segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012
Creationism and evolutionism really opposites? evolutionism dictatorship...
This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution -- almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry -- they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not.
The evolutionist Richard Leaky approached the National Geographic Society to get funding to look for the ape ancestors of man, not to investigate if man evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that when the Society gave Leaky his funds, he was warned: "If you find nothing you are never to come begging at our door again." With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the "human ancestor," Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means "Southern APE"! Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very ape-like ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape's jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man -- he was so excited about the find he said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."
Hair or no hair here is the question:
“…Morris (1986) considers reasons for human hair loss in evolution at length, but was unable to produce a plausible explanation. The latest theory is that humans lost their hair to reduce their vulnerability to fur-loving parasites (Bhattacharya, 2003). Actually, hair protects against many types of insects, such as mosquitoes and biting flies. It also protects against sunburn and skin cancer. In addition, humans have enough hair on their heads and pubic areas that lice and ticks can still pose a problem.
Darwinists also admit they have no idea why humans did not lose all their body hair, including that on the head, pubic, and auxiliary hair (Cooper, 1971). If humans selected for hairlessness, why do humans today still have considerable body hair? Why would males or females select certain traits in a male when they had been successfully mating with hair-covered mates for eons, and no non-human primate preferred these "human" traits. If sexual selection caused the development of the male beard (and its lack in females), why do women often prefer clean shaven males? Obviously, cultural norms are critical in determining what is considered sexually attractive, and these standards change, precluding the long term sexual selection required to biologically evolve them. Desmond Morris addressed this question in his best selling book, The Naked Ape (Morris, 1986). Morris points out that all primates (including all 192 species of monkeys) are covered with hair, the only exception being humans. Actually, humans have more hair than a chimpanzee; the difference is that most human hair consists of the almost invisible, fine hair…” http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
Scienceray.com is a scientific website and yet what seems to be only my common sense / practical sense speaking , my common, medium average citizen point of view might not be that unscientific after all, check it out:
And this smashing point of view:
“…Recent studies suggest that humans dated at “hundreds of thousands of years”, were very similar, if not completely identical, to modern homo-sapiens, according to numerous articles by sciencedaily.com. One set of teeth in particular was “dated” at 400,000 years, 200,000 years longer than the alleged, “beginnings of humans”, was brought up in Israel. Sciencedaily mentioned this “the size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern humans, Homo sapiens, which have been found at other sites [in] Israel, such as Oafzeh and Skhul”. so similar teeth of modern humans have been found in the area, and they look exactly like modern human teeth.
I wonder if… they are modern human teeth?…Even as far back as 3.2 million years ago in the age of Lucy, there are many signs that “Lucy’s species” were more like modern humans than ape-like creatures. According to a foot bone found, Lucy stood upright like a modern human. Why is it still told that these “transitional fossils” are “ape-like” when it is perfectly clear that these are modern human skeletons, most likely died no more than 10,000 years ago, they sure seem to walk just like modern humans. Even other “tree-dwelling ancestors” seemed to walk just like humans.
“Neanderthals” were much more human than “ape-like”. According to science daily, they made jewelry, had “feelings” like empathy, and used a wide array of tools. They were also thought to use cosmetics as well. All this evidence is building up day after day to show that neanderthals were much more advanced than we first though, probably just as advanced as modern humans. There is also much debate over the accuracy of such neanderthals in the first place, according to sciencedaily.com, there is another showing that “hobbit man”, another so called transitional fossil, is actually a iodine deficient human. It also appears that every time a new hominid fossil is uncovered, common ancestry is rewritten. Lets just hope this time they rewrite it to say the truth, that it never occurred…”
“…But the push could have easily occurred between unicellular animals and sponges wherein one suddenly goes from self-sufficiency in the one cell model to a multi-cellular organism with a functioning gut where the cells act in concert and assist in the functioning of that animal.The push to have intervened in the making of modern man does not then have to have been only exclusive to us. This of course is where hardened theorists would probably say that smaller organisms have had the chance to evolve from one to the next and not so for our past human like relatives who all of sudden were hairless and then had to re-clothe themselves against the cold. How inefficient nature has been for them not to have kept their fur if they had been evolved from the ape. The again we know that nature does not have to be erroneous and that this creature who suddenly had to wear skins probably then did not come the apes. Where then?…”
Read more: http://scienceray.com/biology/theories-of-origin-how-real-are-they/#ixzz1paxqZ5ZY
So where is the evolution, how much more slower would it have to be really?…
Another interesting article on the Guardian that points out some reasons that should make evolutionists not so certain and certainly less arrrogant as to what they are so sure of:
“…As years of bestselling books by Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others have seeped into the culture, we've come to understand that the awesome power of natural selection – frequently referred to as the best idea in the history of science – lies in the sheer elegance of the way such simple principles have generated the unbelievable complexities of life. From two elementary notions – random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment – have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.
Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress-inducing henhouse, say, or overeating in northern Sweden – can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way…The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it was. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution…” http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
It is the magazine Science daily that gives us astonishing news: Hundreds Of Natural-Selection Studies Could Be Wrong, Study Demonstrates
“…Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results.
