Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas

Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Ven 27 Avr - 19:25

Beaucoup de scientifiques disent que les fossiles ne comptent pas comme preuve pour la théorie de l’évolution. Est-ce que parce que l'on trouves un fissile cela eut dire que ce fossile a eu des enfants ? Non. On ne peut pas prouver cela. C'est une absurdité. Mais le gens se font avoir a l’école et écoutent leur prof qui ne savent pas mieux non plus.

'Personne n'a jamais trouvé un organisme qui n'est pas connue
pour avoir eu des parents ou un parent. C'est la meilleure preuve pour le compte
de l'évolution.'- * Tom Bethell", les évolutionnistes Agnostic, "
Harper, Février 1985, p. 61.
http://www.bible-tube.com/veith-the-wine-of-babylone-more.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdo4RWGius


Dernière édition par Admin le Sam 2 Fév - 21:04, édité 1 fois
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Marobax le Mer 11 Juil - 2:48

Vous avez vous même contré votre argument. Bravo, cela me retire du travail, par contre, cela ne vous crédibilise pas.

Marobax

Messages : 68
Date d'inscription : 09/07/2012

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Les fossiles et Darwin

Message  Admin le Mar 17 Juil - 11:02

C'est pas moi qui le dit c'est une scientifique qui se rends compte que le scouches dans les quelles on trouve les fossiles ne donnent pas leur age. Si ces fossiles auraient des millions d'annees, comment se fait-il q'ils sont exactement les memes que le sanimaux aujourd'hui? Si ces animaux auraient changes petit a petit, on devrait voir des differences non? Un poisson il y a 500 millions d'annees est le meme que ce meme poisson aujourd'hui? En fait il faudrait plutot voir si la datation des millions d'annees est correcte ce qu'elle n'est pas!

Des humains vivants ont etes dates a des millions d'annees. Des animaux vivants dates a des millions d'annees! Mieux vaut jetter Darwin car il a dit lui meme. 'Si dans 100 ans on ne trouve pas un nombre incalculable de fossiles transitoires vous pourrez jetter ma theorie.'
http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-1-age-of-the-earth.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Marobax le Mar 24 Juil - 18:31

Non, ce n'est pas le scientifique qui le dis, c'est bien vous. Le scientifique n'a dis qu'une seule phrase et vous, vous développer un argument qui se fait contredire par cette phrase. Pour ainsi dire, vous vous contredisez vous même en apportant une preuve pour l'antithèse.
Bref. Continuons sur ce que vous dites à l'instant. Alors pourquoi certains animaux n'ont pas évolué d'après le fossiles d'espèce précédente?
Vous vous moquez de moi? Tout d'abord, vous vous basez sur deux affirmation fausse et sur une énorme méconnaissance de l'évolution.
D'abord, vous supposez que chaque espèce doivent NÉCESSAIREMENT évoluer, ce qui est FAUX, une espèce évolue que si besoin s'en fait grâce au mécanisme de sélection naturel.
Et pire ensuite, vous supposez qu'à partir d'un fossiles, l'on peut voir l’entièreté d'un être vivant, ce qui est aussi FAUX, on ne vois principalement que les os et la majorité du corpus aurait pu évoluer sans que l'on s'en rende compte, un organe aurais pu diminuer, se vêtir d'un nouvelle fonction sans voir la moindre différence.
Et puis même, vous me dites que certaine espèce n'évolue pas, mais en quoi est-ce une preuves contre l'évolution vu que les autre évolue!

Marobax

Messages : 68
Date d'inscription : 09/07/2012

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Le malhonnete!

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:33

Vous etes un cas grave vous non?
Deja vous faites parti d'un des pays les derniers sur la terre en matiere de moralite et en plus en tant que dernier en morlite on se permet de juger quoi que ce soit, alors qu'on se rends pas compte de son aveuglement.
'vous supposez que chaque espèce doivent NÉCESSAIREMENT évoluer,'
Pourquoi tout les fossiles que l'on trouves qui auraient des millions d'annees sont comme les animaux que l'on trouves aujourd'hui? Aucun n'aurait evolue? Continue dans ton mensonge tu augmentes ton degre de penombres.

Marc 4 : 3-25 'Écoutez. Un semeur sortit pour semer.Comme il semait, une partie de la semence tomba le long du chemin: les oiseaux vinrent, et la mangèrent.
Une autre partie tomba dans un endroit pierreux, où elle n'avait pas beaucoup de terre; elle leva aussitôt, parce qu'elle ne trouva pas un sol profond;
mais, quand le soleil parut, elle fut brûlée et sécha, faute de racines.
Une autre partie tomba parmi les épines: les épines montèrent, et l'étouffèrent, et elle ne donna point de fruit.
Une autre partie tomba dans la bonne terre: elle donna du fruit qui montait et croissait, et elle rapporta trente, soixante, et cent pour un.
Puis il dit: Que celui qui a des oreilles pour entendre entende.
Lorsqu'il fut en particulier, ceux qui l'entouraient avec les douze l'interrogèrent sur les paraboles.
Il leur dit: C'est à vous qu'a été donné le mystère du royaume de Dieu; mais pour ceux qui sont dehors tout se passe en paraboles,
afin qu'en voyant ils voient et n'aperçoivent point, et qu'en entendant ils entendent et ne comprennent point, de peur qu'ils ne se convertissent, et que les péchés ne leur soient pardonnés.
Il leur dit encore: Vous ne comprenez pas cette parabole? Comment donc comprendrez-vous toutes les paraboles?
Le semeur sème la parole.
Les uns sont le long du chemin, où la parole est semée; quand ils l'ont entendue, aussitôt Satan vient et enlève la parole qui a été semée en eux.
Les autres, pareillement, reçoivent la semence dans les endroits pierreux; quand ils entendent la parole, ils la reçoivent d'abord avec joie;
mais ils n'ont pas de racine en eux-mêmes, ils manquent de persistance, et, dès que survient une tribulation ou une persécution à cause de la parole, ils y trouvent une occasion de chute.
D'autres reçoivent la semence parmi les épines; ce sont ceux qui entendent la parole,
mais en qui les soucis du siècle, la séduction des richesses et l'invasion des autres convoitises, étouffent la parole, et la rendent infructueuse.
D'autres reçoivent la semence dans la bonne terre; ce sont ceux qui entendent la parole, la reçoivent, et portent du fruit, trente, soixante, et cent pour un.
Il leur dit encore: Apporte-t-on la lampe pour la mettre sous le boisseau, ou sous le lit? N'est-ce pas pour la mettre sur le chandelier?
Car il n'est rien de caché qui ne doive être découvert, rien de secret qui ne doive être mis au jour.
Si quelqu'un a des oreilles pour entendre, qu'il entende.
Il leur dit encore: Prenez garde à ce que vous entendez. On vous mesurera avec la mesure dont vous vous serez servis, et on y ajoutera pour vous.
Car on donnera à celui qui a; mais à celui qui n'a pas on ôtera même ce qu'il a.'
http://www.bible-tube.com/evolution-foundation-for-the-antichrist-2.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:34

