http://www.godandscience.org/ wrote:Interdependent genes demonstrate limits to evolution
Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited. (Gunter Wagner. 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158) and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210.)
2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?
http://www.godandscience.org/ wrote:A new study compared the speed of enamel formation in teeth from over 100 Neandertal fossils compared to upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (ancient modern humans) and Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis. The upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens exhibited identical dental development compared with modern humans. However, both Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis developed much faster than modern humans while Neandertals developed even faster than their "ancestors." This study provides even more evidence that Neandertals were not ancestral to modern humans.
Rapid "evolution" of the human brain
Studies as early as1975 showed that the sets of proteins found in the brains of chimpanzees and humans were virtually identical. The question naturally arose as to why humans and chimpanzees are so different. A new study provides at least a partial answer to the question. Researchers collected brain, liver, and blood samples from humans, chimps, macaques, and orangutans, isolated RNA from each sample and calculated the amount of RNA produced for 12,000 genes. Little difference was found among the species for the liver and blood samples. However, big differences were detected in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees, although gene expression between chimpanzees' and the other primates' brains was about the same. The results show that regulation of gene expression is unique in the human brain compared to all other primates.
Of mice and men - little genetic difference!
Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by only 1.5%. This was said to be powerful evidence of common descent. Scientists are now sequencing the murine (mouse) genome and have come upon some rather startling data regarding a comparison of the murine and human genomes. So far, only chromosome 16 has been fully sequenced in both species. However, the results show that human and murine DNA differ from each other by only 2.5%. This is very surprising, since, according the evolutionary theory, the two species diverged 90 million years ago. The problem for the theory of evolution is that this small difference between mice and humans makes the difference between humans and chimpanzees look huge. Whereas it took 90 million years of evolution to produce 2.5% difference in DNA sequence, humans and chimpanzees diverge 1.5% in less than 10 million years. Why has evolution sped up so much during the evolution of primates? Maybe 1.5% is a really big difference?
Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!
Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by about 1.5%. However, this difference was determined by examining the base pair sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.">substitutions within certain sequenced genes. Recently, the human genome was completely sequenced and sequencing of the chimpanzee genome is well on its way. Preliminary results confirm previous results regarding base pair substitutions (estimated at 1.4%). However, sequencing reveals that insertions and deletions result in another 3.4% difference between human and chimp DNA. Therefore, the overall difference between chimp and human DNA is nearly 5%, which represents an almost insurmountable amount of rapid evolution.
Another blow to multiregional evolutionary theory
The multiregional evolutionary theory claims that humans are descended from multiple hominid forms (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc.). Recently, proponents of this theory have claimed that fossils show that an archaic Homo erectus from Java shared key features with living Asians and early modern humans in Australia. Their conclusion was that Asian H. erectus passed on some of its DNA to modern Australians and Asians (Science, 12 January 2001, p. 293). A recent genetic analysis of Asians, however, explodes this theory. The study, examining more than 1000 Asian men, determined that all of these men came from one source, between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago. The study is so convincing that some multiregional evolutionists have now dropped this theory. At the annual meeting of physical anthropologists in Kansas City, Missouri, one self-described "dedicated multiregionalist," Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted:
"I have undergone a conversion--a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosome lineages [in living humans]. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement."
Gibbons, A. 2001. Modern Men Trace Ancestry to African Migrants. Science 292: 1051-1052.
Yuehai Ke, et al. 2001. African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153.
A new study has examined the mtDNA sequences of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to 23,000 and 25,000 years old. One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no sequence differences from the modern reference sequence, and the other (Paglicci-12) only one substitution. It is remarkable that so little change in the sequence had occurred over the last 23,000 years. The ancient Cro-Magnon mtDNA and modern European mtDNA differed by only 2-3 base pairs on average (see table below). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary Neandertals by an average of 24 base pairs.
Table 4. mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids Individual Modern Europeans Neandertals
Mean Min. Max. s.d. Mean Min. Max. s.d.
Paglicci-25 2.3 0 11 1.8 24.5 23 28 2.4
Paglicci-12 3.2 0 10 1.7 23.5 22 27 2.4
Modern Europeans 4.4 0 18 2.3
According to the authors of the study:
"Although only six HVRI sequences of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans] and four sequences of Neandertals are available to date, the sharp differentiation among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human lineage."