Our finding means that hundreds of published studies on natural selection may have drawn incorrect conclusions," said Masatoshi Nei, Penn State Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and the team's leader. The team's results will be published in the Online Early Edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences during the week ending Friday 3 April 2009 and also in the journal's print edition at a later date.
Nei said that many scientists who examine human evolution have used faulty statistical methods in their studies and, as a result, their conclusions could be wrong. For example, in one published study the scientists used a statistical method to demonstrate pervasive natural selection during human evolution. "This group documented adaptive evolution in many genes expressed in the brain, thyroid, and placenta, which are assumed to be important for human evolution," said Masafumi Nozawa, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State and one of the paper's authors. "But if the statistical method that they used is not reliable, then their results also might not be reliable," added Nei. "Of course, we would never say that natural selection is not happening, but we are saying that these statistical methods can lead scientists to make erroneous inferences," he said.
The team examined the branch-site method and several types of site-prediction methods commonly used for statistical analyses of natural selection at the molecular level. The branch-site method enables scientists to determine whether or not natural selection has occurred within a particular gene, and the site-prediction method allows scientists to predict the exact location on a gene in which natural selection has occurred…”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330200821.htm
Interesting article with top ten reasons why evolution could be wrong after all:
Real issues on what evolutionism stands upon at a geology website:
“…"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.
Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed…” more here: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html (very , very accurate, very simple to understand, very good indeed!)
Other smashing points of view from the website science truth: http://www.sciencetruth.com/what_we_believe_macro_evolutioni.htm
“…In every case, these terms are used without any evidence to support them other than the trivial fact that there is some physical resemblance -- the argument from homology. But as pointed out elsewhere, if you relied on homology as a guide you would conclude that the human foot had evolved from the human hand, or vice versa -- something we know cannot be true.
Moreover, on top of all these weasel words, Hunt actually admits from the outset that there is a gap in the fossils and adds, without a trace of irony,
'So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.' …But when it comes to evaluating fossils, looking for this difference, there is a difficulty that doesn’t exist with living species. You can tell whether living creatures are members of the same or different species by carrying out a laboratory test (such as artificial insemination) to see if they are physiologically capable of breeding. If they are so capable then they belong to the same species; if they are not, they belong to different species. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to apply the breeding test to animals known only from their fossils.
It is also possible to sequence the DNA of living or recently dead creatures and make a comparison of their DNA to see how closely related they are. But again, DNA testing (of the 'Jurassic Park' kind) is not available for fossil animals…This is the reason that a genuinely objective observer says there is not a single transition known. And when Darwinists assert that there are many such transitional fossils what they really mean is that they have found isolated fossils that look as if they are intermediate between one species or another ( 'probably', 'shark-like' 'tendencies', 'mammal-like') -- therefore, they must be evidence of transitional species, because Darwinism predicts such fossils…This is a kind of circular evidence -- evidence by argument -- that would not be permitted in any other university department or in any other branch of science. Yet it is not only tolerated in Palaeontology, it is actively taught and encouraged.
What then is the scientific status of the detailed schemes of descent that Hunt and other Darwinists have drawn up over the past century?
When you have before you a massive amount of data, especially data that is generically similar, it is very easy to perceive patterns in that data that look like 'sequences'. All that is necessary is to take the data that does not fit your 'sequence' and file it away in a drawer labelled 'Not yet decided', 'status unknown' or simply 'unsolved problems'. In reality, if the data in the file drawer were added to the so-called sequence data, any objective observer would quickly see that there isn’t a developing series but a mass of contradictory details.
This pitfall entraps scientists constantly…” https://sites.google.com/site/realityrestored/transition-fossils-dont-exist
There is even a website of science that disagrees with many evolutionist theories that states the following interesting arguments:
“…Transitional Fossil Criteria
Last month we looked at some of the recently discovered “evidence” for missing links between apes and men. We hope we showed that the few bones they found are so fragmentary that there isn’t any proof that the creatures they fabricated from those bones even existed, let alone had the necessary characteristics to be proof that humans and apes had a common ancestor. Evolutionists started from the assumption that there had to be a common ancestor. When they discovered two bones the size of grains of rice, they had their prejudices confirmed, and loudly proclaimed the discovery of Eosimias. In fact, there is no real evidence that Eosimias ever existed.
But not all of the alleged human ancestors fit into this category. The famous skeleton, Lucy, is certainly sufficient evidence that Australopithecus afarensis really existed. The question is, “Was Lucy a transitional form?” In other words, was Lucy an ape, a human, or a link between apes and men?
Just as we did last month, we want to establish some criteria to determine if a fossil is evidence of evolution of one species to another. What characteristics does a fossil have to have to be considered a “transitional form?”
Physical similarity is usually considered a criterion, but not always. Nobody considers a bat to be a transitional form between a mouse-like mammal and a bird, even though it looks a lot like one.
