0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It may be splitting hairs but technically Darwin could therefore be wrong.