Evolution has been disproven for over 100 years, and here's why

joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Evolution has been disproven for over 100 years, and here's why

{Mod Edit: This post is plagiarism. This thread has been frozen and edited to remove the plagiarized text.}


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Oh FSM, not him again

Oh FSM, not him again repeating the same thing over like a parrot.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
More plagiarism from

joeparker wrote:
there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. All we have is . . . evidence.

Looking for 'molecular fossils'?

Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?

Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?
Does anyone know anything about this?
from where the very first life came from.?any avolutionist?
finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky as each requires the other for its own synthesis-which came first?
any gold,silver or core member???
I'M not a atheist or theist
cheers joeparker!!!!

More plagiarism from joeparker.

The sentence "Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?" is the first sentence here .

"Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?" and "finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky as each requires the other for its own synthesis-which came first?" are found here. The first sentance is the title and the second after the first set of bullet points.

joeparker you've been shown to be dishonest, and are continuing in your dishonesty. It only took me a minute with Google to find these quotes. Stop it.


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Is the Primordial Soup Done

Is the Primordial Soup Done Yet?I want some
is there A Recipe or formula for Primordial Soup??

Stirring the primordial soup.(how to 101) ask joeparker
from where the frist primordial soup came from??
I'M   not a atheist or theist  
cheers joeparker!!!!


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
???

Hi, I'm new.

This argument falls apart at 1). Evolution does not require anything beyond the existence of biological life. It gives an explanation for the adaptation and advancement of established species.

As for that shit about Louis Pasteur, how can he conclude that life only comes from life doing that experiment? He can only, with any certainty, conclude that the spontaneous generation of bacteria does not occur spontaneously in soup given the conditions of his laboratory at the time. He can not possibly suppose that spontaneous generation (rather an unsatisfactory term in my opinion, it has instant or momentary connotations) could not occur under any of the other myriad of environmental conditions that have been present on the earth since its formation.

In short, the original post is extremely bad rhetoric.

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote:

joeparker wrote:

I'M not a atheist or theist

Uh... what?


joeparker wrote:
cheers joeparker!!!!

Drugs... share with me?

 

PS Hamsammich foto es areodynamic? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: there is

joeparker wrote:
there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. All we have is . . . evidence.

Looking for 'molecular fossils'?

Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?

Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?
Does anyone know anything about this?
from where the very first life came from.?any avolutionist?
finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky as each requires the other for its own synthesis-which came first?
any gold,silver or core member???
I'M not a atheist or theist
cheers joeparker!!!!

You could stop being a dishonest twit at some point. You're not a theist? Oh sure... you simply like to indulge in biblical dogma and suck Christ's fat cock... sure...

 Anyway... a parallel natural process to evolution would be genistation. Like evolution - genistation begins with life already here - not alluring out to pretend it will tell you where life comes from. In both we develope from a single cell into a fully grown and capacitated being.

You need to stop your bullshit pretense that evolution attempts to explain the origins of life. Evolution is science. Whatever the origin of life is would be classified under philosophy. 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote:

joeparker wrote:
1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life. The first living cell is supposed to have come from non-living organic material in the oceans.
2. Life coming from non-life is called spontaneous generation. The dictionary confirms this: "Supposed production of living from non-living matter as inferred from appearance of life (due in fact to bacteria etc.) in some infusions..." [Oxford Concise Dictionary]
3. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation back in the 19th century when he placed a sterilised beaker with a straight entry tube alongside one with a crooked tube. Bacteria collected in the straight-tubed beaker but not in the crooked-tubed one, where instead they lodged in the bends of the pipe. He concluded that life only comes from life. This is now known as the law of biogenesis.
4. Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life.

 

My my, what a strawman. First of all....the theory of evolution does not claim that life comes from non-life. Evolution is gradual change through time by means of natural selection. It would be wise for you to perhaps be intellecutally honest or perhaps get educated on the subject matter before you spit out straw man arguments. Evolution is proved every day in every single biology laboratory, from molecular to organsimal to paleobiology. The evidence is larger than god's cock. Smiling

Abiogeneis is a theory. Pasteur confirmed that diseases are caused by germs. He did not disprove evolution.

