Some evidence against evolution

Well, I've seen a lot of evolution threads on here where most people support evolution. They say,"Theres a lot of evidence for it and barely any against it," so I thought I would post this.

Why I don't believe in evolution...


1. Evolutionists are not able to answer where EVERYTHING has come from. Where did
the earth come from? Where did the rock that hit the earth come from? Etc., etc.

2. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that life can form from non-living things.

3. We have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. There
are some fossils that could be pointed to as possible transitional forms, but they are
highly questionable.

4.The Cambrian Explosion. In the early 1900s, Charles Walcott discovered a lot of fossils
in a layer of Cambrian rock called the "Burgess Shale." According to the geological column,
only the "simplest" of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times
represented by Cambrien rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex
life. In fact, by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives
from every major animal phylum that exists in our ****fication scheme. This means that
the geological column as presented in textbooks is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the
"simple" animals that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands
of examples of animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented
by Cambrian rock. According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed
to have formed much, much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock.
The fossils themselves also present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that
there are no intermediate links in the fossil record is a well-known problem for
macroevolution, the problem is much more dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge
amount of macroevolution had to have occurred in the time represented by Cambrian rock,
but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't even possible transitional forms. The
creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just appear there suddenly, exactly as you
would expect if each of these creatures was simply made by God.

5. Structural Homology was formerly evidence for macroevolution, but now it is evidence
against it.

Structural homology- the study of similar structures in different species.

In Darwin's time, structural homology was very strong evidence for macroevolution. How
could vastly different species have such similar characteristics unless they were all
related by a common ancestor? If they all had a common ancestor, then clearly
macroevolution would have to have occurred in order to turn this common ancestor into
these vastly different species, right?

That sounded like a great argument in Darwin's time, because scientists back then had no
idea how traits were passed on from generation to generation. With the advent of Mendelian
genetics, however, scientists finally began to understand how this happens. As scientists
began to understand genetics and DNA better, they developed technology to actually
determine the sequence of nucleotide bases in an organism's DNA. This spelled the end of
structural homology as evidence of macroevolution. You see, if structural homology was the
result of common ancestry, it should show up in the genetic codes of the organisms that
possess similar structures. For example, if you have a picture of the forearms of a bat,
bird, man, and porpoise; they look very similar. If they look so similar because they all
inherited their forearms from a common ancestor, then the parts of their DNA that contain
the information regarding the forearms should be similar. After all, traits are passed
from parent to offspring through DNA. If each one of these creatures inherited its forearm
structure from a common ancestor, then the portions on DNA which contain information about
the forearm would all have come from that same common ancestor. As a result, those
portions on the DNA should be similar from organism to organism. Is this the case? Is
structural homology the result of similar DNA sequences? No, it is not. Homologous
structures are specified by quite different genes in different species. Well, if they are
specified by different genes, then there is no way that the homologous structures could
have been inherited from a common ancestor. As basic genetics tells us, the only way to
inherit something from an ancestor is through the genetic code.

To creation scientists, structural homology offers excellent evidence for a Creator. After
all, any good engineer, once he finds a design that works, tends to stick with that design
and simply adapts it from situation to situation. Thus, structural homology is, to
creation scientists, evidence of common design, not common ancestry.

6. The natural variation we see in reproduction today is the result of different alleles
being expressed in different individuals. Since the number of alleles in the genetic code
of any species is limited, the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is
limited.

The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability
to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's
genetic code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in
the genetic code. It therefore must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its
genetic code. Scientists don't have a solid idea of how this can happen. One guess is
mutation. Mutation, however, has only been shown to only destroy information in the
genetic code, not add to it.

7.Molecular Biology.

Molecular biology studies the properties and structures of the molecules important to
biology. Aside from DNA, what is the most important type of molecule in the chemisty of
life? The protein. As a result, a large amount of the research effort in molecular biology
centers on understanding proteins.

There are certain proteins that are common to many species. Most animals, for example,
have the protein hemoglobin. In addition, most organisms have the protein cytochrome C as
well, which takes part in cellular metabolism. These proteins are not identical from
species to species. In other words, the cytochrome C that you find in a bacterium is a bit
different from the cytochrome C that you find in a human.