Caramelli, D., C. Lalueza-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegnii, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani, and G. Bertorelle. 2003. Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6593-6597.
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm wrote:There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere.
The once so-called Nebraska man was later re-analyzed and found to be Nebraska Pig. The piece of evidence found was lacking in integrity as only one tooth was found. Later, more of the skeleton was found and it was indeed the skeleton of a pig.
Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape. (see Lucy)
Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.
Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' " Does evolution have enough time? No.
3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?
http://www.godandscience.org/ wrote:Fully formed crustacean found from the early Cambrian
In a huge setback for evolutionists, scientists have discovered a true crustacean in early Cambrian strata from Shropshire, England. In a recent issue of Science, Drs. Siveter, Williams, and Waloszek. announced the discovery of a fossil phosphatocopid ostracod, which is preserved extraordinarily well, including all its delicate limbs cast in calcium phosphate, clearly allowing it to be classified as a crustacean. Very few fossils of this great antiquity reveal so much detail or can be interpreted with such certainty. Although the discovery is clearly at odds with evolutionary theory, an analysis in the same issue by Dr. Richard Fortey comes to the remarkable conclusion that this discovery explodes the Cambrian explosion. Dr. Fortey believes that this discovery will foreshadow the discovery of precursor organisms from the pre-Cambrian. Of course, the fact that this has not happened yet does not hinder the evolutionists from wildly speculating that the Cambrian explosion will be overturned. Dr. Fortey does make a rather telling admission at the end of the article (followed by the usual party line):
"Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian. At the moment, there are almost as many explanations as there are animals caught in this belated "explosion." But it is more than likely that the evolutionary fuse was lit long before the Cambrian."
D. J. Siveter, M. Williams, and D. Waloszek. 2001. Science 293: 479.
Fortey, R. 2001. The Cambrian Explosion Exploded? Science 293: 438-439.
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm wrote:According to evolutionary teaching, the "Geologic Column" is a map of evolutionary history. Supposedly all fossils fit into a specific order, simple to complex. However, some flaws are to be found. Recently, fish scales were found in the "Cambrian layer" when according to the "column", fish did not appear until much later.
All over the world can be found layer-transversing fossils. A typical specimen is a tree running vertical through thousands of layers. Possible explanation: Those layers weren't laid down over billions of years, unless ancient trees had the capability to grow through solid rock, void of all sunlight. Lest the reader even consider such a wild notion, or one like it, some of these trees are found up-side-down. Indeed, they spell nothing but sudden catastrophe.
The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ."
4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?
http://www.carm.org wrote:Scientists have seen bacteria exchange genetic material. They have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? No. Have they ever seen one type of bacteria, such as E.coli, become some other type of bacteria that is not (in this case) E.coli? No, they haven't. In fact, with over a hundred years of work with E.coli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli. So it's your call. Is that macroevolution? By some evolutionists' standards it qualifies.
5) The last question is quoted in entirety.
http://www.carm.org wrote:QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?
RESPONSE: It doesn't make any sense to me, either. There is no reason! The rationale is that their best food source was in the water (when they were land animals) and thus they spent so much time in the water they gradually adapted to it. However, please understand that the same people postulate this animal coming OUT of the water and adapting to land some aeons before... This would have been the case for each of the mammals in the seas. You might be interested in Ashby Camp's analysis of "whale evolution" here: http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.htm. He's got several good analytical articles there on different "stages" in claimed evolution. Our option, of course, is simply to believe God's explanation of creation and to notice that we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today. What evolution is doing is taking an idea that is non-testable and non-repeatable and declaring it fact by definition and imagination. Their "transitional fossils" are transitional in the eye of the beholder. What the facts tell us is that these are dead and gone animals. (You might also want to note that there are no "transitional" plant fossils claimed. Ginkos, palms, ferns -- they all stay the same in the fossil record.)
I'll even sweeten the pot!
If anyone can answer all the questions to my satisfaction, then I will give them an Austin Stratocaster. It has upgraded Sperzle Tuning Machines. Those alone are worth $50.
The entire guitar, with the gig bag, and a set of extra strings and a pick is worth $225.
Let the games begin!
By the way, I've written a lot of songs on this guitar and I consider it a really valuable piece of my memorabilia. It would pain me greatly to have to give it away.