A website called Humans are Free.com has posted a page called 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False.

This will be a 12 part thread in which I debunk and address every claim made by this page.

Here is the link to the website to know what I am arguing against. http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scien...ry-of.html

Now lets get started.

"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

This is the first problem with this page is the misunderstanding of science. First off a law is not the highest point in a theory, in fact it is not even a point to reach. Let me show you what I mean by using the scientific definition of law:

n)a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+law

Now let us look at the scientific definition of theory:

"A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary...fic_theory

As you can see, a theory encompasses all phenomenon while a law explains only one part. Looking at the scientific definitions of these words, I can also argue that the phenomenon that is called a law is also part of the theory, because a theory encompasses all phenomenon. For example gravity is a theory. However there are laws in gravity. However they law of gravity is part of gravitational theory, as it is still a phenomenon that is observed and provides evidence of gravity.

Also many things in science are theories. Germs, kinetics, atoms, and astrophysics are all theories as well.

Science also does not work in 100%, in fact scientific theories can not be proven. Theories are made in order to explain phenomena in nature, however if someone is wrong on one of these phenomena, it becomes falsified.

Falsification is an important part of science, in fact a theory is considered bad if it is unfalsifiable.
https://explorable.com/scientific-falsification

"Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one."

So far they didn't even know that theory is above law, so I would be surprised if they can even come up with a coherent argument to falsify evolution by means of natural selection.

"The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process."

Well many theories in science don't have laws. Germ theory for example does not have any laws, neither does plate tectonics. This does not mean you get sick from demons entering you, or that earthquakes happen when said god or goddess loses a bowling game. If being called a theory is what makes a scientific discovery false, than many things would indeed be false and wrought with errors.

Natural selection is not a evolutionary process you say? Then what is it? Well it can't function without evolution because natural selection is a part of evolution. They will shot them selves in the foot with this later.

"The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits."

For a page so despite to disprove evolution, you just went and gave an example. First I must define evolution to make sure that they know where I am going with this.

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

As you can see in biology, evolution is a change in the gene pool. For dogs and plants to even be selectively breed they must go through a point of evolution.

"A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists."

This is one of the first shots in their foot. Above you just gave an example of evolution by the definition given. You even go to say that it matches the survival of the fittest. This is not the first time they will do this.



"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." The Origin of Species chpt. 6.

"Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables."

Well if you ever see a dog give birth to a cat than evolution by natural selection would be disproven on the spot. It is dishonest to claim if a dog does not give birth to a cat, evolution by natural selection is false, but when it does happen evolution by natural selection is false.

DNA has a limit? Are there any papers providing evidence for this claim? The answer is no.

Also new species do evolve. Speciation is a process in which two or more separate species arise. One example of this is ring species. Salamanders and Warblers have gone through this process.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary.../devitt_02

"New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof."

Seeing as ring species has been observed and documented, it is safe to say that new species have evolved.

This is also incorrect. Some organisms have a right-hand protein.

This paper McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen

Documents this.

Fail to admit that no new species evolve, we have shown it.

"If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict."

Well this is a straw man isn't it. First, Inuits are humans like all of us, and humans have a habit of using parts of a animal for more than food. Inuits make coats to keep warm, so evolving fur is not a necessary adaptation that has to evolve.

Humans don't need silver skin to keep cool. Instead humans have sweat glands. Sweat glands will keep the human body cool when it heats up, that is why we sweat when it gets hot.

Darker skin is better at absorbing vitamin D from the sun, so such and adaptation is in fact useful and does not falsify evolution.

"If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color."

This is not true. Skin color in humans is based on melanin. Sun light is one example of this. For example when you see that hot girl tanning on the beach and her skin becomes darker. However their is more than light that is involved in this process. For example food can also contribute to the vitamin D. The Inuits eat fish, a lot of fish in fact. Fish oil also contains a lot of vitamin D. So despite the fact that they don't get sun light like people in Africa, their large diet of fish gives them darker skin than Eurasians.

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/...in-d-foods

http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/56...202000.pdf

"Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate."

Well this is true, however dark skin does not mean they sit in the sun all day.Again
as I explained, skin pigmentation is effected by factors like vitamin D synthesis in the skin.