The sequence of amino acids within a protein determines its structure and function. Each
Species has slightly different sequences. If you were to show a table of cytochrome C
amino acid sequences of different species, they would have slight differences in order to
be able to work with the specific chemistry of each organism. Even if there is only one
difference in the sequence of a species to another's, the cytochrome C of each will not
work for the other species.

What does all of this tell us? Well, how are proteins made? They are made in the cells
according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, by looking at the amino acid sequences in a
protein that is common among many species, you are actually looking at the differences
between specific parts of those organisms' genetic code: the part that determines the
makeup of that protein. If macroevolution is true, then that portion of the genetic code
should reflect how "closely related" the two species are. If two species are closely
related, the DNA sequences that code for a common protein should be very similar. If they
are only distantly related, however, the DNA sequences that codes for that same protein
should have more significant differences between them. Looking at the differences between
the amino acid sequences of a common protein, then, is a way to determine just how many
differences exist between corresponding sections of the DNA of the organsisms in question.
There is a way to calculate the percentage differences between the cytochrome C amino acid
sequence of a species to another. Using a table, we can see the differences.


Percentage Differences between a Bacterium's Cytochrome C and That of Other Organisms


|Organism | Percentage difference |
| | from the bacterium |
| | |
| | |
|Horse | 64% |
| | |
|Pigeon | 64% |
| | |
|Tuna | 65% |
| | |
|Silkworm moth | 65% |
| | |
|Wheat | 66% |
| | |
|Yeast | 69% |


Remember what macroevolution says. It says that "complex" life forms evolved from "simple"
ones. Well, the "simplest" life form on the planet is a bacterium. Of the organisms listed
in the table, the yeast (a single-celled fungus) is probably the next "simplest" life form.
Increasing in complexity then come the silkworm moth, followed by the tuna, followed by
the pigeon, followed by the horse. Thus, macroevolution would assume that the bacterium is
most closely related to the yeast, then to the silkworm moth, etc., etc., all the way up
to the horse. As a result, then the yeast's cytochrome C should be most similar to that of
the bacterium, the silkworm moth's cytochrome C should be the next most similar, and so on.
According to the data, however, each organism in the table is essentially as closely
related to the bacterium as any other organism on the table! If anything, the bacterium is
more closely related to the most complex organisms, not the least complex ones!

In other words, the data presented show none of the evolutionary relationships that should
exist if macroevolution really occurred. Instead, these data seem to indicate that the
bacterium is just as different from the horse as it is from the yeast. As you look at more
and more data like this, you will find that this is the pattern of the vast majority of
the data.

By looking at the vast majority of the data collected from molecular biology, it is clear
that you can establish no macroevolutionary trends. If you map the amino acid sequences
of virtually any protein and compare the differences between organisms that have that
protein, you will generally find no macroevolutionary trends. Instead, each kind of
organism seems to be equally or nearly equally different from every other kind of organism.
As is the case with all of science, there are exceptions to this general rule, but those
exceptions are quite rare.


*A lot of this information was stated from Exploring Creation with Biology 2nd edition*


To make one thing clear, macroevolution and microevolution are quite different.
Macroevolution is where an organism changes by going beyond its genetic code (i.e. from
ape to man). Microevolution is where an organism changes within the boundaries of its
genetic code (i.e. from wild dogs to civilized dogs). Microevolution is a theory,
macroevolution is a hypothesis.

Ahahahaha...

'Argument of "Know everything or atheism/evolution is wrong":

1) Ask an atheist to explain every step in the evolution of every animal you can think of until they do not know they answer.

2) They eventually say they do not now

3) Therefore God exists...'

Oh I love it!

I will still believe anything besides "Some imaginary guy in the sky created us."

So I still believe we evolved from something else. Because as of right now it still makes more sense then the whole religious explanation.

There are undeniable similarities between the skull shapes of the primates and the obvious different types of sparrow on the Galapagos islands where each had specialised to be the most efficient at finding a food source (simply- big beak for nuts, small beak for berries kind of thing). And I'm too tired to read the rest (tis one AM in merry old England).james28893

That's microevolution, which I believe. Structural homology deals with the similarities between the skulls.

Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
twinsnakes91

Because we're tired.

Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
twinsnakes91

[QUOTE="james28893"]Ok you should know that the theory of evolution was never meant to say where the Earth came from, just where we came from. There's no evidence to support that something can be everything, exist always (without a need for being created) and know everything either. There are undeniable similarities between the skull shapes of the primates and the obvious different types of sparrow on the Galapagos islands where each had specialised to be the most efficient at finding a food source (simply- big beak for nuts, small beak for berries kind of thing). And I'm too tired to read the rest (tis one AM in merry old England).twinsnakes91

That's microevolution, which I believe.

Still why write about it not explaining where the Earth came from, it's not supposed to.

Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
twinsnakes91

Like i said,its too much and im dizzy.

And why does it matter?If you believe your point of view is so right why do you bother forcing it on other people?
Are you insecure about your beliefs so much that you have to try and validate it?

Who cares man,and im motion sick.

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
MattUD1

Oh, I'm sorry. Why don't you try reading beyond the first point. Is that better?

And where do YOU say the Earth came from?lmhansen

God made it.

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
xxDustmanxx

Like i said,its too much and im dizzy.

And why does it matter?If you believe your point of view is so right why do you bother forcing it on other people?
Are you insecure about your beliefs so much that you have to try and validate it?

Who cares man,and im motion sick.

How am I forcing it on anyone? And I said that because people were attacking what I said without even reading everything.

Ok. Now, prove God.lmhansen

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

I'll do my best to debunk your claims

Well, I've seen a lot of evolution threads on here where most people support evolution. They say,"Theres a lot of evidence for it and barely any against it," so I thought I would post this. Here is my evidence against it, where is your evidence for it?twinsnakes91

I'll present 1 piece of evidence for now: Human chromosome 2. the great apes have24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans have 23 pairs, so one of our chromosomes should be the result of a fusion between two chromosomes. when the human genome was sequenced, that's EXACTLY what was found, a vestigial centromere and 2 vestigial telomeres

1. Evolutionists are not able to answer where EVERYTHING has come from. Where did
the earth come from? Where did the rock that hit the earth come from? Etc., etc.twinsnakes91

2. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that life can form from non-living things.twinsnakes91

3. We have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. There are
some fossils that could be pointed to as possible transitional forms, but they are highly
questionable.twinsnakes91

4.The Cambrian Explosion. In the early 1900s, Charles Walcott discovered a lot of fossils in
a layer of Cambrian rock called the "Burgess Shale." According to the geological column,
only the "simplest" of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented
by Cambrien rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact,
by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major
animal phylum that exists in our cla$sification scheme. This means that the geological
column as presented in textbooks is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the "simple" animals
that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands of examples of
animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock.
According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed to have formed much,
much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock. The fossils themselves
also present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that there are no intermediate links
in the fossil record is a well-known problem for macroevolution, the problem is much more
dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge amount of macroevolution had to have occurred
in the time represented by Cambrian rock, but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't
even possible transitional forms. The creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just
appear there suddenly, exactly as you would expect if each of these creatures was simply
made by God.twinsnakes91

5. Structural Homology was formerly evidence for macroevolution, but now it is evidence
against it.twinsnakes91

Structural homology- the study of similar structures in different species.

In Darwin's time, structural homology was very strong evidence for macroevolution. How
could vastly different species have such similar characteristics unless they were all
related by a common ancestor? If they all had a common ancestor, then clearly macroevolution
would have to have occurred in order to turn this common ancestor into these vastly different
species, right?

That sounded like a great argument in Darwin's time, because scientists back then had no idea
how traits were passed on from generation to generation. With the advent of Mendelian genetics,
however, scientists finally began to understand how this happens. As scientists began to
understand genetics and DNA better, they developed technology to actually determine the
sequence of nucleotide bases in an organism's DNA. This spelled the end of structural homology as
evidence of macroevolution. You see, if structural homology was the result of common ancestry, it should
show up in the genetic codes of the organisms that possess similar structures. For example,
if you have a picture of the forearms of a bat, bird, man, and porpoise; they look very
similar. If they look so similar because they all inherited their forearms from a common
ancestor, then the parts of their DNA that contain the information regarding the forearms
should be similar. After all, traits are passed from parent to offspring through DNA. If
each one of these creatures inherited its forearm structure from a common ancestor, then
the portions on DNA which contain information about the forearm would all have come from that same common ancestor. As a result, those portions on the DNA should be similar from organism to organism.
Is this the case? Is structural homology the result of similar DNA sequences? No, it is not.
Homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species. Well,
if they are specified by different genes, then there is no way that the homologous structures
could have been inherited from a common ancestor. As basic genetics tells us, the only way
to inherit something from an ancestor is through the genetic code.