Quelle preuve y a t-il qu'un fossile se serait transforme et ait évolué?
Pourquoi l'oeil du trilobite trouve dans la couche cambrienne est plus évolué même que l'oeuil humain  si 'évolution est vraie?
Pourquoi trouves t-on des arbres pétrifiés traversant toutes le couches terrestres si l’évolution est vraie ?
Si l’évolution est vraie pourquoi de la couche cambrienne trouves t-on d'un coup des formes beaucoup plus compliquées apparaissant? Ne devrait-il pas y avoir des transitions petit a petit?
Pourquoi tout les animaux sont tous dans leur especes.
Si l’évolution est vraie ne devrais t-on pas trouver des mi chats et mi chevaux et mi lions mi- songes ect?
http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-lies-3-more.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:40

Voici un bon article sur le sujet. En tant que personne qui se dit intelligente tu parlerai Anglais quand meme ?

ANIMAL AND PLANT
SPECIES
Why the species barrier
cannot be broken
—————————
This chapter is based on pp. 441-474 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 87 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org. Evolution is based on change from one species to another.
In chapters 9 and 10, Natural Selection and Mutations,
we have found that there is no mechanism by which
it can occur; and in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, we will
learn that there is no past evidence of such change.
The fact that all plant and animal true species are
distinct types is a crux in the entire controversy. So we
will here devote a full chapter to speciation. This material
will help fill out the picture of what we are learning
in other chapters.
DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES—The
battle over evolutionary theory finds its center in the
species. This is where *Charles Darwin attempted to fight
it, but without success. Even though he called his first book
by that name, he never did try to figure out the origin of
the species.
Animal and Plant Species 373
“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the
species in his Origin of the Species.”—*Niles Eldredge,
Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution
and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, (1985), p.
33.
*Darwin could not figure out why species even
existed. If his theory was correct, there would be no distinct
species, only confused creatures everywhere and no
two alike.
“Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in
his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real
evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: ‘As
by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have
existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust
of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead
of being, as we see them, well defined species?”—H.
Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
To make the situation worse, *Darwin did not know
of one instance in which a species changed into another.
“Not one change of species into another is on record
. . we cannot prove that a single species has been
changed.”—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN—(*#1/27
Origin of the Species Unknown / #2/13 The Experts Are
Puzzled*) The problem of species has become a major
unsolved problem of the evolutionists, because they
cannot figure out where they came from.
“More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton
Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when
he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of
evolutionary biology.’ ”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution
Mystery (1983), p. 141.
“In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged
as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist,
William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the
question. In 1922 he wrote: ‘In dim outline evolution is
evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of
374 The Evolution Cruncher
the theory of evolution which is concerned with the
origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.’
Sixty years later we are if anything worse off,
research having only revealed complexity within complexity.”—*
G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery
(1983), p. 140.
1- IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES
PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS—(*#3/15
Classifying the Plants and Animals*) The science of classifying
plants and animals is called taxonomy.
“Classification or taxonomy is the theory and practice
of naming, describing, and classifying organisms.”—
*Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.
Taxonomists have placed all plants and animals in
logical categories and then arranged them on several
major levels, which are these:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Sub-species
It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing
as a kingdom, phylum, class, order, or family. Those
are just convenient names and are like rooms in a zoo or
botanical garden, each one with a different collection of
plant or animal species. It is the species that are alive; the
rooms are not. The terms “phyla, classes, orders, families,”
and most of the “genera” are merely category labels.
It is only the true species which should count. This
includes some of what is listed as “species,” and some
life-forms called “genera,” which should be labeled
as species.
“According to the author’s view, which I think nearly
all biologists must share, the species is the only taxo-
Animal and Plant Species 375
nomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples,
a completely objective existence. Higher categories
are all more or less a matter of opinion.”—
*G.W. Richards, “A Guide to the Practice of Modern
Taxonomy,” in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment
made during review of Mayr’s authoritative Principles
of Systematic Zoology].
Here is an example of how classification works.
This is the classification of the house cat:
“PHYLUM Chordata—all animals possessing at some
time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord,
and a dorsal tubular nerve cord.
“SUBPHYLUM Vertebrata—all those animals that
possess vertebrae.
“CLASS Mammalia—all those animals that have internally
regulated body temperature, possess hair, and
suckle their young.
“ORDER Carnivora—All those mammals whose teeth
are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which are
not insectivores.
“FAMILY Felidae—all those Carnivora with retractile
claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.
“GENUS Felis—the true cats.
“SPECIES domestica—[the domesticated cats].”—
Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation
(1983), p. 37.
SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES—If you go to the
zoo, you will see a sign on one cage, “Giant Panda,” with
the words, “Alluropoda melanoleuca” just below it. The
first line is capitalized and is the common name of this
large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is
its “scientific name.” Scientists worldwide understand
these two-part Latin names (called binominals). The first
word is the genus, and the second is species. Sometimes
the name of the discoverer or namer is added as a third
word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this
Animal and Plant Species 377
method of scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.
http://www.bible-tube.com/your-health-your-choice-more.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:42