Actually dark skinned people tend to get sun burned less. I as a negro have never had a sunburn, and when sitting next to another friend of mine with lighter skin, they tend to be less comfortable in the sun than I am. Dark skin lowers the risk of skin cancer from the sun.

"Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning."

That is correct, but that is because darker skin can absorb more vitamin D from the sun than lighter skin. I already explained this before.

And there is now two shots in their foot. Let us go over what was said before by them:

Quote:The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process

They claimed it is not a evolutionary process in order to excuse dogs evolving as not being evolution, now that there dog example is finished they now claim natural selection does not happen in general.

"Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas."

Well zebras, tigers, and lions don't have fur that is heavy or thick. Bears do, though heavy fur does not hinder them.

Humans, as I explained before, make cloths, and their for don't need to evolve fur as they can make cloths that are thick to keep warm instead.

Really, african leopards have the same amount of fur as the snow leopard? Let us get some visual confirmation to see if this is true:





Now if they mean fur as in the same material, that is obvious. However if they mean same fur density they are wrong, the african leopard has much less fur than the snow leopard.

"The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin."

Well it would if the african leopard would if it can survive. Even if it could adapt to the cold it still would have to worry about:

Food

Water

Finding a mate

Finding shelter

Avoiding competition

Horses and dogs having thick fur does not mean the jungle leopard would if it moved to colder climates, as horses and dogs already have evolved to grow thick fur in cold areas in the winter months.

Natural selection is working but it only doesn't work when they don't want it too.


"The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body."

This is because of a population bottleneck. This phenomena happens when a population of an organism faces a severe population drop. However animals can recover from a population bottleneck over time.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...01_cheetah

This is the end of part one. For reading all the way through you get a congrats gecko. Part 2 tomorrow.



Thanks for reading.

"Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false."

This is incorrect. Natural Selection was discovered by Charles Darwin, but the concept of evolution goes even before he was born. One example of this is the book called the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution of Man from lower life forms. This was one hypothesis of evolution written during the Muslim golden age.

http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/uoc/PDF-...h_86_2.pdf

So to disprove natural selection before it was discovered would be impossible. Disproving evolution at the time would have been easier in fact, seeing as both fossils and genetics were both non-existent at the time.

"His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution."

If it is known to be scientifically false, then why do many papers and biologist use evolution as the most important point for biology? The answer, if is scientifically false, in fact no other explanation for biodiversity is better than evolution, whether the biologist is theist or atheist. Now the biologist that do however are low in number, in fact only making up around 1%, and that is me being generous.

As I explained before, new species have evolved via natural selection. To give detail, natural selection is no different than artificial selection(i.e the dog breeds), except that natural selection is using environmental factors without human intervention. So the ring species event that caused speciation is in fact a result of adaptations accumulated thorough evolution by natural selection.

New scientific discoveries in the last few years that support evolution are transitional fossils like tiktaalik, the recent research proving humans and chimps share 95% of our DNA.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...04072.html

http://www.siue.edu/~pbrunko/shubin2006.pdf

"Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists."

This is a straw man. First abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. For example I can meet a christian who says that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible, but say that god set evolution in motion.

Also the lightning strike claim is only one out of the many hypothesis for abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob...flife.html

"Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support."

Actually people of all ages are taught that. Whether they be age 5 or age 100 learning is a process that never stops.

Also if they want to see scientific support of evolution, it is one Google search away.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense."

The argument that was just stated is nonsense. A monkey on a type writer is only very low in probability because you are asking for it to make something that already exist. Let me explain. Evolution has no end goal in mind what so ever. The argument above however is giving the monkey an end goal that we want. If you were to say the monkey uses a typewriter and something comes out then you would have a more correct analogy, but because you gave it an end goal you have a bad one because evolution does not have a end goal and we do not know what an organism will eventually evolve into.

"Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly."

Source please? Again here is the problem, it has an end goal. It is no different than the monkey and typewriting the Gettysburg Address, but this time it is a computer and the 26-letter alphabet. As I said before evolution has no end goal, so using this analogy already disconnects from evolution second you give it one.