Bats look a lot like mice, and a lot like birds. One could imagine a mouse (or maybe a small squirrel) growing skin flaps under its arms. It is imaginable that these skin flaps eventually evolved into wings. Then, one might imagine that the fur evolved into feathers, and the bat became a full-fledged bird. A bat certainly looks like it is half mammal and half bird. The story is every bit as plausible as the story that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Actually, it is a lot more plausible. But no evolutionist ever claims the bat is a transitional form. Why is that?
The short answer is that it doesn’t fit their prejudice. They believe that reptiles (or dinosaurs) evolved into birds, and reptiles evolved into mammals. They don’t believe mammals evolved into birds. A bat can’t be a missing link, simply because they don’t believe mammals evolved into birds. If they did believe it, bats would be their best proof of evolution.
If the argument from homology (that is, an argument that is based on how similar things look) were really valid, then one would have to believe that birds evolved from mammals, and that bats are the proof. Evolutionists recognize that, in the case of the bat, looks can be deceiving. The bat looks like a transitional form, but it isn’t.
So, one might say that if a critter looks like it is half way between two creatures, and one of those creatures is believed to have evolved from the other, then it is a transitional form. But, if a critter looks like it is half way between two creatures, and neither of those creatures is believed to have evolved from the other, then it is not a transitional form. In other words, what it looks like doesn’t really matter. What matters is what is already believed. If it supports the prejudice, then it is evidence. If it contradicts the prejudice, then it is just an accidental similarity that proves nothing. That’s not good science…” http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i1f.htm
So a very good question is posed here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225233021AAE1V4H
And it is this: Why aren't the scientist who disagree with evolution given the freedom of speech to criticize it?
And an even better answer: As the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
Dr. Cornelius Hunter is right: “In the life sciences one's alternatives are to be a Darwinist or to be a Darwinist. Passing grades, letters of recommendation, graduate school admission, doctorate exams, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion all require adherence to the theory of evolution. The lists are long of otherwise qualified candidates who could not take that next career step because they did not conform to the Darwinian paradigm. Academia, and the life sciences in particular, have undergone a long period of in-breeding and it is hardly surprising that, as the National Academy of Sciences' booklet triumphantly declares, ‘The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred.’”
Hopefully, Ben Stein's new movie (Expelled) will open some eyes.
(The movie, by the way, was also a victim of this dictatorship and prohibition to think for yourself...)
Or this: It is what liberals do. Whether it is global warming , or stupid PC laws or just someone wishing to present a conservative viewpoint .. liberals will demonize your position, shout you down, and refuse your right to express your opinion ... all the while telling you how much they stand behind free speech. They demonize George Bush over the patriot act .. and praise Hugo Chavez, despite his shutting down the free press and airwaves in his country. If you don't agree with them, you are stupid and don't deserve the right to be heard ... this is why liberalism must be defeated.
(and of course you can read other aggressive, arrogant answers, even offensive, as usual from atheists “disguised” as pro-science evolutionists…oh well it is the dictatorship of the self-proclaimed illuminated…).
So are scientists who disagree with some assumptions (if not all) of Darwinist evolution all from other areas of knowledge or not as smart as those who believe evolution? Well, that is what they want you to believe…
Here are some very suggestive names:
Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine says of evolution in
“A Divine Design,” “One of its weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in
which conscious life could have emerged….”
Nobelist and evolutionist Dr. Robert A. Millikan comments, “The pathetic thing is that
we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.” an evolutionist…
The highly regarded noncreationist anti-Darwinian French scientist Grasse says, “The
explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth
criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the
major problems involved.”
Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich, E.T.H., and
former president of the International Association of Sedimentologists, writes, “We have had
enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry: ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’”
Other important names here: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1099.pdf
But do we really have to choose between creationism and evolutionism?
Are they totally incompatible?
This particular website poses that question: http://www.hgtaylor.net/Alexander.htm
The Pope itself says they can co-exist without excluding God: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.T2evwhE2-So
They need each other: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/vatican-to-exclude-id-evolutionists-from-origins-conference/
You can have some insights here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Conclusion and my personal oppinion:
Could god have created Adam and Eve out of an ape ancestor? Sure1 He could even make snow out of fire if He wanted to! When you know your work you can do it, undo it, transform it or even give it the keys to be dynamic and transform itself! But the same way you can not say with 100% sure that this was the case you cannot do the same for many still theories in evolutionism!
For many reasons posted here you can see that certainties are far from being a fact with evolutionism and many are still a matter of belief as well as with faith, religious faith.
I think nature can in fact make some changes but within certain limits. This is what I believe in: nature is dynamic and you can even see how each animal you have as pet at home as it’s own personality! So whatever name you want to give God He sure respected all life forms this much.
They are like vinegar and oil that make your salad taste right. But not all claims of each side are right so there must be humility, intellectual honesty and freedom to think to both sides. I do not admit to be shut up by anyone or called stupid just because I see things in a different way or think for my self without direction from self-proclaimed illuminated and supposed genius with a good theory.
Publicada por Patrícia à(s) 15:32