Forums - General Discussion - I don't believe in evolution (very long post)

I don't believe in evolution or more specifically that all life evolved from some common ancestor because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Just a few examples why I think that:


It was expected to find transitional fossils but:

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55.)

“Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.”
Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.

“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
(Ridley, Mark, “Who doubts evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.”
Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980,pp.179-181.

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”
Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago - Field Museum), “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.

“The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.
25 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133.

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

“The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table.”
New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.

“Many evolutionary biologists since Darwin’s time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, withouttransitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.”
Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980,pp.179-181.

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
“…Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press]

Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14


Stasis on the morphological level

Evolutionists didn't expect to find organisms to stay the same morphologically for millions and millions of years as shown with discoveries of "living fossils" and "amber fossils":

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).” Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15

Niles Eldredge remarked: “In the context of Darwin’s own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment.” (Eldredge and Stanley p. 272)

Peter Ward in his 1992 book terms living fossils “evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else.” (p. 13)

"The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p.214.)


Stasis on the DNA Level

There are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and ‘revived’ from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

Evolutionists expected DNA sequence after millions of years to be different. It has often used as a cop-out to stasis of organisms in terms of morphology.

The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;


Vestigial structures

"Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones."

"He [Darwin] listed a number of them in The Descent of Man, including the muscles of the ear, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone, body hair, and the semilunar fold in the corner of the eye."

But Now:

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….

"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).

For those who don't know The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 today.


Reviving 20 million year old (supposedly) bacteria

“Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”

Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s ‘genetic drift’ theory requires.)

Dr. Cano’s work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated:

“After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber.”


Random mutations don't add  genetic information.

Random mutations are very relevant otherwise there is no other source for new genetic information rendering it impossible to get a primordial cell to an ape in a few billion years. It is predicted that random mutations would at least some time add novel genetic information. No scientific evidence it does. If fact, scientific evidence shows the exact opposite happens: genetic entropy.

"The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration."—*Sewall Wright?, in Julian Huxley?, "The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in relation to Speciation," The New Systematics, p. 174.

"Like radiation-induced mutations, nearly all spontaneous mutations with detectable effects are harmful."—Arthur Custance, Longevity in Antiquity, p. 1160.

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities, and mutations seem to be destructive rather than a constructive process."—*Encyclopedia Americana?, Vol. 10, p. 742.

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiments has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system, or organ."—*Michael Pitman?, Adam and Evolution, pp. 67-68.

"Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . that gene mutations are the raw material for an evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth."—*John N. Moore, On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, p. 5.

"This is really the theory that [says] if you start with fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better."—*C.H. Waddington [a geneticist], "Evolution," in Science Today, p. 38.

‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.’ - Dr. John Sanford, Plant Geneticist, Cornell University.

"Leading scientist Brian Sykes believes that long-term deterioration of the Y chromosome, which contains the gene that confers maleness, means that the male species is doomed.

Why have we not died 100 times over?

"t is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below 1/4 ~ Ne , where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ~ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/ G less than s less than 1/4 N e . Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne ~ 10 , while G ~ 10 , so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10 , an average individual carries ~ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal."


Junk DNA

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)

Recent scientific evidence says otherwise:

"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation...."

"What was once considered "junk DNA" now holds the keys to many novel gene regulatory mechanisms..."

Of course there are numerous more studies that shatters the "Junk DNA" myth. According to Jonathan Wells (received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley) exposes the myth in his book aptly titled "The Myth of Junk DNA"


Dino cadavers

According to the evolutionists' story/scenario, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago which supposedly paved the way for mammals to evolve. But something is not quite right with recent dino discoveries which points to dinosaurs dying relatively recently and co-existing with man.

Scientists have discovered a dino cadaver that still retained its stench and still has fossilized red blood cells:

    ""The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers.

    Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek?, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says."


What do some scientists have to say about it?

Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University? wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."

Mary Schweitzer? said herself "um well, it is it's very amazing it's utterly shocking actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how cells, and tissues degrade..."

"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"

Can anyone with a sound, rational mind say with a straight face these dinos died 65+ million years ago? I'm talking about SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS! That's an awfully lot of years. I think it's time to give up the evolution fairy tale story and develop a new paradigm.

Another scientists discovered a supposed 67 million year 3D dino mummy that still retained skin structure and may possibly retained its organs. Oh, they suspect the dino was buried rapidly. Hmmm could it have been Noah's Flood?

Info on the the Dino mummy:


Dinosaurs/Dragons in writing hundreds of years ago

Art depictions of dinosaurs/dragons throughout the world


The Tree of Life shown by molecular phylogenetic analysis

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the “tree of life” are established facts.

This figure below from a leading textbook [George Johnson, Jonathan Losos, The Living World, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008.] is typical. G8E/s320/JohnsonTextTOL.JPG

According to Dr. Jonathan Wells: " [Darwin] believed that the differences among modem species arose primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest, and he described the whole process as "descent with modification."

"Biologists in the 1970's began testing Darwin's branching tree pattern by comparing molecules in various species. The more similar the molecules in two different species are, the more closely related they are presumed to be. At first, this approach seemed to confirm Darwin's tree of life. But as scientists compared more and more molecules, they found that different molecules yield conflicting results. The branching-tree pattern inferred from one molecule often contradicts the pattern obtained from another."

What do evolutionists say?

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change. [url]

Michael Syvanen, co-editor of Horizontal Gene Transfer (1998) and a medical biochemist at the University of California at Davis , told New Scientist, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely.”