species had evolved from any other species. He decided
that, instead of denying the existence of species,
the only practical solution for evolutionists was,
first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to
similarities between them; and, then, declare that
therefore one must have evolved from the other or
from a common ancestor. From beginning to end, evolution
is just theory, theory, theory.
THE GENESIS KIND—Back in the beginning, the law
of the “Genesis kinds” was established:
“Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . .
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose
seed was in itself, after his kind.”—Genesis 1:11, 12.
In the same way, the birds, sea life, and animals were
each to reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-
25). This principle was not to be violated. And this is what
we find in the fossil record and in the world today. The
“Genesis kind” is generally equivalent to the species
level, but sometimes the genus level. This variation is
due to flaws in our humanly devised classification systems.
Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis for “create”
and “kind” are bara and min, Frank Marsh, a careful research
scholar in speciation, has suggested the term
baramin as an identifying name for this “Genesis kind.”
(Min is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in the rest
of the Old Testament.) It would be a good word to use,
since it is more accurate than “species,” which can at times
be incorrect. Other names for the Genesis kinds are the
Genesis species, the true species, and the biological species.
The present author favors “true species” as the term
most easily understood.
BIOLOGICAL SPECIES—The term, “biological spe-
378 The Evolution Cruncher
cies,” is increasingly becoming accepted as a basic reference
point by scientists. Although there are instances in
which obvious sub-species do not cross breed, biological
species would normally apply to those species which
do not cross-breed outside of their own kind. However,
there are instances in which two sub-species of a
true species no longer cross breed.
MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION—(*#4/6 Micro and
Macro*) Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the
species and call that “microevolution,” and then proceed
to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that
theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term
“macroevolution”) must also be occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the species only produces
new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is
not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds
never cross the species barrier.
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution;
they are only variation within the already existing species.
There is no such thing as “microevolution.”
Changes within the true species are not evolution.
COUNTING THE SPECIES—*Aristotle could list only
about 500 kinds of animals; and his pupil, *Theophrastus,
the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece, listed only
about 500 different plants.
Through the centuries, as naturalists counted new varieties
of creatures in the field, in the air, and in the sea,
and as new areas of the world were explored, the number
of identified species of animals and plants grew. By 1800
it had reached 70,000. Today there are several million.
Two-thirds of them are animal and one-third are plant. The
flowering plants and insects are the two largest single categories.
Nearly all of these millions of so-called “species”
consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of
original Genesis kinds, the true species. For example,
today there are many different hummingbirds: but,
Animal and Plant Species 379
originally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted
it to produce many sub-species.
JOHN RAY—John Ray (Wray) (1627-1705) apparently
was the first scientist to formerly recognize
the “species.” He prepared a large classification of all the
species of plants and animals known in his time (about
18,600).
Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the wonderful
structures of plants and animals, saw abundant evidence
of a Creator’s hand.
CARL LINNAEUS—Carl von Linne (1707-1778) spent
his adult life as a teacher at the University of Uppsala. At
the age of 50, he latinized his name to “Carolus Linnaeus.”
The classification system of plants and animals developed
by Linnaeus was to become the standard used today.
He published it in his book, Systema Naturae, in 1735.
Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species
were, for the most part, the equivalent of the “Genesis
kind.” (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—
now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus
arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity
of species. He said, “We reckon as many species as issued
in pairs from the hands of the Creator” (quoted in *H.F.
Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).
Men today may call themselves experts in taxonomy,
but it is significant that the two men in human
history able to lay a solid foundation for biological classification—
saw in all their findings only evidence of
creation, not evolution.
LINNAEUS AND RAY—Linnaeus was the one who
developed our modern system of classification. Unfortunately,
he frequently listed, as separate species, lifeforms
that could interbreed. Some of these decisions
were based on ignorance, but nevertheless we live with
the results today. Thus, the true species are not always
those that are listed in the textbooks as “species.”
http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-garden-of-eden-2.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:43

It is
380 The Evolution Cruncher
now recognized, by many qualified biologists, that John Ray
did better quality work; for he carefully adhered to biological
species in preparing his species categories. In contrast,
Linnaeus at times confused them by placing true species
in genera or sub-species categories.
LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS—There has been a perennial
problem in regard to the “lumpers” and “splitters.”
There is a tendency for the taxonomists—the experts
who classify plants and animals—to fall into one or
the other of these two categories.
The lumpers place species together, which should
be divided into sub-species. The splitters tend to put
true species into sub-species categories.
“Lumper species,” are also called “Linnaean species”
because, back in the early 1700s, both Linnaeus and
Ray pioneered the lumping of species. “Splitter species”
are also called “Jordanian species” for the French botanist,
Jordan, who initiated this approach in the early 1800s.
So today we find both Linnaean and Jordanian species
scattered throughout the scientific lists of plants and
animals. It is important to keep this in mind, for selective
breeding of Jordanian species can appear to produce
new species! This would appear to prove evolutionary
claims and indicate species cross-over as taken place,
—when, actually, two members of different sub-species,
of the same true species, have interbred.
When the Santa Gertrudis cattle were developed in
the 1960s by breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas
longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns, the result was a new
sub-species; but some splitters classify it as a “new species.”
Yet the Santa Gertrudis is merely another type of
the cattle species and able to crossbreed with several others.
FAMILY TREE—(*#8/7 Our Family Tree*) Everyone
has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our
“family tree,” with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown
in relation to how they evolved from one another. The im-
Animal and Plant Species 381
COMPARING THE TREES
444
COMPARING THE FAMILY TREES—In reality,
there are only twigs (actual species) all over the
ground. The rest of the “evolutionary tree” is as
imaginary as the two lower sketches, below.
382 The Evolution Cruncher

pression is given that there can be no doubt that it really
happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those
charts?
The truth is that the “Evolutionary Tree of Life”
is just another fake, like all the other “evidences” of
evolutionary theory.
One example of what you will find on one “limb”
of this imaginary “tree” are a mutually diverse group
of creatures called the “coelenterates” solely because
they have a saclike body, tentacles, and a single mouth
opening. Although coral and jellyfish are not a bit alike,
they are therefore classified together. We are supposed to
believe that, because coral and jellyfish are together on
the tree, one evolved from the other! One is a hard-bodied
creature; the other does not have a bone in its body. In the
plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a wastebasket
category that includes all the flowering plants that
cannot be fitted in somewhere else. So therefore, they
are supposed to have evolved from one another. This
“tree” is a classificationist’s nightmare!
All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each
twig a separate species. Even *Richard Milner, a diligent
evolutionary researcher, admits the fact.
“Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer
to our current idea of evolutionary history.”—*R. Milner,
Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 54.
2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES—Here are
some facts about species and sub-species that will help
you understand some of the problems inherent in this
interesting field of plant and animal classification:
1 - Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus
carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus
atricapillus) look just like each other in every way, and
freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs! Although
they have been classified as two different species, we
have here one species with two alternate gene factors.
Animal and Plant Species 383
SUBSPECIES OF DOGS
452
SUB-SPECIES OF DOGS—Dogs, dogs, everywhere—
and scientists agree that they are all
sub-species.
384 The Evolution Cruncher

2 - Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum
aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T.
hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same
wheat. They will cross and produce fertile hybrids.
They should have been classified as sub-species.
3 - Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae)
has been divided into a number of different “species,”
but solely on the basis of different wing covers and the
number and arrangement of spots on their backs.
4 - Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species
of sparrows in North America had been listed (Lincoln,
fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased
as taxonomists moved westward and found additional
sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow “species.”
But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized
that they were but intermediates between the others! So
the experts finally got together and reclassified them
all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow.
http://www.bible-tube.com/startling-proof.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:45

