May somebody help me something which is likely intellectual topic, PLEASE?!!!

[MHK (again)]

I saw Dare's post about " Creationsim and Evolution" , I just came across an article that pretty much put Evolution into the circular file of scientific voodoo. Check it out:

 

We'll start with genetics. Darwin's theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps , into human beings. The question thus arises: How did fish acquire the genes to become human beings? A creature cannot be anything physcially it genes won't allow it to be.

 

Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments--unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being there.

 

To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes.

 

However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has written an important new book, " Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory Of Evolution" In it, he write, " In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic infromation and not increase it."

 

Why is this a problem of evolution? Because if Darwin's thesis is correct, and all life began as a single organism, then chance mutations must have produced nearly every feature of life on Earth, from the remarkable sonar system of the dolphin to the ingeious pacemaker and values of the human heart. Yet mutations always delete--never add--information to the genetic code. And what are mutations actually observed to cause in human beings? Hemophilia. Sickle cell anemia. Cystic fibrosis. Down's Sydrome. Sterility .Death. The genetic code is designed for the perfect running of an organism--mutations delete information from the code, causing effects.

 

I believe the Evolutionary argument fails in this respect.

[MHK (again)]

In a popular evolutionary explaination, here's how reptitles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptitles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher.Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptitlian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.

 

But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physcial trait is acquire because it enhances survival. Obviously, flight is beneficial,and one can certainly see how flying animals might survive better than those who couldn't and thus natural selection would preserved them.

 

The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reach ed the point of flight. Bird's wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings can't fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly--it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Nautural section would eliminate it would a second thought.

 

Let's raise an even more fundamental question : Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evloution be ongoing?

 

I hope some can help me for that!!!!!!!!

I saw Dare's post about " Creationsim and Evolution" , I just came across an article that pretty much put Evolution into the circular file of scientific voodoo. Check it out: We'll start with genetics. Darwin's theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps , into human beings. The question thus arises: How did fish acquire the genes to become human beings? A creature cannot be anything physcially it genes won't allow it to be. Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments--unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being there. To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has written an important new book, " Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory Of Evolution" In it, he write, " In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic infromation and not increase it."

 

Why is this a problem of evolution? Because if Darwin's thesis is correct, and all life began as a single organism, then chance mutations must have produced nearly every feature of life on Earth, from the remarkable sonar system of the dolphin to the ingeious pacemaker and values of the human heart. Yet mutations always delete--never add--information to the genetic code. And what are mutations actually observed to cause in human beings? Hemophilia. Sickle cell anemia. Cystic fibrosis. Down's Sydrome. Sterility .Death. The genetic code is designed for the perfect running of an organism--mutations delete information from the code, causing effects. I believe the Evolutionary argument fails in this respect.

[Charles Darwin]

Frankly, I don't worry about evolution anymore. I just rent videos at Blockbuster, sit around watching movies and drinking beer, and belching once in a while. I've gained a few pounds and I don't get out much.

 

All that evolution crap I came up with was just something to get people thinking...and to get myself out of debt by publishing a controversial book. I made it all up after I had a dream one night. I didn't think people would take it so seriously.

 

Glad you are giving it some thought. Just remember, we are here temporarily and our solar system will eventually be destroyed. So no matter how much you think about this, it will be to no avail.

 

Go out and get yourself a six-pack and rent a good movie.

 

Yours,

 

Charles D.

 

P.S. I really don't think we came from fish. I love to eat fish.

[Tony T]

YOU ASK: "Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land?"

 

Some of them fight to stay where they are because if they come onto land they will be part of someone's fish sandwich or filet of fish dinner.

 

Other fish prefer the serenity of the sea.

 

Now, the sharks get really pissed when people encroach on their territory and bite them quite fiercely. Stingrays react similarly.

 

I think the universe is moving about precisely as it should, for now.

 

And evolution is extremely slow. It occurs gradually over millions of years and is probably underway right now but you just can't notice.

 

The greatest evolution is now occuring in bacteria and virus strains that you can't see. Be sure to get your immunizations.

[yes]

And why is anything scientific considered highly intellectual, even if looked at in such a basic way?

I saw Dare's post about " Creationsim and Evolution" , I just came across an article that pretty much put Evolution into the circular file of scientific voodoo. Check it out: We'll start with genetics. Darwin's theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps , into human beings. The question thus arises: How did fish acquire the genes to become human beings? A creature cannot be anything physcially it genes won't allow it to be. Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments--unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being there. To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has written an important new book, " Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory Of Evolution" In it, he write, " In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic infromation and not increase it."

 

Why is this a problem of evolution? Because if Darwin's thesis is correct, and all life began as a single organism, then chance mutations must have produced nearly every feature of life on Earth, from the remarkable sonar system of the dolphin to the ingeious pacemaker and values of the human heart. Yet mutations always delete--never add--information to the genetic code. And what are mutations actually observed to cause in human beings? Hemophilia. Sickle cell anemia. Cystic fibrosis. Down's Sydrome. Sterility .Death. The genetic code is designed for the perfect running of an organism--mutations delete information from the code, causing effects. I believe the Evolutionary argument fails in this respect.

[MHK]

Evolution doesn't work. I'm sorry for the nonsensical thread in here .

 

First, I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. For that, monkeys would still be evolving now if they are the closet to us. We'd have a monkey country somewhere (maybe I'm wrong and i've found it in loveshack).Planet of the Apes wouldn't be just a movie. Hasn't happened but for UK

 

2) Genes don't mutate for upgrades. Genes are perfect once made with specific functions. A mutation is natural degradation for a mutated gene and loss of function or genetic info. If genes mutated in upgrade from the sea which we came from, they would retain their orginal functions (so we could breathe underwater which we can't) and could wak and talk as we do now.Something's wrong. we can't breathe underwater.

 

Genes downgrade in muation..

 

So based on this and evolution. Man shouldn't be here because we'd be dead in the water (because of the downgrade) and dead in the water because of the mutation.

 

Think on that

[MHK]

Evolution doesn't work. I'm sorry for the nonsensical thread in here . First, I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. For that, monkeys would still be evolving now if they are the closet to us. We'd have a monkey country somewhere (maybe I'm wrong and i've found it in loveshack).Planet of the Apes wouldn't be just a movie. Hasn't happened but for UK 2) Genes don't mutate for upgrades. Genes are perfect once made with specific functions. A mutation is natural degradation for a mutated gene and loss of function or genetic info. If genes mutated in upgrade from the sea which we came from, they would retain their orginal functions (so we could breathe underwater which we can't) and could wak and talk as we do now.Something's wrong. we can't breathe underwater. Genes downgrade in muation.. So based on this and evolution. Man shouldn't be here because we'd be dead in the water (because of the downgrade) and dead in the water because of the mutation. Think on that