To creation scientists, structural homology offers excellent evidence for a Creator. After all,
any good engineer, once he finds a design that works, tends to stick with that design and
simply adapts it from situation to situation. Thus, structural homology is, to creation
scientists, evidence of common design, not common ancestry.twinsnakes91

6. The natural variation we see in reproduction today is the result of different alleles
being expressed in different individuals. Since the number of alleles in the genetic code
of any species is limited, the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is
limited.

The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to
change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's genetic
code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in the genetic
code. It therefore must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code. Scientists
don't have a solid idea of how this can happen. One guess is mutation. Mutation, however, has only
been shown to destroy information in the genetic code, not add to it. twinsnakes91

7.Molecular Biology.

Molecular biology studies the properties and structures of the molecules important to
biology. Aside from DNA, what is the most important type of molecule in the chemisty of life?
The protein. As a result, a large amount of the research effort in molecular biology centers
on understanding proteins.

There are certain proteins that are common to many species. Most animals, for example, have
the protein hemoglobin. In addition, most organisms have the protein cytochrome C as well, which
takes part in cellular metabolism. These proteins are not identical from species to species.
In other words, the cytochrome C that you find in a bacterium is a bit different from the
cytochrome C that you find in a human.twinsnakes91

The sequence of amino acids within a protein determines its structure and function. Each
Species has slightly different sequences. If you were to show a table of cytochrome C amino acid
sequences of different species, they would have slight differences in order to be able
to work with the specific chemistry of each organism. Even if there is only one difference
in the sequence of a species to another's, the cytochrome C of each will not work for the
other species.twinsnakes91

What does all of this tell us? Well, how are proteins made? They are made in the cells according
to the instructions of DNA. Thus, by looking at the amino acid sequences in a protein that
is common among many species, you are actually looking at the differences between specific
parts of those organisms' genetic code: the part that determines the makeup of that protein.
If macroevolution is true, then that portion of the genetic code should reflect how "closely
related" the two species are. If two species are closely related, the DNA sequences that code
for a common protein should be very similar. If they are only distantly related, however,
the DNA sequences that codes for that same protein should have more significant differences
between them. Looking at the differences between the amino acid sequences of a common protein,
then, is a way to determine just how many differences exist between corresponding sections
of the DNA of the organisms in question. There is a way to calculate the percentage
differences between the cytochrome C amino acid sequence of a species to another. Using a
table, we can see the differences.twinsnakes91

Percentage Differences between a Bacterium's Cytochrome C and That of Other Organisms


|Organism | Percentage difference |
| | from the bacterium |
| | |
| | |
|Horse | 64% |
| | |
|Pigeon | 64% |
| | |
|Tuna | 65% |
| | |
|Silkworm moth | 65% |
| | |
|Wheat | 66% |
| | |
|Yeast | 69% |


Remember what macroevolution says. It says that "complex" life forms evolved from "simple"
ones. Well, the "simplest" life form on the planet is a bacterium. Of the organisms listed
in the table, the yeast (a single-celled fungus) is probably the next "simplest" life form.
Increasing in complexity then come the silkworm moth, followed by the tuna, followed by the
pigeon, followed by the horse. Thus, macroevolution would assume that the bacterium is most
closely related to the yeast, then to the silkworm moth, etc., etc., all the way up to the
horse. As a result, then the yeast's cytochrome C should be most similar to that of the
bacterium, the silkworm moth's cytochrome C should be the next most similar, and so on.
According to the data, however, each organism in the table is essentially as closely related
to the bacterium as any other organism on the table! If anything, the bacterium is more
closely related to the most complex organisms, not the least complex ones!twinsnakes91

In other words, the data presented show none of the evolutionary relationships that should
exist if macroevolution really occurred. Instead, these data seem to indicate that the bacterium
is just as different from the horse as it is from the yeast. As you look at more and more
data like this, you will find that this is the pattern of the vast majority of the data.