5 - Foxes. The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland
red fox have been categorized in different species,
although the only difference is a paler reddish coat
and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists
list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one
species (Vulpes fulva) and count 12 sub-species. All these
foxes are actually in one true species.
6 - Cattle. There are several different subspecies of
cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison
bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L)
have a similar morphology (appearance), they will still
generally crossbreed with cattle. In addition, it has been
discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) also
interbreeds with them—yet the bison and cattle have been
placed in totally different genera.
7 - Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species
of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn)
while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all
only varieties of one species.
Animal and Plant Species 385
8 - Finches. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we
discuss *Charles Darwin’s finches (13, 14, 17, or 19; the
count varies regarding this look-alike bird), which he found
on the Galapagos Islands. Although about the same in size,
shape and color, and together form a set of sub-species
of finches which originally came from South America,
yet Darwin called them different species—and therefore a
proof of evolution. Those finches made a strong impression
on his mind.
9 - Platypus. (*#9/3 The Creature that Fits no Category*)
This one is so strange that it does not fit any category
of animals.
“When zoologists examined a platypus for the first
time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different
animals had been sewn together. The platypus has
the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of
a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock.
Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does
not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the
abdomen).”—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 135.
INCREASING SUB-SPECIES—There are many different
sub-species in some species while there are but
few for others. A key factor seems to be the ability of
the creature to travel, whether by seed, spore, or in
person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far,
so there are many varieties of them. The animal with the
most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher
(Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next
to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides) with 66.
Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
In the case of animals that have been domesticated,
such as dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens,
there are many sub-species as a result of selective breeding.
The same holds true for cultivated crops (corn,
beans, lettuce, and cabbage).
There are instances in which sub-species generally
386 The Evolution Cruncher
do not breed across sub-species. The other extreme
is instances in which animals above the species level
will produce young from an apparent cross-breeding.
In some cases these are true species, and should
have been classified as such. But there are also instances
in which breeding did NOT occur—although it appeared to
take place! In true fertilization, the male and female elements
unite and produce young. But there are times when
two different species have been bred and young have been
produced—in which no true breeding occurred!
This false breeding takes place when the presence of
male sperm stimulates the egg to begin production on a
new life-form, but the sperm is rejected because it is from
a different species. The resulting birth is known as parthenogenesis.
Scientific analysis has established that this false
breeding across true species works in exactly the manner
described here.
It is significant that mankind can never successfully
breed across with any other species, including any
of the great apes.
“There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between
man and any other mammal.”—*Edward Colin,
Elements of Genetics, 1946, pp. 222-223.
One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years
tracking down every report of crosses above that of true
species. Each time he found them to be hoaxes. One instance
was of bird feathers sewn to a stuffed animal skin.
It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was printed.
3 - DISPROVING SPECIES EVOLUTION
MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been said that the
foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by the work
of *Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but that the principles
which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) discovered, as he
worked with garden peas at about the same time that Darwin
was writing his book, were the means of abolishing
that theory.
Everyone is acquainted with the illustration of the
Animal and Plant Species 387
rough and smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work of
Mendel that formed the basis for understanding the transmission
of inherited characteristics. Mendel prepared the
foundation for modern genetics. It was later discovered
that within the cell are chromosomes, and inside the chromosomes
are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA.
(For more information on this, see chapter 8, DNA.) Random
shuffling of the genetic code is what determines
whether or not that baby guinea pig will inherit a rough or
a smooth coat from its parents. But either way he will remain
a guinea pig. Because that tiny newborn creature
is locked into being a guinea pig is the reason why
Darwin’s theory crumbles before the science of genetics.
PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS—Evolutionists tell us that
certain creatures are more “primitive” than others, and
are their “ancestors.” But that is just theory. Consider
but one example: the monotremes and the marsupials,
which are supposed to be “primitive ancestors” of the mammals.
Both have organs that are different than mammals
and just as complex. (For an excellent analysis, see A.W.
Mehlert, “A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal
Transition” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June
1988, p. 10.)
MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE—Yes, variations
are limited by the species barrier,—but immense variations
are possible within a given species!
*Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans,
a single couple could theoretically produce 102017 children
before they would have to produce one that was identical
to one of their earlier children (not counting identical twins,
which came from the same egg and sperm). That would be
1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the
known universe is only 1080. So the number of possible
variations within any given species is quite broad. Yet
all of them would only be variations within the same
species.
388 The Evolution Cruncher
ALWAYS A LIMIT—We discussed artificial selection in
chapter 9, Natural Selection, and found it to be highly
selective plant and animal breeding. In regard to any given
single factor, selective breeding may, for a time, be
carried out; but soon a limit in factor variety will be
reached. What limits it? It is the DNA code in the
genes. That code forbids a cross-over to a new species.
The genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms
a barrier, a literal wall of separation between one species
and another.
LIMITS OF VARIABILITY—This is a crucial factor. All
evolutionary theory pivots on whether or not there
are such limits on how far you can breed differences in
a species. Can one species change into another one? If
there are definite limits forbidding it, then evolution
cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia provides us
with a brief overview of the history of theory and “pureline
research” into limits of variability:
“Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted
that through gradual, continuous change, species
could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the
original type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of
that proposition: the ‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm
Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen
wondered, if the largest members of a population
were always bred with the largest, and the smallest
with the smallest? How big or how small would they
continue to get after a few generations? Would they ‘depart
indefinitely’ from the original type, or are there builtin
limits and constraints?
http://www.bible-tube.com/gentry-center-of-the-earth.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:46

“Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen
selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations.
But instead of a steady, continuous growth or
shrinkage as Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced
two stabilized populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large
and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached
a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further
in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.
Animal and Plant Species 389
“Johannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct
similar experiments. One of the earliest was
Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum
of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority
on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected
for body size in Paramecium and found that after
a few generations selection had no effect. One simply
cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball.
Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained
constrained within fixed limits, ‘as unyielding
as iron.’
“Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond
Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at
the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took
up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day
long.
“He found you could breed some super-layers, but an
absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced
some evidence indicating that production might actually
be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from
‘lower than maximum’ producers.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia
of Evolution (1990), p. 376.
Whatever we may try to do within a given species,
we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.
A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is
the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it
(within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—
but no exit through that wall.
“Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints,
beyond which selection was useless.”—*R.
Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.
LOSS OF FITNESS—Not only is there a limiting wall
that will always be reached,—but as the researcher
nears that outer wall, the subjects being bred become
weaker. The variations made within those borders do not
actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and
chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at
the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains
390 The Evolution Cruncher
why this is so:
“It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all
cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability;
that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened.
Domesticated plants and animals do not compete
well with the original, or wild type . . They survive
only because they are maintained in an environment
which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies
are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated.”—
Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil
Record (1985), p. 34.
“Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps
the best demonstration of the effects of this principle.
The improvements that have been made by selection in
these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of
fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the
fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live
under natural conditions has allowed these improvements
to be made.”—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to
Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.
GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss
of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According
to this principle, selective breeding always
weakens a species—and never strengthens it.
“[The original species came into existence] with rich
potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids,
etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even
improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized
by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in
accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics
through gene depletion and the accumulation
of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur
in living things through the passage of time are always
within strict boundary lines.”—John C. Whitcomb, The
Early Earth (1986), p. 94.
In chapter 10, Mutations, we mentioned the genetic
load, mentioned in the above quotation.
The original stock was strong, but as it branched
Animal and Plant Species 391
out into variations within its kind, it became weakened.
That is gene depletion. In addition, with the
passing of time, genes are damaged through random
radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also
weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.
Thus we see that, on one hand, the farther the species
strays from its central original pattern, the weaker it becomes
(gene depletion). On the other, as the centuries continue
on, mutational weaknesses increase in all varieties
of a given species (genetic load).
The total picture is not one of evolving upward,
strengthening, improving, or changing into new and
diverse species.
EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—
It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true,
could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually
narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist,
*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended
from animal ancestors, “man should possess a smaller
gene-potential than his animal ancestors”! (*J.J.
Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle
in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57).
Well, that is a breath-taking discovery! If we had
actually descended from monkeys, then we would have
less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy,
physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent
than that of a great ape.
In turn, the monkey is supposedly descended from
something else, and would therefore have less genetic capacity
than its supposed ancestor had. Somewhere back
there, the first descendant came from protozoa. All that
follows in the evolutionary ladder would have to have
considerably less genetic potential than protozoa! That
point alone eliminates biological evolution!
How can evolutionary theory survive such facts! It can
only be done by hiding those facts. Evolution ranks as one
of the most far-fetched ideas of our time, yet it has a lock-
392 The Evolution Cruncher
grip on all scientific thought and research. The theory
twists data and warps conclusions in an effort to vindicate
itself. Just imagine how much further along the path
of research and discovery we would have been if, a hundred
years ago, we had throttled evolutionary theory to
death.
SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding occurs
when people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of
corn, or milk cow; and then, through careful breeding, they
produce better roses, corn ears, or milk cows. But please
notice several facts in connection with this:
(1) “Selection” requires intelligence, planning, and
consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn,
or cow. Random action is not “selection.” Therefore “natural
selection” is a misnomer. It should be called “random
activity.” The word “selection” implies intelligent
decision-making. “Meaningless muddling” would better
fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.
(2) Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, selective
breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it
is intelligent, careful, planned activity; whereas evolution,
by definition, is random occurrences.
(3) Although random accidents could never produce
new species,—neither can intelligent selective
breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new
species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we
can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could
do it.
(4) Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool;
although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose,
at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew
that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected
trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.
Because of this weakening factor, national and international
organizations are now collecting and storing “seed
banks” of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may
eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to
Animal and Plant Species 393
be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice,
corn, tomatoes, etc.
POPULATION GENETICS—(*#5/7 Population Genetics
Fails to Prove Evolution*) A related area is termed
population genetics, and it is declared by evolutionists
to be another grand proof of their theory. Population
genetics looks at locations of species and variations
within species found there,—and theorizes evolutionary
causes and effects.
This field of study includes analysis of: (1) “geographic
isolation” of species and sub-species produced
by that species while in isolation. Some of these sub-species
may eventually no longer interbreed with related subspecies,
but they are obviously closely related sub-species.
(2) “Migration of populations” into new areas resulting
occasionally in permanent colonization. Additional
sub-species are produced in this way. (3) “Genetic drift”
is analyzed. This is the genetic contribution of a particular
population to its offspring.
Variability here arises primarily from normal gene reshuffling.
It is because of gene reshuffling that your children
do not look identical to you. This is quite normal, and
does not make your children new species!
Population genetics, then, is the study of changes
in sub-species. The information produced is interesting,
but it provides no evidence of evolution, because it
only concerns sub-species.
A field closely related to population genetics is selective
breeding of plants and animals. But a favorite study
of the population geneticists is people. Human beings
are all one species. Population genetics analyzes changes
within the “people species.” Yet changes within a species
is not evolution.
“It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although
it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made
no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw
as the fundamental problem: the origin of species.”—
394 The Evolution Cruncher
*Richard Lewontin, Genetic Basis of Evolutionary
Change (1974), p. 159.
“The leading workers in this field have confessed,
more or less reluctantly, that population genetics contributes
very little to evolutionary theory . . If the leading
authorities on population genetics confess to this
dismal lack of achievement and even chuckle about it,
it is altogether fitting and proper for the rank and file to
take them at their word. Therefore it seems to follow
that there is no need to teach population genetics.”—
*E. Saiff and *N. Macbeth, “Population Genetics and
Evolutionary Theory” in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp. 71-
72.
GENETIC DRIFT—“Genetic Drift” is frequently spoken
of as another “evidence” of evolution, but even
confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard
to evolution. Genetic drift is changes in small
groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have
become separated from the rest of their species. Oddities
in their DNA code factors became more prominent,
yet they all remained in the same species.
*Frank Rhodes (Evolution, 1974, p. 75) explains that
all that “genetic drift” refers to is changes in a “sub-species”
of a plant or animal (or in a “race,” which is a subspecies
among human beings). Even *Rhodes recognizes
that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from
one species to another. All the drift has been found to
be within species and never across them.'
http://www.bible-tube.com/the-case-for-the-creator-more.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:47

THE MALE/FEMALE REQUIREMENT—Inherent in
the species quandary is the male and female element
problem. It would be so much easier to bear young and,
hopefully, produce new species, if everyone were females.
But because it requires both a male and female to produce
offspring, any possibility of going trans-species
would mean producing not one new creature—but two!
Only recently was the extent of this problem fully realized.
It was supposed that mingling two sets of genes would
Animal and Plant Species 395
produce a new creature; but, in 1984, researchers working
with mice tried to fertilize mouse eggs with equal
sets of mouse genes from other females. But they found
a male gene was required. There are very real differences
between identical chemical structures produced by males
and females. In addition, the male proteins on the surface
of the developing fetus and placenta modify the mother’s
immune response so that she does not reject the growing
child.
How could two of each species—independent of each
other—evolve? Yet this is what had to happen. The male
and female of each species are forever uniquely separate
from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching
partners—a male and female—would have had to
evolve together, at each step. Evolution cannot explain
this.
“From an evolutionary viewpoint, the sex differentiation
is impossible to understand, as well as the structural
sexual differences between the systematic categories
which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes
within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible
to imagine bridges between two amazingly different
structural types?”—*Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, p.
1225.
“This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence
of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals
is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.”—
*George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (1975), p. v.
“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental
mysteries in evolutionary biology today.”—*Gina
Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover,
February 1984, p. 24.
“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling
answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions
by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing
Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”—*
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case
Against Creationism (1982), p. 54.
396 The Evolution Cruncher
ALTERNATE ORIGINS OF THE SPECIES—Because of
the inflexible nature of the species, *Austin H. Clark, a
distinguished biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian
Institution, wrote a shocking book in 1930. He concluded
that, since there was no evidence now or earlier of
any cross-overs between species,—all of the major groups
of plants and animals must have independently originated
out of raw dirt and seawater!
“From all the tangible evidence that we now have
been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion
that all the major groups of animals at the very first
held just about the same relation to each other that they
do today.”—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution:
Zoogenesis (1930), p. 211.
The fossil evidence indicating no transitional forms, but
only gaps between species, would have proved his point.
But *Clark ignored that and said that separate evolutions
and origins had to have occurred—just because there were
simply too many differences between the various life-forms.
They could not possibly have evolved from each other.
Clark’s book shook up the scientific world. The evolutionists
tried to quiet matters; but about a decade
later, *Richard Goldschmidt, of the University of California
at Berkeley, published a different alternative
view: Gigantic million-fold mutations must have occurred
all at once, that suddenly changed one species to another.
Goldschmidt’s dreamy theory is today becoming more accepted
by evolutionists, under the leadership of *Stephen
Jay Gould.
*Clark recognized the impossibility of evolution
across major groups of plants and animals. Therefore
he said each one independently originated out of sand and
seawater. *Goldschmidt and *Gould recognized the impossibility
of evolution across species, so they theorized
that once every 50,000 years or so, a billion positive, cooperative,
networking mutations suddenly appeared by
chance and produced a new species. (For more on this,
see chapter 10, Mutations.)
Animal and Plant Species 397
THE CLADISTS—(*#6/5 Cladists against Evolution*)
What about the experts who classify plants and animals;
what do they think about all this controversy
over species and ancestral relationships?
Scientists who specialize in categorizing life-forms
are called taxonomists. A surprising number of them
have joined the ranks of the cladists.
Cladistics comes from a Greek noun for “branch.”
Cladists are scientists who study biological classifications
solely for its own sake—for the purpose of discovering
relationship, apart from any concern to determine ancestry
or origins. In other words, the cladists are scientists
who have seen so much evidence in plants and animals
that evolution is not true; that, as far as they are concerned,
they have tossed it out the window and instead
simply study plants and animals. They want to know
about life-forms because they are interested in life-forms,
not because they are trying to prove evolution.
Cladists are biological classification specialists who
have given up on evolution. They recognize it to be a foolish,
unworkable theory, and they want to study plants and
animals without being required to “fit” their discoveries
into the evolutionary “ancestor” and “descendant” mold.
They are true scientists who are concerned with reality, not
imaginings.
A leading British scientist and life-long evolutionist
says this:
“So now we can see the full extent of the doubts. The
transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally unnecessary
for good taxonomy; at the same time they are
unconvinced by the Darwinian explanation of how new
species arise. To them, therefore, the history of life is
still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian penchant
for explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection
is largely empty rhetoric . . It seems to me that the
theoretical framework [of evolutionary theory] has very
little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological
research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism
398 The Evolution Cruncher
and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back
the progress of science.”—*Colin Patterson, The Listener.
[Patterson is senior paleontologis
http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-bible-and-health-more.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:49

THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANGING—If one species
cannot change into another, there can be no evolution. But
this should not be surprising. For example, the fossil record
reveals that the bat has not changed since it first appeared
in the fossil record, supposedly “50 million
years ago,”—and there was no transitional form preceding
it. The same can be said for the other creatures.
Throughout the fossil record, there are only solid, fixed
forms and wide gaps between species. Those gaps are
no surprise to us, but they are agonizing for the evolutionists.
In chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, we go into
detail on such matters.
“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms
of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.”—*Colin
Patterson, “Cladistics,” in BBC Radio Interview, March
4, 1982.
“Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record
looking much the same as when they disappeared; morphological
change is usually limited and directionless.”—
*Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” in
Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species,
and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide
them.”—*David Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary
Theory” in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.
All this is a most terrible problem for the evolutionists.
“Evolution is . . troubled from within by the troubling
complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms
and new questions about the central mystery—speciation
itself.”—*Keith S. Thomson, “The Meanings of
Evolution” in American Scientist, September/October
1982, p. 529.
Animal and Plant Species 399
Evolutionists have reason to be troubled: All the evidence
they can find to substantiate their claims is
changes within species (so-called “microevolution,”
which is not evolution), never changes across species
(“macroevolution,” which is evolution).
“Two very influential books in recent years have
been the beautifully colored Life Nature Library volume,
Evolution, by Ruth Moore and the Editors of Life,
and the even more beautifully colored and produced
volume, Atlas of Evolution, by Sir Gavin de Beer. The
impressive demonstrable evidence which fills these
volumes is micro-evolution only!”—Frank Marsh, “The
Form and Structure of Living Things,” in Creation
Research Society Quarterly, June 1969, p. 21 (italics
his).
NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES—The speciation problem
is a gap problem. There are no transitional species,
as there ought to be if evolution were true.
But we find there are absolutely no transitional forms
to fill the gaps. In desperation, evolutionists have come
up with an answer: “The transitions were made so
slowly that they left no remains behind.”—Wait a
minute! How can that be? The more slowly the transitions,
the larger would be the number of transitional
forms that would be in the fossil strata for posterity to
examine! (*Steven M. Stanley, “Macroevolution and the
Fossil Record” in Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 460).
—And none other than *Charles Darwin himself
agrees with us!
“When we descend to details, we can prove that no
species has changed [we cannot prove that a single species
has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed
changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the
theory.”—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.),
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887),
p. 210.
IT TAKES A MILLION YEARS TO MAKE ONE SPECIES—
400 The Evolution Cruncher
(*#7/4 Millions of Years for One Species*) That is what
the evolutionists say! How can there be millions of species,
when the evolutionists tell us it takes a million
years to make just one of them?
“It takes a million years to evolve a new species, ten
million for a new genus, one hundred million for a class,
a billion for a phylum—and that’s usually as far as your
imagination goes.
“In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent
life might be as different from humans as humans are
from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud
may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d
expect over billions of years.”—*Freeman Dyson, Statement
made in 1986, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science
and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician].
If it takes a million years to produce just one new species,—
there would not have been time for the millions of
present species in the world to come into existence.
There just is not enough time for all those species
changes to occur. Evolutionary dogma states that nothing
was alive on Planet Earth over 2 billion years ago,
and that all the evolving of life-forms has occurred
within that brief time span.
“Evolution is surmised to be of the order of two billion
years . . from causes which now continue to be in
operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally.”—*
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin
of Species (1951), pp. 3-11 [Columbia University].
Two billion is only 2 thousand million. If it takes a
million years to produce one species change, there
would only be time for 2000 new species to be produced.
An evolutionist would reply that more than one species
was changing at the same time in various parts of the world,
and this is how all our present millions of species could
evolve into existence in 2 billion years.
But that is an oversimplification. What about the theoretical
stairstep pattern from the first single-celled
creature that made itself out of sand and seawater to
Animal and Plant Species 401
man? That single stairstep progression alone would
require hundreds of thousands of major changes! Yet
only “millions of years” are provided for all the
changes to come about.
“Evolution, in very simple terms, means that life progressed
from one-celled organisms to its highest state,
the human being, by means of a series of biological
changes taking place over millions of years.”—*Houston
Post, August 23, 1964, p. 6.
Billions of transitional species would have to occur in
order to climb the evolutionary stairs from amoeba to man.
Those transitional forms simply do not exist; they never
have existed. There are only gaps between the species. But
the transitional forms would have had to be there in order
for evolution to have occurred. It could not take place without
them.
Even the evolutionists themselves avow that these
cross-species changes take place so slowly, that they
are not seen within a single lifetime.
“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of
it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.”—*
David G. Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary
Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
If the transitional changes occur that slowly, then
there should be vast numbers of transitional species
living today, as well as etched into the fossil record.
But they are not to be found. They do not exist; they have
never existed.
The above statement by *Kitts indicates that, although
it cannot be seen within a single generation, cross-species
changes should be observed over a span of several generations.
Why then do the hundreds of thousands of paintings
from past centuries reveal man and animals to be just
as they are today? We can go back thousands of years into
the artwork of the past, and find no species change in man
or animal. Five thousand years divided by 25 years per
generation is 200 generations from our time to the earliest
Egyptians. Five thousand years has produced no evolu-
402 The Evolution Cruncher
tionary change.
Yet we have only been speaking about the ladder from
microbe to man. What about the hundreds of thousands
of other ladders? For every species, a ladder of transitional
forms leading up to it should be found.
Billions upon billions of transitional species should
be engraved in the fossil rock and in nature today. Yet
we see none of this. Over a hundred years of frantic searching
by evolutionists has not produced even one transitional
form! The transitions cannot be found since they have never
existed.
SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILD—New sub-species
can be produced very fast,—and they are being produced
today! Gene reshuffling does this. When isolated
for several years, they sometimes no longer breed across
sub-species,—yet they are still sub-species and not different
species. Here are some examples:
“A strain of Drosophila paulistorum which was fully
interfertile with other strains when first collected, developed
hybrid sterility after having been isolated in a separate
culture for just a few years . .
“Five endemic species of cichlid [fish] are found in
Lake Nabugabo, a small lake which has been isolated
from Lake Victoria for less than 4000 years . .
“In birds we have the classic example of the European
house sparrow (Passer domesticus) which was introduced
into North America about 1852. Since then the
sparrows have spread and become geographically differentiated
into races that are adapted in weight, in length
of wing and of bill, and in coloration, to different North
American environments . . Yet it has been accomplished
in only about 118 generations (to 1980).
“By 1933 the sparrow had reached Mexico City where
it has since formed a distinct sub-species. R.E. Moreau
had concluded in 1930 that the minimum time required
[by evolution] for a bird to achieve that sub-species step
was 5000 years; the sparrow required just 30 years. As
Animal and Plant Species 403
has been aptly commented:
http://www.bible-tube.com/the-debate-creation-evolution.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Admin le Sam 8 Sep - 17:50

