evolution refuted simply

talking abt DNA, mutations, irreducible complexity of life does not work on most ppl cause they got no idea what the hell u talkin abt, they're so caught up by the propaganda of evolution they think its the scientific intellectual fact and that your just a pathetic thiest trying to argue with the big boys, no matter what science and logic u throw at them its going from one ear out the other trust me :dry:

anways, heres a very simple and absolute refutation that any old layman could understand

evolution is called a theory not a fact right? its not an undoubtable theory its controversial, this very fact actually shows its totally false-why--cause we got fossil evidence, and conclusions should be absolute

i'll eloborate on this very simply, take dinosaur evolution to bird proposal, there should be tons of inbetween steps, think about it for a bit and u'll realise that there should be many many more inbetween steps than the 1st step like alot alot more since there are sooo many steps , but where are the inbetween steps in the fossil evidence, there is none, u find tons of dinos, why don't u find the inbetween steps in museums but u find the 1st steps, very simple, they didn't exist, so they made a stupider theory called spontaneous evolution in which they teach in Uni, which means it goes from one step to another right away, alll of a sudden out of pure chance :blush: why don't they teach that in high school, probably cause the teacher would be made fun of everyday for teaching the 'new adapted theory'

anyone with any sort of logic can see the absolute flaw in second theory

I actually convinced 3 ppl with this, plus my teacher

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Concerning the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, there is some evidence:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/...yingdino991015

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../8152/age.html

Not saying which is correct, just that there is some evidence to back the claim.

When you are dealing with issues which go back hundreds of millions of years then it is going to be hard to find a lot of evidence. Hence, everything is a "theory."

Can I propose a scientific theory that man did not evolve from apes but instead Cornettos?



That's Chris Evans' ancestor, that is.

Gravity - The theory of relativity.
Are you trying to suggest Gravity does not exist because it is not a fact!!!!!!
You are placing a "theory" in the context as an "Hypothosis". You should understand what a "Theory" actually is before you spout nonsense.

I'd say that's a bad comparison. There's a diffrence between theory of gravity and theory of evolution.

First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Second of all the theory of gravity makes part of a bigger scienific p.o.v. to claim it as wrong would bring down a whole other branch of scientific theory's because it's so deeply embedded into science. Even to that degrea that we must ignore and deny the most obvious things in this world. The trinity of evolution however (abiogenesis+ common descent + evolution of species) CAN be simply denied without any major reprocussions in our scientific vieuws.

You show a remarkable lack of evolutionary understanding. And what you have stated is simply utter rubbish,

You show a remarkable lack of respect to other people's opinions. And you can call it rubbish as much as you want, but without any arguments that's just another bloke's opinion.

Obviously, as ignorant to the subject as you I would say.

Thats a very narrow minded way of reasoning Root:

1. I'm certain of my opinion in my absolete knowledge.
2. When someone claims differently they must obviously claim wrong.
3. They must therefor be stubid.
4. See, stuppid people don't believe that theory.
5. Ain't I the smartest

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of a scientific theory, that is all I can say.........

It's quite sad I would say, that that is all you can say in response.....

It's easy to accuse someone of having a lack of understanding without pointing out why. But in fact it tends to give the impression that the one making the accusation is in fact the one with the lack, the lack of furter arguments that is.

The only "certain" is that you can't accept scientific theory when it smacks in the face of your own ideals.

I've reverted from atheism to islam, so I have already proven that I have the ability to accept something that differed from my original thoughts.

The only certainty is that you have failed over and over again in diffrent topics to prove us just why evolution should be taken over creation. In the end of the day, it's just one possibility over another, both UNproven.

http://www.harunyahya.com/download/d...d.php?id=16214

it makes people forget about allah and their religous beliefs if you ask me. allah created us, and if this evolution theory is true as scientists say it is, they need to do more reseach, it makes people turn into athiests. compare religion to the theory of evolution, cant believe they still teach it in school, you can teach about sex or a humans body no matter how digusting the lesson is, once you talk about creation in science or started a theory about it and it being without a creator, you have just crossed the line. it conflicts with peoples religous beliefs, nobody wants to hear this, example buddhists dont believe in a diety or creator so it would mess them up, and others expect atheists.

