.
.
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.


.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*