The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Darwin theory Busters  (Read 3334 times)

Offline pharmacist2030

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Darwin theory Busters
« on: 12/11/2013 10:50:25 »
I have a friend who is denying evolution which really upsets me because I believe in evolution. I noticed lately that some animals are evolving to adapt when their environment become harsh. The problem with evolution that it takes millions of years, therefore, we can't notice the difference. My friend send me this piece of research but I didn't know how to reply her because I am not a specialist in the field. That's why I turned to you because I am sure you can debate it.

NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES PROVE DARWIN WAS WRONG
 
 
Researchers in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.  The more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes. 
 
We wish to reiterate and emphasize that this website will inform you about the latest scientific discoveries based on peer reviewed research papers published in the most respected scientific journals.
 
For purposes of clarity and ease of writing, on this website, we will use the term "Darwin Busters" to refer to scientific evidence that strongly contradict "ape to human evolution" theory.
 
Since 2001, many scientists conducting research in genetics and embryology have discovered more than just a few Darwin Busters. 
 
Here are four Darwin Busters:
 
Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain.  For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
 
Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution."  One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development.  This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.  Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.
 
Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place.  One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.  But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions.  New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains.  So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.  Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions. 
 
Darwin Buster Four:  Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes.  Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals.  Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie.  They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number.  Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans. 
 
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters.  Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution

I will be waiting for your reply. Many Thanks


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #1 on: 12/11/2013 11:17:17 »
Ask your friend if she looks exactly like both of her parents. Unless they are identical twin hermaphrodites, the answer of course is no. Therefore she has evolved. That's all that evolution means or entails - genetic variability leading to morphological variation between generations.

Now let's bust the "busters".

Darwin never said that humans evolved from apes. It's worth reading before criticising. 

Only a fool would assert that humans evolved from modern apes. In all probability we had a common ancestor but the suggestion that ape evolution ceased some 50,000 years ago and homo sapiens appeared from that point is doubly absurd and entirely without evidence. Distant cousins are not the same as grandchildren!

There are no immutable laws of embryology - or indeed of any science. Scientific laws are simply statements of common observation. We may be surprised when uncommon things happen, but nobody goes to prison as a result - we just modify the law to fit the observation. 

There are plenty of examples of recent chromosome multiplication in the plant world, so no reason to suspect it can't happen among mammals. Plenty of humans have abnormal numbers of chromosomes, but most significant variants are sterile or recessive so they haven't evolved into a new species - yet.

Advise your friend not to waste time refuting a position that nobody actually holds. And to ask herself why she doesn't don't have functional  breasts (like mum) on a hairy chest (like dad). The reason is called evolution. Okay, female gorillas have hairy chests, but I'm assuming she is a human!
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 15:18:19 by alancalverd »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #2 on: 12/11/2013 21:06:30 »
The last common ancestor between Modern Apes & Humans was likely between 5 and 10 million years ago.  A sequence of successively more human-like skeletons & tools have been identified since that time. 

This study suggests 95% homology between humans and chimp DNA.  Would the difference between 95% and 98% be enough to make a person refute evolution?



When comparing Human (H) and Chimp (C) Chromosomes, there are many similarities.  We wouldn't expect all the chromosomes to be the same, would we?  Otherwise we'd all be Chimps.

As far as chromosome numbers, the horses (equines) are interesting. 
There are several different ones, each with a different number of chromosomes.
Horses have 64 chromosomes
Donkeys have 62 chromosomes
Zebras have between 32 and 46 chromosomes.
For the most part, they will interbreed.  However, the offspring will receive a mix of chromosomes, so for example, the mule will get 63 chromosomes.  Mitosis, or simple dividing of cells works fine, but meiosis, or the dividing of the cell into haploid gametes runs into problems.

