TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Oh crikey!i though he replied to me lol

im sorry i was on auto piloti did click onto how you were pointing out that mutations do not support evolutioni'll be happy to have someone take over on this one for a while...my head hurts lolPS, i'd be interested to see what reply's you get Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

wow, first post and you've jumped right in there there and taken the bull by the hornswhats your science?

i dont beleive creationists have an agenda as much as i beleive evolutionists have an agenda to prove their theory at all costs...even when the evidence shows otherwise.Why is it only creationists who readily make known the other side? Probably because they see the other side as reason to doubt...why do evolutionists skim over the dubious parts of their research and go on teaching the ToE as if its rock solid?Its not rock solid but they teach it as if its rock solid. That is not an honest way to teach a theory. Its not honest to skim over/avoid the discrepinces. this is exactly what i mean when i say the discrepencies are skimmed over and the theory marches onward as if its rock solid.You know that the fossil record does not contain enough evidence to be used to prove the thoery, yet its skirted around and explained away.I can tell you know that Genetics does not help the ToE because the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations

Yes, i did understand them , but a metaphor should not be used to explain away the evidiencethe evidence is that there are gaping holes in the record of lifes 'evolution'
A metaphore is not evidence of why there are gaping holes. Its speculation, there is nothign to support it.The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History had an article Jan 1979, Vol 50, No 1, pp. 22, 23. that said: [quote]Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. ... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.[/qs]if the theory were true, it should be able to be proved in various ways shouldnt it?You need to be able show an actual

a tip for youuse [qs=name] at the beginnign of the quote, to create a quote box and then inside them put the quotethen close with [ ] with /qs in side itand you'll get this

why google it when i provided the referenceyou can alway go to the source of the reference material rather then google.anyway, regarding genetic research and its inability to prove ToE here is a research paper of Lonig

padion, i have already posted all this information, do i really need to redo the whole thread?why cant you start from the beginning?

the law states that:

quote:

---

treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation.

---

Evidence that mutations do not produce viable new species has been applied to the animal mutation experiements and Leibenguth describes the overall results of mutation breeding in his work Zchtungsgenetik (Genetics of Breeding) as follows (40):

quote:

---

In contrast to plants, animals are genetically more severely balanced. Hence, all kinds of mutations are even more frequently lethal and more strongly diminishing vitality and fertility in animals (40). Hence, according to all the evidence achieved so far by experimental investigations (and later also by careful considerations in theoretical genetics) there is absolutely no future for mutation breeding in animals

---

He also says on page 50 that "If one multiplies the proportionate number of disadvantageous mutations by the factor of 10, the result would already be some 100,000 to 400,000 negative (or unavailing or neutral) mutants to 1 useful for breeding research"he goes on to explain that this is reason why almost all commercial breeding stations in the USA and Europe have deleted mutation breeding from their research programmes. Because they dont work! How can they be a basis for undirected evolution when even under laboratory conditions, mutations fail?This is a huge reason to doubt the relevance of mutations as a road to evolution.Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence.
Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100The genetic code which is a requirement for cell reproduction could not have evolved for the reason that Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. This fact makes the ToE impossible for without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.this is another HUGE reason to doubt the ToE.

i have already seen the error of my way over this point and have apologised. I know Sagan is an evolutionist and not a believer in creation.The quotes i used in msg 13 were to show that scientists findings are not also pointing only to evolution. When i used his quote i should have specified why i was using it.he did say that nature gives the 'appearance of design'

are they still mosquitos? c'mon, the cells are still the same cells they always were. And i read thru that whole article and the only mention of evolution was right in the last paragraph

quote:

---

Or, has her DNA evolved into a new entityHelacyton gartleri has been suggested44after countless cell culture passages, viral infections, and other cell line contaminants? Although the question of whether or not such a new species has evolved in the cell cultures of laboratories around the world is difficult to answer

---

So what has it got to do with evolution? The cancer cells are still cancer cells. And its no miracle that they are still alive today considering scientists have been breeding them!! how is that evolution?

yeah i might be stupid in the eyes of someone who believes in evolutionbut that is not the issue of this thread...the reasons for doubt arethat said, there are many reasons to doubt evolution and those doubts dont only come from people like me who believe in creation...they come from the mouths of the evolutionists themselves...the only difference is they ignore them whereas others do not.I dont get my quotes from creationist websites btw...i use my own reference book entitled 'Life-How did it get here? By evolution or creation' published by the WT org. I dont think its avail online but if you want one you could send them an email and they'll send you one for free.

no, for the reason that they are both spiders. the are different 'types' of spider.I would say different species would be a fly and a spider...they are different species. the variety within a species is very great...we see that in the selective breeding of domestic animals. Today there are many different types of dog, yet they are still from the one species. Some types/breeds cannot breed with other types becasue they are too different. an example might be a Chawaa and a doberman....size makes it impossible for them to mate.But this thread is about Darwinian evolution and the theory that all life evolved from the simplest forms of life, into the great variety we see including man.thats what this thread is about.

No, its not a pampletits a 251 page hard cover with over 200 cited references in it bibliographywell researched and well written is what it is.

please provide the msg where i stated this and i'll have a look at it again...it doesnt sound like what i said at all.