By looking at the vast majority of the data collected from molecular biology, it is clear
that you can establish no macroevolutionary trends. If you map the amino acid sequences
of virtually any protein and compare the differences between organisms that have that protein,
you will generally find no macroevolutionary trends. Instead, each kind of organism seems
to be equally or nearly equally different from every other kind of organism. As is the case
with all of science, there are exceptions to this general rule, but those exceptions are
quite rare.twinsnakes91

*A lot of this information was stated from Exploring Creation with Biology 2nd edition*


To make one thing clear, macroevolution and microevolution are quite different. Macroevolution
is where an organism changes by going beyond its genetic code (i.e. from ape to man). Microevolution
is where an organism changes within the boundaries of its genetic code (i.e. from wild dogs to
civilized dogs). Microevolution is a theory, macroevolution is a hypothesis.

twinsnakes91

You obviously copied and pasted 95% of that. The formatting is all wrong for these forums, that's why you get a whole line then one word then a whole line then one word then a whole line, etc.

Why don't you try posting what YOU know instead. I really don't feel like reading through a terribly formatted post that you didn't even take the time to write. Then you scold us for not reading it. LOL.

So many flaws in the Christian view of Creationism.... the notion that a 'God' created the universe 5000 years ago is just so completely ignorant.

[QUOTE="lmhansen"]Ok. Now, prove God.twinsnakes91

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

OK, kinda strange statement. Science can prove things, like why we see colours, why fast food is addictive etc.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
twinsnakes91

Like i said,its too much and im dizzy.

And why does it matter?If you believe your point of view is so right why do you bother forcing it on other people?
Are you insecure about your beliefs so much that you have to try and validate it?

Who cares man,and im motion sick.

How am I forcing it on anyone? And I said that because people were attacking what I said without even reading everything.

Because your bringing in a giant pile of "evidence" to support your claim,so that people will go.Woah you must be right,damn im an idiot!God must be real.

Just believe what you want to believe and leave the rest alone.

Evolution doesn't try explain how the universe got to be, just how the diversity of life got to be. Have you still not realized that?

[QUOTE="lmhansen"]Ok. Now, prove God.twinsnakes91

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

And we have faith in science. :?

You obviously copied and pasted 95% of that. The formatting is all wrong for these forums, that's why you get a whole line then one word then a whole line then one word then a whole line, etc.

Why don't you try posting what YOU know instead. I really don't feel like reading through a terribly formatted post that you didn't even take the time to write. Then you scold us for not reading it. LOL.

So many flaws in the Christian view of Creationism.... the notion that a 'God' created the universe 5000 years ago is just so completely ignorant.

sts9kid

I typed all of that myself. I typed it on notepad then copy and pasted it. About the whole line then one word then line thing, I don't know what you're talking about. It looks fine to me.

[QUOTE="sts9kid"]

You obviously copied and pasted 95% of that. The formatting is all wrong for these forums, that's why you get a whole line then one word then a whole line then one word then a whole line, etc.

Why don't you try posting what YOU know instead. I really don't feel like reading through a terribly formatted post that you didn't even take the time to write. Then you scold us for not reading it. LOL.

So many flaws in the Christian view of Creationism.... the notion that a 'God' created the universe 5000 years ago is just so completely ignorant.

twinsnakes91

I typed all of that myself. I typed it on notepad then copy and pasted it. About the whole line then one word then line thing, I don't know what you're talking about. It looks fine to me.

I'll do my best to debunk your claims

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]

Well, I've seen a lot of evolution threads on here where most people support evolution. They say,"Theres a lot of evidence for it and barely any against it," so I thought I would post this. Here is my evidence against it, where is your evidence for it?notconspiracy

I'll present 1 piece of evidence for now: Human chromosome 2. the great apes have24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans have 23 pairs, so one of our chromosomes should be the result of a fusion between two chromosomes. when the human genome was sequenced, that's EXACTLY what was found, a vestigial centromere and 2 vestigial telomeres

1. Evolutionists are not able to answer where EVERYTHING has come from. Where did
the earth come from? Where did the rock that hit the earth come from? Etc., etc.twinsnakes91

2. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that life can form from non-living things.twinsnakes91

3. We have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. There are
some fossils that could be pointed to as possible transitional forms, but they are highly
questionable.twinsnakes91