I am sorry you feel this way. However, it ended for me when you took 2 theories and claimed one had a more "certainty" and the other being less.

What can I say depite all we have spoken about. If this is your position then it is no stronger that ID is true because the Koran tells you so. To this end, I am happy for you.

Regards

Root

I don't recall what post you'r reffering to, But it seems unlikely that I said one is more certain. I think what you mean is that I said one seems more probable to me. If that makes u want to end the discussion, that is your good choice, but that statement howevers doesn't rectify you saying:

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of a scientific theory, that is all I can say

See we have a diffrence of opinion corrcet, but in the conversation none of us were able to present any proof of any opinion being uncorrect, so saying I have a lack of understanding is just saying you don't wanna agree to disagree, you can't face the fact that a diffrent opinion might be truth even when you find no proof of why it's wrong. Now that's what I find SAD.

Steve - I don't recall what post you'r reffering to, But it seems unlikely that I said one is more certain. I think what you mean is that I said one seems more probable to me.

OK, to clear any confusion. here is your statement again where you compared the theory of Gravity to have more weight than the theory of common descent.

First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations showing us it's correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degrea of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontanious evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability.

OK, so you only see common ancestory as "probability". This very much annoys me because it is much more than that. I would agree that a multiverse for example has a probability of being correct but to compare common ancestory as nothing more than a probability is taking the issue of the matter and simply belitteling of our current understanding.

Please find below Chromozone Banding Patterns for Humans (H) Chimps (C) Gorilla (G) and Orang Utang (O)



you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same. one major difference of course if that the other apes have 2 chromosomes there, whereas humans only have 1. However when we examine the human chromosome in more detail (which you can't from those diagrams) you find that in the centre of the human chromosome we have telomere like structures, which normally exist only at the ends of chromosomes. telomeres are a bit like the cellular lifetime counter, and a bit is lost on each cellular reproduction (with the exception of sex cells and cancer, which repair their telomeres) so if a telomere is '=' and a centromere is '8' (that is the bit of the chromosome containing the genes and so on) then the chimp, gorilla and orang utan 2p and q would look like ===888=== and ===888=== but the human 2 looks like ===888====888=== and you can still see this now in humans.

Telomeres are highly conserved sequences, which are primarily the same between all organisms in a group, for example all vertebrates have TTAGGG repeating over and over. In primates, between 300-5000 times. Ajacent to these regions are other regions of repeats called pre-telometric regions, which are highly variable, and vary significantly even within a species, but can be recognised between members of a species and closely related species.

In Humans, further evidence for a chromosome fusion, the order of these sequences (in the middle of the chromosome between the two centromere sections)

pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence. so even these features are conserved.

note that only the 2p centromere functions now. the centromere of 2q, while remaining very clear that it was a functioning centromere, is no longer the point where the two chromatids join dusing cellular reproduction. This sort of analysis is not limited to chromosome 2, but can be applied to the entire karyotype: Here are the sequences for Human & Chimps only.



Retroviruses are a class of viruses that have their genetic material in the form of RNA and consist of groups such as the oncoviruses (e.g. HTLV-1) and lentiviruses (e.g. HIV). Normally DNA is transcribed into RNA before being read in order to produce proteins, however retroviruses use Reverse Transcriptase in order to take their own RNA and integrate it into the organisms own DNA. Like all genetic processes however, there is a risk of inaccuracy, and sometimes a retrovirus may become crippled by a mutation during reverse transcription, and hence may not be able to reproduce itself as a normal virus would.

Endogenous retroviruses may embed themselves into any cell in the body, and this includes the sex cells (gametes) as well as the normal body (or somatic) cells. If an ERV occurs in a sex cell that goes on to fertilise an egg (or be fertilised by a sperm) then the ERV will be present in every single cell of the new organism, including it's sex cells (well since it will be in one chromosome, initially it will only be in 50% of the sex cells).

