edits by HappyChild (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly
===Missing fossils===
===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
=== Irreducible Complexity===
=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
== Logical Conclusion ==
== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}
{{evolution}}