Some Evidence Against Evolution

Atheist PETER FOREY refers to it as 'The Natural History Museum' (J. of Paleontology V. 77 #1). He also wrote the Foreword to Patterson's 2nd ed. of 'Evolution' (Colin Patterson is now a creationist, BTW).On p. 200 of the above issue FOREY said in reference to MACROevolution (this is what the debate is all about), "Do not expect answers." Yup - he's right. When it comes to "major evolutionary changes resulting in new species, genera, orders . . ." (Rudin 1997) do not expect answers - and that's why million$ should be spent in public schools teaching young people they came from prokaryotes. Go figure.Secularists may cite Darwin's finches, DDT-resistant insects - or 'new species' of weed in England News | The Institute for Creation Research,
but I see no compelling empirical evidence for MACROevolution.
Micro-doesn't-lead-to-macro. This was shown not to happen - ever. See Roger Lewin's report in Science v. 210 pp. 883-87).Peter Forey also said that the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" p. 199. And atheist James Trefil said in 1996, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions."I wonder what the darwinist "believes" - fossils OR the molecular evidence (above paragraph)? Keep in mind the 2 mix like water and oil. See Nature v. 406, pp. 230-233. Secular author T. Gura asks "Can the 2 ever be reconciled?" Answer: No, they cannot, because macroevolution is a myth.

HA! Don't I love these "answers." DT is indeed correct - Patterson died in 1998 - AND THAT'S WHY HE IS NOW A CREATIONIST. I never said anything about his being a creationist while he was still in his mortal coil.When a secularist doesn't like what a creationist writes, they just airily wave their hand and say they're lying, taking the quote out of context, or "quote mining" (my favourite). They also resort to vulgar comments. Not very scientific DT, and adds nothing to our scientific discussion.But, as long as I'm "quote mining" (read, 'a scientific quote that devastates darwinism and the secular community would rather not tolerate') consider:"Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg." - Thornton and DeSalle, Genomics meets phylogenetics, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2000, p. 64.
Creation scientists heartily agree, of course. Natural selection can't "create" - Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution] Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, Evolution of Parasitism Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516. Secularists also are clueless as to how N.S. works at the molecular level, How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology. - Yokoyama, Color vision of the Coelacanth Journal of Heredity, May/June 2000, pp. 216 — 217. So N.S. doesn't 'create' at the macro OR the micro level - and that's why it explains everything from prokaryotes to people. Isn't neo-darwinism (synthetic theory) grand?To conclude, while the evolutionist views the living world and gives credit to a mysterious, impersonal process (natural selection), the creationist can simply give glory and honor to the One who created it — by the work of His fingers (Ps. 8:3-4).CHRISTMAS BLESSINGS!

No thanx, Coragyps. I have a well-worn copy - it's right next to my 1859 copy of darwin's infamous work - you know - the book that you & other secularists consistantly quote from - even though it's over 150 yrs. old (I'll take the Lewin's 23 y.o. article over darwin's any day).