Can't use gene swapping as ad hoc explanation because there are problems even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:

Again looking higher up the tree, a recent study published in Science tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.”
Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the
Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).

Evolutionary bioinformatics specialist W. Ford Doolittle explains, “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.”W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

"[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [a nimal] phyla remained unresolved."
- Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).

More sources:


Convergent Evolution on the DNA level

Evolutionists have found convergence on the DNA level which goes against their expectations because it is highly, highly, unlikely. This is found among whales and bats when it comes to echolocation. The ScienceDaily article reports that these similarities are not just phenotypic but extend down into the level of the gene sequences:


"two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level"

    Convergent genetic evolution was said to be "surprising" under neo-Darwinian thinking, this article reports, "The discovery represents an unprecedented example of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups and suggests that such convergence at the sequence level might be more common than scientists had suspected." The article continues:

    "The natural world is full of examples of species that have evolved similar characteristics independently, such as the tusks of elephants and walruses," said Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, an author on one of the studies. "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait -- echolocation -- has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins."


    "We were surprised by the strength of support for convergence between these two groups of mammals and, related to this, by the sheer number of convergent changes in the coding DNA that we found," Rossiter said

    Likewise, a report by the same scientists in Current Biology called the finding "surprising":

    Only microbats and toothed whales have acquired sophisticated echolocation, indispensable for their orientation and foraging. Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects, we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin.

    (Ying Li, Zhen Liu, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi Zhang, "The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R55-R56 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).)

    Thus, the high unlikelihood of such convergent genetic evolution poses great problems for systematists who seek to reconstruct a tree of life because molecular systematic banks upon the assumption [or expectation] that genetic similarity is the result of common inheritance. In this case, however, common inheritance makes no sense:

    What could have caused the misplacement of dolphin to the bat clade in the prestin tree? Horizontal gene transfer, DNA contamination, gene paralogy, long-branch attraction, and biased amino acid frequencies are all unlikely. The only remaining reason is the convergence of the prestin sequences of echolocating bats and whales, likely resulting from a common selection for amino-acidaltering mutations that are beneficial to echolocation.

    (Ying Li, Zhen Liu, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi Zhang, "The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R55-R56 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).)

    A review of this research in Current Biology stated:

    Remarkably, prestin amino-acid sequences of echolocating dolphins have converged to resemble those of distantly related echolocating bats. ... Even more remarkable is the new finding that echolocating dolphins and porpoises show Prestin gene sequences that resemble those of echolocating bats. Whales and dolphins belong to the order Cetartiodactyla, and their closest living relatives may be hippopotamuses. Nevertheless, dolphins and porpoises share at least 14 derived amino acid sites in prestin with echolocating bats, including 10 shared with the highly specialised CF bats. Consequently, dolphins and porpoises form a sister group to CF bats in a phylogenetic analysis of prestin sequences (Figure 1). This finding is arguably one of the best examples of convergent molecular evolution discovered to date, and is exceptional because it is likely to be adaptive, driven by positive selection.

    (Gareth Jones, "Molecular Evolution: Gene Convergence in Echolocating Mammals," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R62-R64 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).) 291.html


So with all these foundational expectations or predictions of evolutionists contradicted with recent scientific findings, don't you think it's time for to adopt a new theory? Where does the buck stop? If all of this doesn't falsify evolution then what will? And I have a tons more scientific findings that contradicts evolution. Sadly, you won't find any of this information in your textbooks.

Around the Network
Lol. I'm just going to say that some of the things you've posted are actually used as evidence FOR evolution. I haven't seen anything that disproves evolution in your post. Just the details surrounding the intricacies of evolution and life have improved as more information becomes available.

Scoobes said:
Lol. I'm just going to say that some of the things you've posted are actually used as evidence FOR evolution. I haven't seen anything that disproves evolution in your post. Just the details surrounding the intricacies of evolution and life have improved as more information becomes available.

Please elaborate.

This should be interesting.

I don't believe in people who don't believe. I asked for Chtulhu opinion but he's offline.

AstroMaSSi rules

"I don't believe in evolution or more specifically that all life evolved from some common ancestor because there is no scientific evidence to support it."

Well that's a ridiculous claim. Here's a plethora of supporting evidence.

TL;DR? (like your post)

This will sum it up:

For every single argument I've ever heard against evolution, I've heard a hell of a lot more convincing counter-arguments or explanations. I'm not going to waste my time reading your bible of a post to see arguments that have been previously refuted a thousand times.

Around the Network

A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.

If you want to make, or are trying to make, a point keep the length of your post down. Don't write an essay like you have done here. Almost nobodywill  feel like reading something of that length.

Also, are you a gamer or just a spammer? You have no games on your profile and all your threads are about religion. If you're on a campaign to convert people you'll probably find you efforts would be more productive in other places instead of a video game forum.

SecondWar's Game of the Year 2012

Best Graphics: Halo 4

Biggest Surpirse: Dishonored

Biggest Disappointment: Mass Effect 3

Best DLC: Battlefield 3: Armored Kill

Most Anticipated: Grand Theft Auto V

Game of the Year


That has to be the longest post ever made on vgchartz....even longer than Carl's long cat picture.

didnt bother to read your post, its incredibly long.

Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Around the Network

Congratulations on taking a series of quotes completely out of context to twist the authors meanings.


Edit: And I'm only referring to the first section because I'll be damned if I feel like reading a 5000 word essay that starts out so poorly.