No Evidence Supporting Evolution.
There is no scientific evidence for the belief in evolution. When scientist make claims of findings supporting evolution and later they have been proven false they fail to remove those claims. Science is not supposed to be based on speculation but yet they teach things that are speculation as if they are fact. If we removed all the findings that have been proven false there would be no evidcnce left to support evolution.
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.” He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”
You can read about a talk he gave on it at this link.
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”
Francis S Collins a geneticist who led the U.S. Government’s effort to decipher the human genome (DNA), said “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the Evolutionist. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves” He also said “Some people sacrificially give of themselves to those who are outside their group with whom they have absolutely nothing in common. That doesn’t seem like it can be explained by the Darwinian models.” With Darwinian models it would be survival of the fittest but yet that works contrary to that.
Do Findings Of Neanderthals Support Evolution?
Recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthals were very intelligent. Erik Trinkans , professor of Physical anthropology at Washington University stated “Neanderthals were people, and they probably had the same range of mental abilities we do. “ Capabilities once thought unique to us have been shown be recent discoveries to have been linked to so called Neanderthals. New Scientist Said “Recent discoveries indicate that Neanderthals built shelters and hearths, controlled fire, wore cloths, and created glue to attach spear points to a shaft.” There is also evidence that they cared for sick individuals, wore symbolic ornaments and buried their dead. Does this sound like things that a primitive person would do.
They try to make claims that apes are proof of evolution. If that is the case why are they still here wouldn’t they have evolved into humans by now. They say that ape DNA is only two 2% different then mans. Anyone who know biology knows that is a huge leap.
They make drawings of what they perceive Neanderthals looked like and yet they don’t have accurate evidence to do that. Forensics expert Carl N Stephan says “Attempts to reconstruct evolution of man with drawings are likely biased, grossly inaccurate and invalid.” His conclusion is “Any facial reconstructions of earlier humanoids are likely to be misleading” In 2008 Scientific American said “Scientist have failed to find correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other. Neither have they been able to discern parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain , except perhaps Brocas area” which is used for speech. A lot of research has show that whales and other animals have a language of sorts. Anyone who has owned a dog knows they even have their own barks that indicate different things. They have their happy to see you bark. They have their hey this is my property bark etc. So even that is not proof of evolution.
Science has shown that if an animal has a mutation of one extra or one less chromosome they usually can’t reproduce and in the rare instance that they can reproduce they are usually weakened or disabled in some way that would hinder their ability to survive making it unlikely to pass those genes on. I have never read any evidence showing these mutations result in a higher species.
Donald Chittick a Physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University said “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their own kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now as in Darwin’s day is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation.”
Earths Symbiotic Relationships Disprove Evolution.
The very fact that almost all life on earth is dependent on each other is proof in itself the impossibility of evolution. Almost all life is dependent on each others existence. The loss of one species of plants or animals can wipe out many others. If we came from a soup of molecules how would multiple of life forms come into existence that are very different but yet dependent on each other? Even fossil evidence shows that those symbiotic relationships have always been there. The bee is Dependant on the flower and the flower is dependent on the bee. There are thousands of examples of symbiotic relationships.
The law of genesis in biology teaches only life can produce life. But they ignore this law with their theories on evolution so they will never be able to answer the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? . For those who believe in a creator they know the answer because they know the creator designed the chicken first. The egg would have needed the mother bird to protect and keep it warm until it hatched.
Scientist have been trying to make a man made cell. Even if they achieve this would it prove that life happened in that molecular soup? Not at all because it has taken a lot of energy,equipment, and knowledge to even get close to making a man made cell.
This reminds me of a joke a friend told me. All the world scientist got to talk to God and they said we don’t need you anymore because we can do everything ourselves, even make a man. God listens and says oh really prove it. The scientist get all their equipment gathered up and they go and gather some dirt up and get ready to go to work and then God responds ah ah ah, get your own dirt.
The Coelacanth Fish
You might ask how can a fish prove that evolution theorist are wrong. Well scientist used to believe from fossils records that the Coelacanth fish had legs, feet and lungs and could walk on land. In 1938 scientist discovered that they still existed and that their skeletal system remained the same. They did not have legs and feet or lungs as they speculated.
The Big Bang Theory
How does the big bang theory prove that we had a creator. It is very simple most scientist agree that all the energy and matter seems to have come out of no where. The only explanations that could be possible is the universe was created.
In conclusion the fact that we have a conscience disproves the evolution theory. Based on the evolution theory something like a conscience would make you weaker and is in contradiction with the survival of the fittest. So why do we have a conscience? Romans 2:14-15 shows we are born with a conscience.
What gets me is they are finding the supposed neanderthals were much more advanced then they once claimed.
Looks like science is quietly throwing evolution out the window. Scientific evidence does not support the possibility of it. Study after study shows how improbable it is to have a mutation form a functional gene.
The molecules already existed and the organisms use them to adapt. This is not evolution but adaptation.
There is also the complication of epistasis is the interaction between genes. When one fail it will effect the outcome. Either by causing it to be ignored or by ending the process. This results in a diseased state. There have been no studies showing a healthy outcome when this occurs.
Then you get papers like this that argue for evolution but use wording showing that things were engineered and that the changes were adaptive. The proteins are in nature and used by the genes to make adaptations but the genes themselves do not change. Reports like this are plague with wording that contradicts the very claims they are making.