Darwinism
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Mutations — radical changes to living organisms at the genetic level — are said to be the “source of raw material for evolution.� Without significant changes occurring at this level, there is no change to the species at all, no evolution at all.
https://thecuriosityparadox.org/tag/mutations/
After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any different kinds of creatures from Drosophila.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=2501
P. Davis and D. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993)
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence byMutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutation.
Genetic Evolution or Evolution by Natural Selection
Writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.� Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.�
http://harpers.org/archive/1976/02/darwins-mistake/
Jonathan Wells
The Problem Of Evidence - 2009
Quote:
Darwin's followers now claim that they have "overwhelming evidence" for their theory, but despite 150 years of research no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection--much less the origin of new organs and body plans.
Not even modern genetics has solved the problem. No matter what we do to the genes of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Darwin's claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution has never been empirically corroborated. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the claim is false.
Quote:
Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, but Darwinism does not. So the present controversy over evolution is not a war between science and religion. It is primarily a war between Darwinism and evidence - and the evidence will win.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9061
John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.
Quote:
Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.
Marcel P. Schutzenberger, [formerly with University of Paris], "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution", page 75, at the symposium, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation"
Sir Fred Hoyle [English Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University], "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294: 105 (November 12, 1981)There is no chance (< 10^-1000) to see this mechanism [mutation-selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain...Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence byThe chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'.
Fossils records -
QUOTE:
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON FOSSIL RECORD
Written by Administrator
Published: 16 April 2013
Last Updated on 27 February 2015
‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor.’
National Geographic, November p25
Editorial Comment:
[/b]When 99.9% of the fossil evidence for the theory of evolution is missing, you don’t even have a good hypothesis.[/b] (Ref. fossils, evidence, theory)
http://www.creationresearch.net/index.p ... 6&catid=13
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200Â million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.�
Darwinism when tested by The scientific test
1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled
FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.
Sir Fred Hoyle, [Astronomer, Cosmologist, and Mathematician, Cambridge University]
Pierre-Paul Grasse [French zoologist], Evolution of Living Organisms, page 104 (New York: Academic Press, 1977)The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Astronomer Robert Jastrow
Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956)...chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Introduction to the centennial edition
W. R. Thompson (former director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada)
The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19....evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.
C. Booker (London Times writer)
The scientific magazine Discover - October 1980, p. 88A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place.
John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists
Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of EvolutionSome scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction.
nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro-mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.
"Organic soup" or "Primordial soup" hypothesis
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space
Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), page 39 (Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984)... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ...
Abiogenesis when tested by The scientific testIn fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.
1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled
FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.
Cosmic Evolution
FAILED to provide conclusive evidence by
the big bang
Conrad H. Waddington [Professor of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh], "The Listener" (London, November 13, 1952), in A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, page 127 (1989 reprint, London: Arkana, 1967)
F. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20: 1-35, 15 (1982)To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable house.
Biologist Edwin ConklineA spaceship approaches the Earth, but not close enough for its imaginary inhabitants to distinguish individual terrestrial animals. They see growing crops, roads, bridges, and a debate ensues. Are these chance formations or are they the products of an intelligence? It is not at all difficult to formulate examples of events with exceedingly low probabilities. A roulette wheel operates in a casino. A bystander notes the sequence of numbers thrown by the wheel over the course of a whole year. What is the chance that this particular sequence should have turned up? Well, not as small as 1 in 10^40000, but extremely small nonetheless. So there is nothing especially remarkable in a tiny probability. Yet it surely would be exceedingly remarkable if the sequence thrown by the roulette wheel in the course of a year should have an explicit mathematical significance, as for instance if the numbers turned out to form the digits of pi to an enormous number of decimal places. This is just the situation with a living cell which is not any old random jumble of chemicals.
Cosmic Evolution when tested by The scientific testThe probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
1. Perform the test
2. Observe what happens
3. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
4. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments
5. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled
FAILED
to prove any tests to be a conclusive fact.
Proving the theory of Evolution (that life on earth originated by chance) to be a fact, to date, is impossible.
George Howe, expert in biological sciences
Biochemist George WaldfThe chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.
These theories also prove to be both illogical and unreasonable. They defy logic and reason.One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