Now one of the most important theories within evolution is that of random genetic drift, and this is an element of evolution that was only understood after the discovery of DNA. Genetic drift is a stochastic (statistical definition) process in which a particular allele (version of a gene), or bit of the DNA, will randomly increase and decrease in presence in the population, provided there is no selection pressure on that particlar allele or section of the DNA, and eventually it may become fixed within the population i.e. when it is present in all members of the population. This may happen to an ERV which became embedded within one particular individual; via random genetic drift it may become embedded in the whole breeding population. This occurs more rapidly in smaller breeding groups than large breeding groups.

The next step is the consideration of ancestry. If we have a group A, all of whose members have a particular ERV, we will call this ERV 'E1', and this group splits into 2 new groups, B and C, perhaps by a river forming in the middle of the group across which none of the organisms can cross, now both groups B and C will still have this ERV in all members. Now let us say that a new ERV is introduced into a member of group B and becomes fixed in group B. all members of group B will have this new ERV, which we will call 'E2'. now when we look at populations B and C, we see that B has both E1 and E2, and C has only E1. this means that E2 was introduced to the population B after B and C became separated. If B furter splits into Bi and Bii and Bii has a new ERV 'E3' fixed within its poulation, we find that Bi has E1 and E2, Bii has E1 E2 and E3 and population C still only has E1, so we can build up a tree of what order these different groups broke apart. An important point to note, is that we should never find a retrovirus shared between, for example, Bii and C alone, since the common ancestral group between Bii and C is the same common ancestral group with Bi: if an ERV becomes fixed in A, then all of its ancestors should have the ERV.

By examining ERVs, we can look at ancestral links between these populations. if we look at the presence of retroviruses within a population we can find when a particular group broke away from a different group due to the presence of the retroviruses within the group.

here is a chart of ERV distributions in the primates, and the phylogenetic tree constructed from it



the above diagram is from the following paper:

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded, however there are multiple problems with this hypothesis. (Remember the "Theory" of Evolutionary common descent uses "Evidence" such as whis post. The Hypothosis of the ID attitude still remains an "Hypothosis" for common ancestory does not exist within the bounds of Creationism

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

Secondly, there is no good reason as to why this would form the phylogenetic tree that it does. Even if there was a virus that was simultaneously capable of infecting every kind of primate from new world monkeys through to humans, there is no reason to think that this virus would actually infect every available primate and become fixed in every single population. we might well expect several to be missed i.e. we might see spider monkeys, bonobos, chimps and humans infected, but not gorillas or Orang Utan. we do not find these spurious distributions of ERVs.

Thirdly, we just do not find these sorts of retroviruses that have such a wide species affinity. and again, even if we did, there is no reason that the retroviruses would form the phylogenies that they do.

Fourthly, the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses. the retroviruses that we see in different species are crippled in the same way. If the retroviruses are the result of multiple infections, then there is no reason to expect the retroviruses to be crippled in the same way in different species.

Finally, additional alterations have been made to the ERV sequences over time. Since the ERVs themselves are not selected for or against, they themselves may be altered due to the same kind of genetic drift that caused them to be embedded within the population. we see inheritance of these changes too, that also match the phylogenetic tree of the presence of different ERVs.

Other Phylogenetic trees can be constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA) Finally I must quickly discuss Transposons;

I will be brief with transposons since most of what needs to be said has already been said in the ERV section. Transposons are a form of internuclear parasite; they are sections of the genome that can copy and paste themselves around the rest of the genome. Again these transposons may become fixed within the population, and form the same sorts of phylogenetic profiles as ERVs. transposons are however completely independent from ERVs and function with a different mechanism (i.e. they do not use reverse transcriptase, they do not have viral coat proteins and they cannot cross cellular boundaries). The only possible mechanism of infection of another organism is via germ line cells - you may infect your children in other words, but nobody else. In this case there is absolutely no possibility for multiple insertions. The same phylogenetic trees can be constructed from independent analysis of transposons. It is these transposons which are responsible for much of the intergenic DNA and are also used in DNA fingerprinting, since cutting of certain chunks of DNA results in the same patterns for a given individual.

So here in is a big part of common ancestoral evolution, or should I say the theory of, since the theory uses "Known Facts" to add weight.

The challenge for any ID is to explain how ID fits in with what we have established as factual evidence, this said & since the thread states "evolution refuted simply" does one care to refute the evidence posted here "simply"...........

Personal thanks to Radical Edward for most of my source material.