4.The Cambrian Explosion. In the early 1900s, Charles Walcott discovered a lot of fossils in
a layer of Cambrian rock called the "Burgess Shale." According to the geological column,
only the "simplest" of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented
by Cambrien rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact,
by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major
animal phylum that exists in our cla$sification scheme. This means that the geological
column as presented in textbooks is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the "simple" animals
that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands of examples of
animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock.
According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed to have formed much,
much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock. The fossils themselves
also present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that there are no intermediate links
in the fossil record is a well-known problem for macroevolution, the problem is much more
dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge amount of macroevolution had to have occurred
in the time represented by Cambrian rock, but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't
even possible transitional forms. The creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just
appear there suddenly, exactly as you would expect if each of these creatures was simply
made by God.twinsnakes91

5. Structural Homology was formerly evidence for macroevolution, but now it is evidence
against it.twinsnakes91

Structural homology- the study of similar structures in different species.

In Darwin's time, structural homology was very strong evidence for macroevolution. How
could vastly different species have such similar characteristics unless they were all
related by a common ancestor? If they all had a common ancestor, then clearly macroevolution
would have to have occurred in order to turn this common ancestor into these vastly different
species, right?

That sounded like a great argument in Darwin's time, because scientists back then had no idea
how traits were passed on from generation to generation. With the advent of Mendelian genetics,
however, scientists finally began to understand how this happens. As scientists began to
understand genetics and DNA better, they developed technology to actually determine the
sequence of nucleotide bases in an organism's DNA. This spelled the end of structural homology as
evidence of macroevolution. You see, if structural homology was the result of common ancestry, it should
show up in the genetic codes of the organisms that possess similar structures. For example,
if you have a picture of the forearms of a bat, bird, man, and porpoise; they look very
similar. If they look so similar because they all inherited their forearms from a common
ancestor, then the parts of their DNA that contain the information regarding the forearms
should be similar. After all, traits are passed from parent to offspring through DNA. If
each one of these creatures inherited its forearm structure from a common ancestor, then
the portions on DNA which contain information about the forearm would all have come from that same common ancestor. As a result, those portions on the DNA should be similar from organism to organism.
Is this the case? Is structural homology the result of similar DNA sequences? No, it is not.
Homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species. Well,
if they are specified by different genes, then there is no way that the homologous structures
could have been inherited from a common ancestor. As basic genetics tells us, the only way
to inherit something from an ancestor is through the genetic code.

To creation scientists, structural homology offers excellent evidence for a Creator. After all,
any good engineer, once he finds a design that works, tends to stick with that design and
simply adapts it from situation to situation. Thus, structural homology is, to creation
scientists, evidence of common design, not common ancestry.twinsnakes91

6. The natural variation we see in reproduction today is the result of different alleles
being expressed in different individuals. Since the number of alleles in the genetic code
of any species is limited, the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is
limited.

The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to
change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's genetic
code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in the genetic
code. It therefore must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code. Scientists
don't have a solid idea of how this can happen. One guess is mutation. Mutation, however, has only
been shown to destroy information in the genetic code, not add to it. twinsnakes91

7.Molecular Biology.

Molecular biology studies the properties and structures of the molecules important to
biology. Aside from DNA, what is the most important type of molecule in the chemisty of life?
The protein. As a result, a large amount of the research effort in molecular biology centers
on understanding proteins.

There are certain proteins that are common to many species. Most animals, for example, have
the protein hemoglobin. In addition, most organisms have the protein cytochrome C as well, which
takes part in cellular metabolism. These proteins are not identical from species to species.
In other words, the cytochrome C that you find in a bacterium is a bit different from the
cytochrome C that you find in a human.twinsnakes91

The sequence of amino acids within a protein determines its structure and function. Each
Species has slightly different sequences. If you were to show a table of cytochrome C amino acid
sequences of different species, they would have slight differences in order to be able
to work with the specific chemistry of each organism. Even if there is only one difference
in the sequence of a species to another's, the cytochrome C of each will not work for the
other species.twinsnakes91

What does all of this tell us? Well, how are proteins made? They are made in the cells according
to the instructions of DNA. Thus, by looking at the amino acid sequences in a protein that
is common among many species, you are actually looking at the differences between specific
parts of those organisms' genetic code: the part that determines the makeup of that protein.
If macroevolution is true, then that portion of the genetic code should reflect how "closely
related" the two species are. If two species are closely related, the DNA sequences that code
for a common protein should be very similar. If they are only distantly related, however,
the DNA sequences that codes for that same protein should have more significant differences
between them. Looking at the differences between the amino acid sequences of a common protein,
then, is a way to determine just how many differences exist between corresponding sections
of the DNA of the organisms in question. There is a way to calculate the percentage
differences between the cytochrome C amino acid sequence of a species to another. Using a
table, we can see the differences.twinsnakes91