I can prove to you right now that evolution is real. Simply by showing you the conservation of genes in various Apicomplexan parasites which have similar life cycles. Apicomplexan parasites are a family of parasites that contain the genus Plasmodium which is the genus of the parasite that causes Malaria. There are various species of Plasmodium and each of these species have specific hosts, some cause disease in lizards only, some in birds only, and some in humans and other non-human primates. All apicomplexans of various genuses share the apical complex, a group of organelles used for invasion.

Plasmodium sp. cause disease by invading red blood cells. The way they do this is by means of proteins on the parasite's cell surface that recognize and bind to surface antigens on red blood cells which initiates a set of events that ultimately results in the parasite's entry inside red blood cells. Then the parasite essentially turns the red blood cell into a factory for growth and division.

One of the species of Plasmodium, P. vivax invades only humans that have the Duffy antigen on their red blood cells. This is because the molecular invasion pathway uses a protein on the parasite surface that recognizes only the Duffy antigen on red blood cells (Duffy blood group, as you may or may not know, different people have various antigens on their cell surface, an easy example is: the A or B or O blood groups). The protein responsible for recognizing and binding to the Duffy blood group antigen has a specific series of amino acids that give the protein it's name: the Duffy binding ligand (DBL).

Now, OTHER species of malaria can invade red blood cells that lack the Duffy blood group antigen, which shows that they have other means of invasion. Another species of Plasmodium, P. falciparum does not contain the DBL gene but has genes for similar proteins (very similar to the DBL) which recognize and invade red blood cells. This is a product of evolution. All species of Plasmodium have a family of proteins that share homology with DBL. They have conserved genes that through evolution have slightly changed to take advantage of other blood group antigens but still share homology with DBL, showing common ancestry. This is due to natural selection from blood cells that assert pressure on the likely hood for these parasites to survive. If a blood cell is Duffy negative, then it exerts a selective pressure for that gene to change. The key is that they all share common descent.  And in turn the parasites exert pressure on humans to change their blood chemistry composition, hence, why certain areas in africa, the population lacks Duffy blood group on their red blood cell surfaces and are immune to Plasmodium vivax malaria, but NOT to P. falciparum or P. ovale malaria.  One would argue god's design her in making humans resistant to the P. vivax malaria, but then why would god allow disease from the other species of plasmodium?  hmmm...anyway.

Read about it more here:

Evolutionary relationships of conserved cysteine-rich motifs in adhesive molecules of malaria parasites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12082132&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1128

Evolution requires 3 major ingredients: Time, mutations and selective pressures. Given the right kind of mutations, the selective pressure of red blood cells on the parasites, and time, species evolve. This, my friend, is FACT.

This is just a small piece of evidence...obviously there are plenty, more obvious examples...especially stemming from the fossil record, vestigial organs, and fossil genes, such as fossil genes in a species of fish that have evolved to not have red blood cells....yet still show remnants of the hemoglobin genes in their genome, proving yet again evolution through natural selection. You can read about that in the book titled "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006163.htm

The reason why I chose this small and specific example is because 1. I research malaria, and 2. to show you that there is evidence across the board and how this evidence manifests itself in a more specific environment. Most theists and the general public have no idea on how evolution works. THey use straw man arguments much like yourself..to convince themselves that evolution is wrong without giving so much of a single thought on trying to analyze actual evidence. What you guys do instead, is set up straw man arguments and pull some obscure experiment someone did 100 years ago and claim victory, while ignoring the insurmountable amount of evidence. The theory of evolution, NEVER claims abiogenesis. That is a whole other theory in and of itself. Get your facts straight.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Continued plagiarism duly

Continued plagiarism duly noted.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
If evolution isn't real,

If evolution isn't real, then I guess flu shots are a government conspiracy.