Evolutionary theory debunked

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Here we will debunk this nonsense by providing all the evidence, from micro to macro evolution.

Natural selections is not the same as evolution

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.”

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Origin of life:



There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.


The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life.

Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen

ll energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.”

“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”

Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.

[Zeus]

Only sub90 iq retards believe in evolution

[Paracelsus]

and in devolution? do you believe in devolution? because you better believe it

[phakahn]

evolution is based

[MysteriousWeeb420]

Over for Darwin

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

and in devolution? do you believe in devolution? because you better believe it

Degradation of the genome? Yeah that's a fact.

[Paracelsus]

and in devolution? do you believe in devolution? because you better believe it

Degradation of the genome? Yeah that's a fact.

nope, i am meme'ing humanity's (self-)domestication

[Prince]

darwin on sui

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

[b]Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.[/b]

The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.3

So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’

[bookieboy]

Just listen to RAY PEAT on how evolution works -- I'm still reading his work and he's brilliant AF.

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

1. [b]Evolution means change (or change in gene/allele frequency) so evolution is a fact.[/b] This is an example of the equivocation fallacy or bait-and-switch. The evolution of microbes to man—what is really in dispute—means that many thousands of new genes have to be added—about 3,000 million DNA ‘letters’; it is not just a matter of changing the frequency of existing genes. Richard Dawkins commits this fallacy; see: Dawkins playing bait and switch with guppy selection.
   
2. [b]Natural selection = evolution, so evolution is true.[/b] ‘Here is an example of natural selection … proof of evolution!’ However, natural selection cannot create any new genes to make evolution progress (see #1). Natural selection can only sort existing genetic information, so demonstrations of it are not demonstrations of evolution
   

[Prince]

it's crazy how monkeys still exist, you know

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

it's crazy how monkeys still exist, you know

That's a bad argument.