Percentage Differences between a Bacterium's Cytochrome C and That of Other Organisms


|Organism | Percentage difference |
| | from the bacterium |
| | |
| | |
|Horse | 64% |
| | |
|Pigeon | 64% |
| | |
|Tuna | 65% |
| | |
|Silkworm moth | 65% |
| | |
|Wheat | 66% |
| | |
|Yeast | 69% |


Remember what macroevolution says. It says that "complex" life forms evolved from "simple"
ones. Well, the "simplest" life form on the planet is a bacterium. Of the organisms listed
in the table, the yeast (a single-celled fungus) is probably the next "simplest" life form.
Increasing in complexity then come the silkworm moth, followed by the tuna, followed by the
pigeon, followed by the horse. Thus, macroevolution would assume that the bacterium is most
closely related to the yeast, then to the silkworm moth, etc., etc., all the way up to the
horse. As a result, then the yeast's cytochrome C should be most similar to that of the
bacterium, the silkworm moth's cytochrome C should be the next most similar, and so on.
According to the data, however, each organism in the table is essentially as closely related
to the bacterium as any other organism on the table! If anything, the bacterium is more
closely related to the most complex organisms, not the least complex ones!
not quite, phylogenetics is not built upon how complex an organism is
[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"] In other words, the data presented show none of the evolutionary relationships that should
exist if macroevolution really occurred. Instead, these data seem to indicate that the bacterium
is just as different from the horse as it is from the yeast. As you look at more and more
data like this, you will find that this is the pattern of the vast majority of the data.

By looking at the vast majority of the data collected from molecular biology, it is clear
that you can establish no macroevolutionary trends. If you map the amino acid sequences
of virtually any protein and compare the differences between organisms that have that protein,
you will generally find no macroevolutionary trends. Instead, each kind of organism seems
to be equally or nearly equally different from every other kind of organism. As is the case
with all of science, there are exceptions to this general rule, but those exceptions are
quite rare.twinsnakes91

the OP got pwned... way to go notconspiracy.

[QUOTE="lmhansen"]Ok. Now, prove God.twinsnakes91

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
xxDustmanxx

Like i said,its too much and im dizzy.

And why does it matter?If you believe your point of view is so right why do you bother forcing it on other people?
Are you insecure about your beliefs so much that you have to try and validate it?

Who cares man,and im motion sick.

How am I forcing it on anyone? And I said that because people were attacking what I said without even reading everything.

Because your bringing in a giant pile of "evidence" to support your claim,so that people will go.Woah you must be right,damn im an idiot!God must be real.

Just believe what you want to believe and leave the rest alone.

That doesn't even make sense. I guess you don't know what "forcing" means.

Every theist on OT just trails off when an atheist (like me) says OK what created God. Their retort is He didn't need creation that's why he's God.james28893

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]

[QUOTE="lmhansen"]Ok. Now, prove God.lmhansen

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

I'm not asking for absolute proof the God created the world. There isn't any.

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"][QUOTE="sts9kid"]

You obviously copied and pasted 95% of that. The formatting is all wrong for these forums, that's why you get a whole line then one word then a whole line then one word then a whole line, etc.

Why don't you try posting what YOU know instead. I really don't feel like reading through a terribly formatted post that you didn't even take the time to write. Then you scold us for not reading it. LOL.

So many flaws in the Christian view of Creationism.... the notion that a 'God' created the universe 5000 years ago is just so completely ignorant.

notconspiracy

I typed all of that myself. I typed it on notepad then copy and pasted it. About the whole line then one word then line thing, I don't know what you're talking about. It looks fine to me.

Yes, it will just take me a while to respond to it.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="twinsnakes91"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]Why don't you people try reading what I posted for a change instead of just replying.
twinsnakes91

Like i said,its too much and im dizzy.

And why does it matter?If you believe your point of view is so right why do you bother forcing it on other people?
Are you insecure about your beliefs so much that you have to try and validate it?

Who cares man,and im motion sick.

