The author of that site writes:
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)
Does this sound like the words of a scientist to you, even if we ignore the fact that abiogenesis is a completely different discipline than the theory of evolution?
ABE
All 4 of my brothers and sisters are engineers and I can tell you that they make lousy biologists.
ABE
Ok, a more thorough analysis is in order.
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.
Where the hell does it say in the theory of evolution that dead things can come to life?
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.
This post made by Pinky a long time ago in a thread far far away.
quote:
WK- My favorite example, in part because speciation was essentially observed by the researchers, and thus serves as a counter to the "no one has ever seen a new species form" argument:
Evolution: single-gene speciation by left-right reversal.
Ueshima R, Asami T. Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):679.
The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails. Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond - thus reproductive isolation.
Truthfully I'm not sure if the snail species' sex determination includes hermaphroditism, but I'm quite sure it does not include self-fertilization.
In any case, the reproductive isolation here did not proceed by changes in sex determination, but rather by pre-mating-based isolation.
There was also the Drosophilia work from a year or two ago that showed a single gene can be responsible for reproductive isolation - thus it logically follows that changes to a single gene can result in reproductive isolation (changes and isolation which could potentially occur acutely and sympatrically as opposed to mechanisms involving chronic geographic isolation...)
Pinky gave a specific reference. Did that guy give any reference at all?
Another thing is that this guy has a gross misconception of the theory of evolution. Individuals don't evolve. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population. In fact, this well known fact is written in just about every biology text book for middle school, high school, and college students. Even my electrical engineer sister knows that, and she has admitted many times that she's a biology dummy.
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.
This paragraph makes me want to punch someone. If there is a hell and liars go to hell, this guy will undoubtedly go to hell.
If you want to compare evolution with coin tossing, you have to put natural selection into account. If you want 100 heads in a row, all you have to do is ignore the tails. This is how natural selection work. It ensures that only advantageous mutations are passed on.
This guy has an evolutionary knowledge of a 10 year old. I know that my post sounds childish, but so is the author of that site.
ABE again
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm
That link leads to an article about the moon escaping. It says:
quote:
The model shows that 60 million years ago, the distance between the Earth and the Moon would have been 99.4% of what it is now. For ages older than 1 billion years, the uncertainty in the model increases, but about 2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times higher than those we see today.
Does this guy actually know how the moon causes the tides? Who wants to take a jab at this?
If you already know, chances are you are wrong. If you really really know, then please refrain from telling. Let see how many people who thinks this guy is legit actually know how the moon causes the tides.
This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-25-2005 04:18 AM
™ Version 4.2