“ ‘We can here judge the value of speculation compared
with observation in analyzing evolution’ ” (E.B.
Ford, Genetics and Maptation, 1976).
“Rabbits were introduced into Australia about 1859;
yet the wealth of variation now present there is very
extensive, vastly exceeding that apparent in the European
stock (Wildlife Research 10, 73-82, 1965).”— A.J.
Jones, “Genetic Integrity of the ‘Kinds’ (Baramins),”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 17.
The above facts explain why there is such an abundance
of so-called “species” in the world today. In reality,
an immense number of them are just sub-species.
“According to the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, on
our planet we have 1,071,500 species of animals, 368,715
species of plants, and 3230 monerans (blue-green algae,
bacteria, viruses). Sabrosky tells us that the arthropods
constitute about 82 percent of all animal species; among
the arthropods some 92 percent are insects; and among
the insects about 40 percent are beetles.”—Frank L.
Marsh, “Genetic Variation, Limitless or Limited?” in
Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1983, p.
204.
There is far too much jumbling of sub-species with
species by the taxonomists. Scientists frequently use the
word “species” in a loose sense to include a multitude of
sub-species. Repeatedly, a sub-species is given a species
name.
THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIES—In fact, if evolution
were true, there should not be any distinct species
at all! There would only be innumerable transitions!
Categories of plants and animals can be arranged
in orderly systems only because of the separateness of
the species. But if evolutionary theory is correct,
there could be no distinct species. Instead, there
would only be a confused blur of transitional forms,
each one only slightly different than the others. This
404 The Evolution Cruncher
is a very significant and important point.
“Why should we be able to classify plants and animals
into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial
feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes
that biologists have been quite successful in dividing
up the living world into distinct and discrete species . .
‘But,’ says Gould, ‘how could the existence of distinct
species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed
ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact
of nature?’ For an evolutionist, why should there be
species at all? If all life-forms have been produced by
gradual expansion through selected mutations from a
small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just
grade into one another without distinct boundaries.”—
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?
(1987), pp. 121-122.
Another leading evolutionist also wonders why
distinct species exist.
“If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure
in various directions, why are there any lines stable
enough and distinct enough to be called species at all?
Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every
conceivable kind?”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution
Mystery, (1983), p. 141.
The facts that species exist at all, that there are
no gaps (no transitional creatures) between them, and
that living species are identical to those alive “millions
of years ago” form a major species problem for
the evolutionists.
There is immense complexity within each species,
but a distinct barrier between species.
“In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged
as the major unsolved problem . . [Over the years, in
trying to solve this problem] we are if anything worse
off, research having only revealed complexity within
complexity . .
“More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton
Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when
Animal and Plant Species 405
he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of
evolutionary biology.’ ”—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution
Mystery (1983), pp. 140-141.
“Many species and even whole families remain inexplicably
constant. The shark of today, for instance,
is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million
years ago . .
“According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of
the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge
and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution.
He said in 1968: ‘What is it that holds so many groups
of animals to an astonishingly constant from over millions
of years? This seems to me the problem [in evolution]
now—the problem of constancy, rather than that
of ‘change.’ ” —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery
(1983), pp. 141-142.
If evolution is constantly producing species, why
are the species not changing into new ones?
THE LEBZELTER PRINCIPLE AND HARDYWEINBERG
PRINCIPLE—Evolutionists really have to
work hard to find something validating evolution, in what
they teach students in the schools. For this reason, several
states require that students memorize a complex
quadratic equation, called the Hardy-Weinberg
principle. Teachers say this mathematical formula
proves evolution. A parallel one is the *Lebzelter
principle. So we will explain them both.
In 1932, *Viktor Lebzelter stated the “Lebzelter principle”:
“When man lives in large conglomerates, race tends
to be stable while cultures become diversified; but
where he lives in small isolated groups, culture is stable
but diversified races evolve.”—*Viktor Lebzelter,
Rassengeschichte de Menscheit (1932), p. 27.
Here it is in simpler words, when people live, socialize,
and select mates from a large group, their racial characteristics
are stabilized while within the large group a variety of
406 The Evolution Cruncher
sub-cultures will develop. But when members only have
a highly restricted number of people to socialize with
and intermarry among, their cultural patterns will tend to
be the same throughout the small group, but racial oddities
will develop.
That is true; and the cause, of course, is close
interbreeding, when people marry near relatives.
“The quickest way to expose lethal traits [in the
genes] is by intensive and continual inbreeding.”—
*Willard Hollander, “Lethal Heredity,” in Scientific
American, July 1952, p. 60.
“When a recessive gene arose by mutation, it will
only after some time occur in an double dose by means
of intermarriage—soonest by a marriage of cousins.”—
*G. Dahlberg, quoted in Ernst Mayr Animal Species
and Evolution (1963), p. 518.
The evolutionists tell us that this Lebzelter principle
is another evidence of evolution, but it is no
evidence at all. Although this concept is indeed a useful
one, it does not help the Darwinists. Evolutionists declare
that it is the small, restricted groups (plants,
animals, and people) which have produced the new
species. But there is no evidence that new species
have been produced. The Lebzelter principle only
discusses interbreeding within a single species.
Yet the Lebzelter principle does have application to
conditions just after the Creation and again at the end of
the Flood . . In the time of Adam and Eve, and again as the
eight members of Noah’s family left the Ark, there was
only a small group and there would have been a decided
tendency to produce a variety of racial stocks. As the people
scattered after the destruction of the Tower of Babel,
they would have settled in new areas (China, Africa, India,
etc.), thus producing many restricted groups, and these
would have stabilized into distinct races, to the extent that
they remained separate from other groups. But, in all of
this, no NEW species were produced! Evolution had not
occurred, only sub-species (among humans, called “races”).
Animal and Plant Species 407
Now for the “Hardy-Weinberg principle”: Two scientists
worked out an algebraic equation that states
the Lebzelter principle. And that is all there is to it; no
evolutionary proof here at all.
DARWIN’S BEQUEST—It is well-known that
*Charles Darwin had little to say about the actual origin
of the species—the origin of life in a “primitive
environment,” but, instead, focused his entire work
on an attempt to disprove fixed species. Yet, with the
passing of the years, he became so confused regarding
the species question that he was no longer certain
how species could possibly change into one another.
In his will, he gave a bequest to the Royal Botanic
Gardens at Kew, England, which was trying to prepare the
Index Kewensis, a gigantic plant catalogue which would
classify and fix all known plant species.
“Some botanists have commented on the irony that
the great evolutionist—who convinced the world that
species are unfixed, changeable entities—should have
funded an immense, definitive species list as his final
gift to science.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
(1990), p. 236.
Ironically, *Charles Darwin’s last act was money
given to help categorize the separate species.
CONCLUSION—Here is how one author ably summarized
the situation:
“Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly,
the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage
of a moth, or the building of every kind of
matter from variations in arrangement of proton and
electron—and then maintain that all this design happened
without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—
such a person believes in a miracle far more
astounding than any in the Bible.
“To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his
awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions
and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so
408 The Evolution Cruncher
grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely
a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary
ladder than the others,—is to create questions more
profound than are answered.”—David Raphael Klein,
“Is There a Substitute for God?” in Reader’s Digest,
March 1970, p. 55.
POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE GONE—
Interestingly enough, although the evolutionary problem
is that the species are not changing, mankind’s
problem today is that the species are disappearing!
“They [plant and animal species] are vanishing at an
alarming rate. Normally, [evolutionists speculate] existing
species become extinct at approximately the same rate as
new species evolve, but since the year 1600 that equation
has grown increasingly lopsided.
“Informed estimates put the present extinction rate at
forty to four hundred times normal. One estimate says that
25,000 species are in danger right now. Another says that
one million could disappear from South America alone in
the next two decades. If current trends continue, some
twenty percent of the species now on earth will be extinct
by the year 2000. Current trends will probably continue.
“This awesome rate of extinction is apparently unprecedented
in our planet’s history. Many experts say it represents
our most alarming ecological crisis.”—*G. Jon Roush,
“On Saving Diversity, in Fremontia (California Native
Plant Society), January 1986.
————————————————————
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
Because the quail builds her nest and sets on her eggs on the ground,
so they must all hatch at the same time. Not until the entire dozen or so
are laid, does the mother quail begin setting. Why does she wait until
then? Who told her to do this? However, all the eggs do not develop at
the same rate. Yet all hatch out at the same time. Scientists eventually
discovered the cause. The faster ones click in their shells to the slower
ones, and that causes the slower ones to speed their development! Everything
in nature is a continual amazement.
Animal and Plant Species 409
CHAPTER 11 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE
1 - Thoroughly memorize the eight classification categories
(kingdom, phylum, class . . ). To whatever extent
you study or work in the natural sciences, they will come
in handy all your life.
2 - Discuss the several definitions by which a true species
can be identified.
3 - There are several names for a true species: species,
true species, Genesis kinds, baramins, biological species.
Which one or ones do you consider best? Why?
4 - Evolutionists point to microevolution as a proof
that evolution occurs. Why is so-called microevolution not
evolution at all?
5 - Write a paper on Carl Linnaeus.
6 - Explain the difference between “lumpers” and “splitters.”
Which of the two do you think causes the most confusion
for those who are trying to identify the true species?
7 - Explain the sentence: “There is not an evolutionary
tree; there are only twigs.”
8 - Explain why gene depletion would make it impossible
for evolution to occur. Include a discussion of de Wit’s
comments on it.
9 - Why is selective breeding of no use as evidence in
favor of evolution? Why is it, instead, definite evidence
against evolution?
10 - Why is there always a limit as to how far out
offspring can vary, from the genetic average, for that species?
11 - Why is genetic drift an inadequate evidence for
evolution?
12 - What is the position of the cladists? Why did they
take it?
13 - Did the research work of Gregor Mendel help the
theories of the evolutionists or ruin those theories? Why?
14 - Give two reasons why the mule is not the beginning
of a different species.
http://www.bible-tube.com/creatures-that-defy-evolution-1.php
avatar
Admin
Admin

Messages : 562
Date d'inscription : 10/03/2012
Localisation : Paris

Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.bible-tube.com

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Les fossiles ne comptent pas pour l'évolution

Message  Contenu sponsorisé


Contenu sponsorisé


Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut

- Sujets similaires

 
Permission de ce forum:
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum