.
S
i t e S e a r c h
A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ
List
of Topics__Ask
Suby__Free
Stuff__Questions
Lists
Terms
of Use__________________Privacy
Policy
C
r e a t i o n I n d e x
C r e a t i o n
p a g e 1 4
Birds brought into North America
by European settlers have diversified
into several different groups; selective breeding can produce new breeds
of the same species
and some animals change their coats from season to season, etc.
An interesting diversity
exists in the physical kingdom. Changes within a species provide us with
the diverse
kinds we see of all animal families and man, white, black and yellow races.
Diverse life.(kangaroos,
koalas, etc.).in
Australia and not elsewhere,
seems
to provide fuel for the evolutionists.
Macroevolution
describes changes that require large jumps. Macroevolution is the theory
that one species
can change into another kind,
given enough time and chance, as the very smart
geneticist
Steve Jones believes. Saying he's smart
doesn't mean he's correct in what he is very smart about. As you'll see
in Steve's article, evolution is fighting for its life and
Steve
struggles pretty hard, ha ha!
Strange, don't
you think that no culture's history claims to go back further than about
5,000 years. All over the world this is so. Yet there are indications
of a longer history of humanity.
There seems to be such pressure
to conform even hints of evolutionary 'evidence' to the theory, even with
competing 'acts' of importance being contradictory.
As Phillip E. Johnson of
Harvard University said in.Darwin
On Trial, 2nd edition, 1993, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, pages
81 to 87."...the
proclivity
to rely upon subjectivism
is especially noticeable."
Noting changes, as evolution
purports,
does not give rise to reasons for change. In any attempt to prove Darwinian
evolution, quantitative
calculations must be presented. Without these and with evolution's qualitative.observational
methodology, the theory remains totally conjectural
and, if exposed to others, such as being presented in school, should be
produced
as such. Ideally, a student should be taught to think, so as to ascertain
when, for example, answers presented in books on biology are ludicrously.oversimplified.
Students should not be expected to repeat and remember information regarding
evolution as though it was a fait
accompli, when an option
exists to objectively.confront.material
that is obviously.analyzable.
Teaching them to think is better than creating brainwashed automatons,
as it allows intelligence to function.superior
to indoctrination.propaganda.
The unsane
fact free fable has now encountered evidence to the contrary.
According to evolutionary theory, the fittest
survive.
Perhaps for the first time
since that Darwinian postulation
was fabricated,
it may become true. In the light of accurate information, the demise
of the 'fact free evolutionary theory' is in process of occurring.
Darwin leaves unanswered
how it is that variant organisms came to be in the first place, focusing
instead upon similarities and arriving at a conjectural
conclusion.
In modern terms, Darwin,
in essence,
looked at a bicycle, looked at a motorcycle, then an automobile, tank,
airplane, jet, space shuttle, etc. and saw their similarities; like, they
all could carry people, or they all have seats, all contain metal, etc.
Surmising
that similarities connote
association as to origin, he concludes.(without
addressing the complex functions of each individual progression.he
believed occurred as the bicycle changed into the motorcycle and so on).that."it
seems they all came from the wheel once the wheel sensed a need for more
complexity".
A gene
for a protein
might be duplicated,
but duplication doesn't create or lead to sophisticated
new properties. It simply duplicates! It is utter
nonsense to assume,
as one evolutionary scientist has done.(Russel
Doolittle, Professor of Biochemistry at Centre for Molecular Genetics,
University of California, San Diego).in
his implicit.assumption,
that."a duplicate
gene would
elicit
new, necessary properties". Perhaps he meant
by mutation.
If he indeed meant that, did this man then understand etymological.derivations?
He
appears to have now.
I wish other evolutionary scientists were as
self-abnegating.
It is a conundrum
to explain why some biochemists assume Darwinism to be credible,
as the professional biochemical literature has published no papers
or books that explain in detail how complex systems may have arisen. They,
like most of us, have been taught Darwinism is credible. Teaching information
without allowing questioning to determine validity,
precludes.educating
and replaces it with indoctrination.
"There is no book in the
libraries of the world; no scientific paper in the twenty thousand publications.(the
large majority of which were in the life sciences).of
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1984-1994, that propose
how detailed routes of complex biochemical structures might have developed.
There is a total absence of papers on the evolution of biochemical structures
in the journals concerned with explaining the origin of life."
...Michael Behe.
Many talk about molecular
evolution, but.all.pass
from dealing with specific
biochemical systems; the systems we all rely upon to live each day. Some
books deal with simple catalysts.(prebiotic
{before life} chemistry), but not the
complex machinery of known organisms.
.