"What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)"

Well that is a poor argument. The main reason is that well the universe it self has no real end goal. Sure there is the enviable end of the universe, but that is not really and end goal, it is what is going to happen based on the evidence presented. So life starting on earth was not a goal what so ever, but if life did start on earth then it did. Weather life started on earth or not would not effect the universe in anyway what so ever.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This is the end of part 2. Part 3 to come real soon.

And for reading this post you get a gecko.

---

"The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented."

Well I don't see what is wrong with questioning evolution. It is not asking questions about evolution it is about what questions you ask. For example if I ask "How can the tell using genetics when two animals split down the evolutionary tree?" This is a good question to ask as it gets the people actually thinking. Bad questions are "If evolution are true then were are the transitional fossils?" The reason why this is a bad question is because they already taught you and gave you examples of transitional fossils, so the question is really out of trying to antagonize the teacher and interrupt class.

Also no student has to submit either. I learned about evolution and middle school and did not accept it at the time because I still thought it was wrong. So nobody is saying you must accept evolution is school even when you learn it, no different than you don't have to accept germ theory if you learn about it or astrophysics if you learned about it. You can question evolution and not accept it, again this is science we are talking about not religion, or should I say dogmatic religion.

"A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate."

Well of course, this is a good lesson to teach kids. Humans are after all social apes, and need to learn how to cooperate if they are to survive.

"Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades. The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it."

How so? Teaching kids how to cooperate is teaching them no to think for themselves? If so they are incorrect. The lesson is so that kids learn how to get along, not so that they can be forced into peer pressure. For example I was taught the same lesson, yet I have never fallen for peer pressure.

Communist did use brainwashing, but more in the form of killing people and taking away their rights. It is like religion, as both use death and take away rights to get people to join. Religion however is worst as it also uses eternal torment.

Well kids already have an idea of what is right or wrong, but adults are their to help guide them in the right direction, including the teacher.

"Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately. (...)"

Well this will happen anyway. People do determine what is right or wrong for them selves. For example every time a christian enjoys pork or a muslim woman doesn't wear a cloth cover their head.

Students are told they are wrong when ever they are. For example if a geocentrist went into astronomy class and kept saying the sun revolves around the earth he will be told he is wrong. However neither the geocentrist or the creationist have to accept evolution despite the fact they are wrong.

This is the end of part 3. Part 4 Soon.

A gecko for your troubles.

I'm already bored with your posts. Thank you for trying.

Boru

(June 2, 2014 at 5:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm already bored with your posts. Thank you for trying.

Boru

Im still doing it, you don't have to read it.

(June 2, 2014 at 5:49 pm)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:

(June 2, 2014 at 5:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm already bored with your posts. Thank you for trying.

Boru

Im still doing it, you don't have to read it.

Shan't.

Boru

It's ok Boru.

I find this interesting

I'm with Boru on this one. Why do I need reasons to ignore evolution, faulty and unwarranted though they may be, if I already accept and understand evolution?

(June 2, 2014 at 8:22 pm)Sejanus Wrote: I'm with Boru on this one. Why do I need reasons to ignore evolution, faulty and unwarranted though they may be, if I already accept and understand evolution?

Perhaps.

I'm just brushing up on the arguments against it and Metazoa's replies I find interesting.

I also like Ghekos

(June 1, 2014 at 8:13 pm)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: "The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

To be honest, if they start off like that, then I am not inclined to want to hear anything else they say. It's a non-sequitur. Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts that have been discovered in light of our current knowledge. It needs to be testable and is subject to revision or change or even complete dismissal if it happens to be completely wrong.

This habit of conflating a scientific theory with a hypothesis --which is often used as the lead-in to one or more hypotheses that are usually not remotely scientific-- gets annoying after a while because everything after "evolution is just a theory" is likely to be a product of ignorance. People who start off with that really are better off gaining an understanding of what a scientific theory really is, and what the theory of evolution actually is, first. Then maybe they'll realize that a scientific theory is not the same as their crackpot "theories" and stop wasting everyone's time.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail your topic, but we've seen a lot of this lately, it seems to me.

Fair enough. Geckos are cool.