How am I forcing it on anyone? And I said that because people were attacking what I said without even reading everything.

Because your bringing in a giant pile of "evidence" to support your claim,so that people will go.Woah you must be right,damn im an idiot!God must be real.

Just believe what you want to believe and leave the rest alone.

That doesn't even make sense. I guess you don't know what "forcing" means.

I guess i dont,wow you must be smart.God exists you win.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="twinsnakes91"][QUOTE="sts9kid"]

You obviously copied and pasted 95% of that. The formatting is all wrong for these forums, that's why you get a whole line then one word then a whole line then one word then a whole line, etc.

Why don't you try posting what YOU know instead. I really don't feel like reading through a terribly formatted post that you didn't even take the time to write. Then you scold us for not reading it. LOL.

So many flaws in the Christian view of Creationism.... the notion that a 'God' created the universe 5000 years ago is just so completely ignorant.

twinsnakes91

I typed all of that myself. I typed it on notepad then copy and pasted it. About the whole line then one word then line thing, I don't know what you're talking about. It looks fine to me.

Yes, it will just take me a while to respond to it.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="james28893"]Every theist on OT just trails off when an atheist (like me) says OK what created God. Their retort is He didn't need creation that's why he's God.smarb001

pics or it didnt happen :P

seriously, can any of you close-minded religious bigots actually provide evidence to prove the bs you're spouting?

[QUOTE="lmhansen"][QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]

[QUOTE="lmhansen"]Ok. Now, prove God.twinsnakes91

Science can't prove anything. It's called faith.

I'm not asking for absolute proof the God created the world. There isn't any.

If you could respond with some sort of facts instead of just saying, "Cytochrome C is actually one of the STRONGEST pieces of evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans" it would help.
twinsnakes91

You expect us to do that when you can't condense your own for the tired and lazy and confused?

You got it backwards. You're requesting absolute proof the Evolution is true, yet you offer no proof of your own theory. That's the hypocrisy. lmhansen

I'm not requesting absolute proof that evolution is true. I just posted some evidence against it. As for my own theory, that has nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="smarb001"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="james28893"]Every theist on OT just trails off when an atheist (like me) says OK what created God. Their retort is He didn't need creation that's why he's God.notconspiracy

pics or it didnt happen :P

seriously, can any of you close-minded religious bigots actually provide evidence to prove the bs you're spouting?

Big-ot (noun)

One who is strongly biased towards one's own race, religion, or group.

Yes? No? Maybe?

If you could respond with some sort of facts instead of just saying, "Cytochrome C is actually one of the STRONGEST pieces of evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans" it would help.
twinsnakes91

Ubiquitious genes are genes which control basic life functions. Cytochrome C is one such gene. it is a string of amino acids which control the electron transport chain (electron transport chain is what manufactures ATP in eucaryotes for cells). so the gene doesn't depend on that organisms phenotype. Since humans are most closely related to chimps, cytochrome c between us and them (chimpanzees) should be very close, and it is. cytochrome c is exactly identical between chimps and humans. Cytochrome C can have 10^93 different amino acid sequences and it will still perform its function. the odds of this happening if evolution were not true are 1 in 10^93. in other words, IMPOSSIBLE

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="smarb001"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="james28893"]Every theist on OT just trails off when an atheist (like me) says OK what created God. Their retort is He didn't need creation that's why he's God.smarb001

pics or it didnt happen :P

seriously, can any of you close-minded religious bigots actually provide evidence to prove the bs you're spouting?

Big-ot (noun)

One who is strongly biased towards one's own race, religion, or group.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[QUOTE="twinsnakes91"]If you could respond with some sort of facts instead of just saying, "Cytochrome C is actually one of the STRONGEST pieces of evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans" it would help.
notconspiracy

Ubiquitious genes are genes which control basic life functions. Cytochrome C is one such gene. it is a string of amino acids which control the electron transport chain (electron transport chain is what manufactures ATP in eucaryotes for cells). so the gene doesn't depend on that organisms phenotype. Since humans are most closely related to chimps, cytochrome c between us and them (chimpanzees) should be very close, and it is. cytochrome c is exactly identical between chimps and humans. Cytochrome C can have 10^93 different amino acid sequences and it will still perform its function. the odds of this happening if evolution were not true are 1 in 10^93. in other words, IMPOSSIBLE

w00t