A major chromosome change or abnormality like a chromosome fusion likely causes difficulty interbreeding.  Perhaps it first occurred in a single family, or small tribe.  Ok, that much is obvious, the fusion would have occurred in a single individual.  But, inbreeding can amplify the major abnormalities.  In fact, those that receive an odd number of chromosomes might have difficulty interbreeding, and those that end up receiving two identical chromosomes would be much more likely to have viable children.

So, after the fusion occurred, it is likely that the early hominids could have interbred with the apes, but those that bred within the human tribe (diploid for chromosome 2 fusion) would have had greater chance to have grandchildren, and pass their genes onward.

Also, keep in mind, immediately after the chromosome 2 fusion, we can assume the other hominid chromosomes were essentially identical to the apes.  This would make getting a full gene compliment with meiosis easier, even if the hybrid had an odd number of chromosomes.  So, early generation hybrids would not necessarily be sterile. 

Over time, more mutations would occur, and the genomes would drift apart, making hybridization more difficult.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #3 on: 14/11/2013 04:07:33 »
Quote
Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain.  For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Evolution does not posit that humans evolved from chimpanzees; humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

Quote
Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution."  One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development.  This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.  Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place.  One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.  But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions.  New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains.  So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.  Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

I have a few terms that your friend needs to familiarize herself with: nylonase, sickle-cell heterogamy, citrate-metabolizing E.coli, microbial adaptation to antibiotics and hypermutation of white blood cells. All of these either are or are the result of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations create functional genes that did not exist before.

Quote
Darwin Buster Four:  Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes.  Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals.  Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie.  They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number.  Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

Chromosomal duplication is a documented phenomenon. If the duplicated chromosome undergoes mutation (neutral and beneficial), it can diverge from the original in terms of genetic content and function (I've already provided examples of beneficial mutations generating new functions).

I have no doubt that this Darwin-doubter is a creationist, so let me pose a few questions for her in return:

If the theory of evolution is so illogical, so full of holes and so poorly-supported by evidence, then why do the vast majority of scientists believe it to be true? If the theory of evolution is so illogical, so full of holes and so poorly-supported by evidence, then how did it ever become so popular in the first place? If it was such a weak theory, why didn't it die long ago? On the other hand, if creationism is so logical, so obvious and so well-supported by evidence, then why don't non-Christians believe in it? Surely there would be some intelligent atheists and agnostics that would buy that the Earth is 6,000 years old if there is bullet-proof evidence supporting that claim. If they exist, who are they? Where are they? The bottom line is that creationists will always look for evidence that supports their beliefs and reject and question evidence that does not. That is not being objective. I know how they think because I was once a creationist myself.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 04:19:20 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #4 on: 14/11/2013 11:34:28 »
If the theory of evolution is so illogical, so full of holes and so poorly-supported by evidence, then why do the vast majority of scientists believe it to be true? If the theory of evolution is so illogical, so full of holes and so poorly-supported by evidence, then how did it ever become so popular in the first place? If it was such a weak theory, why didn't it die long ago? On the other hand, if creationism is so logical, so obvious and so well-supported by evidence, then why don't non-Christians believe in it? Surely there would be some intelligent atheists and agnostics that would buy that the Earth is 6,000 years old if there is bullet-proof evidence supporting that claim. If they exist, who are they? Where are they?
Unfortunately these are not arguments to support the validity of theories. This kind of appeal to popularity or authority doesn't really help because it can be used by either side of the debate; millions of people and plenty of very wise men have false beliefs. Far better - and more educational - to stick with demolishing the arguments.

Interestingly, 'Darwin Buster 4' (the fusion of chromosome 2) is actually very strong evidence for humans having a common ancestor with other primates. Chromosome 2 has the remains of two telomeres, normally at the end of chromosomes, near the middle, indicating that two chromosomes have fused end-to-end; it also has remnants of a second centromere, which could only come from another chromosome, as they normally only have one each.  The evidence for common ancestry is that the gene sequences on chromosome 2 are almost identical to the gene sequences found on two separate chromosomes in chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

As has been said, there are other examples of chromosome fusion in mammals, such as the domestic horse (32 pairs of chromosomes) and Przewalski's horse (33 pairs), where the indications are that the domestic horse has an end-to-end fusion of ancestral chromosomes 23 and 24 (yet thy can still interbreed and produce viable offspring). Fusions have also been found in mice, cattle, and sheep. It's quite likely that more will be found when more genomes are sequenced and compared.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #5 on: 14/11/2013 19:47:44 »
Unfortunately these are not arguments to support the validity of theories. This kind of appeal to popularity or authority doesn't really help because it can be used by either side of the debate; millions of people and plenty of very wise men have false beliefs. Far better - and more educational - to stick with demolishing the arguments.
These arguments aren't absolute proof, no, but they are highly suggestive. When the very people who have access to the technology and techniques used to test a theory and all (or most all) come to the same conclusions, an explanation is warranted as to how they could be deluded (especially when they have so much evidence in their favor). It is especially warranted when the only real opposition to their conclusions comes from people who have primarly religious motivations.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #6 on: 14/11/2013 20:05:13 »
These arguments aren't absolute proof, no, but they are highly suggestive. When the very people who have access to the technology and techniques used to test a theory and all (or most all) come to the same conclusions, an explanation is warranted as to how they could be deluded (especially when they have so much evidence in their favor). It is especially warranted when the only real opposition to their conclusions comes from people who have primarly religious motivations.
True enough, but many of those with primarily religious motivations feel their evidence is equally, if not more compelling, as it is based in both in personal religious experience and religious authority rather than only coming via some 'white-coated ivory-tower boffin' whose work they don't understand. From a scientific viewpoint, this is delusionary, but to them it's real and personal. So those argument are only suggestive, in the way you desire, to the people you don't need to convince.

Having said all that, even demolishing false arguments won't rock the faithful, but at least it may give the waverers pause for thought.
 

Offline woolyhead

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #7 on: 21/11/2013 18:23:32 »
There is more than one way in which Darwin could be wrong. He claimed that mutation prior to natural selection was caused by random factors. Lamark disagreed. He claimed that mutation is caused by the individual's need. There is now some evidence that this may be correct. Selection of specific genes seems to be made by the exo DNA that surrounds the DNA and this exo stuff can be affected by need. It may be splitting hairs but technically Darwin could therefore be wrong.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #8 on: 21/11/2013 22:50:00 »
There is more than one way in which Darwin could be wrong. He claimed that mutation prior to natural selection was caused by random factors. Lamark disagreed. He claimed that mutation is caused by the individual's need. There is now some evidence that this may be correct. Selection of specific genes seems to be made by the exo DNA that surrounds the DNA and this exo stuff can be affected by need. It may be splitting hairs but technically Darwin could therefore be wrong.

You'd have to explain, though, how the organism senses that particular "need," or rather, how it would know what trait or structure or enzyme that it is missing would fulfill that need, or "fix" the problem. What feed back loop would allow an organism to sense the absence of some specific thing that it has never had before?
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 23:51:01 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #9 on: 21/11/2013 23:31:18 »
Don't confuse present environmental stress with future need. Random events filtered by stress may have the crude appearance of intelligence but the causality is always identifiable without resort to supernatural "knowledge". 

And even if Darwin was wrong on some details, it doesn't invalidate the everyday observation of evolution, nor the hypothesis that speciation is the result of evolution. After all, Newtonian physics breaks down at relativistic speeds but it's a better predictor of the flight of projectiles and the motion of planets than any other theory.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #10 on: 22/11/2013 00:25:18 »
It may be splitting hairs but technically Darwin could therefore be wrong.
His theory was not so much wrong as incomplete. We now know that as well as the core Darwinian processes, there are various other mechanisms of variation at work. But in terms of the ecosystems Darwin observed, his explanation for their variety was the major factor involved, and the core principle of natural selection applies across all.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Darwin theory Busters
« Reply #10 on: 22/11/2013 00:25:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums