| |
26. Peppered Moths |
|
|
| 192 |
This lame argument has
long been used to prove evolution. |
It has never been used to
'prove evolution', but does demonstrate natural selection at work. |
FALSE |
| 193 |
It does describe a form
of evolution, just not the way evolutionists would have you think. This
study simply shows micro-evolution, or change within a kind, not a new
kind coming into existence. |
This is setting up the
straw man argument of micro- against macro-evolution. There is no
distinction in the real world. |
misleading |
| 194 |
It boils down to: when
the trees are white, there are more white moths - conversely, when the
trees are dark, such as from pollution, more of the dark moths survive
to pass this trait along. |
A nice demonstration of
natural selection at work |
TRUE |
| 195 |
The moths are still
moths. They don't become a whole new creature. |
No evolutionary biologist
would claim that they did! |
irrelevant |
| |
|
|
|
| |
27. Archaeopteryx |
|
|
| 196 |
This was originally
thought of as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. |
It still is by many
palaeontologists. |
TRUE |
| 197 |
It is now considered by
most evolutionists as a true bird. |
No it isn't. They argue
about it constantly. |
FALSE |
| 198 |
Furthermore, true birds
have been found much lower in the fossil record, making them older even
than Archaeopteryx. |
No they haven't. This assertion
is made on the basis of preliminary dating of the Chinese fauna, now shown
to be later than Archaeopteryx. |
FALSE |
|
|
Link
- Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning, China |
|
| 199 |
This is another
evolutionary fraud. |
What fraud? Scientists may interpret
data differently; they may change their view as new data come to light.
How does this constitute fraud? |
Ad hominem attack |
| 200 |
Statements made
elsewhere that scales are somehow associated with Archaeopteryx is
a complete falsehood. |
I've never heard this
statement made. However, it is hardly unlikely - after all modern birds
have scales on their legs. |
irrelevant |
| 201 |
Every fossil found shows
evidence of feathers, not scales. |
Not true. Not all fossils
show feathers. |
FALSE |
| 202 |
The only time
evolutionists have seen scales is in artist's renditions. |
Bearing in mind that
modern birds have scaly legs, isn't this a reasonable assumption? |
Irrelevant |
| 203 |
This is an ongoing "ploy"
to dupe the uninformed. |
Utter nonsense. |
FALSE |
| 204 |
Artist's renditions have
been used in this way since the first false transitional. |
Utter nonsense. |
FALSE |
| |
|
|
|
| |
28. DNA |
|
|
| 205 |
Evolution is dead with
the advance of DNA technology. |
The opposite is true. DNA
evidence has provided very strong support for evolution, and has become
a powerful tool in testing hypotheses of evolutionary relationships.
There is a vast amount of information available on-line to support this
assertion: the following links took five minutes to assemble. |
FALSE |
|
|
Link
- Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution |
|
|
|
Link
- Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids |
|
|
|
Link
- NEANDERTALS PLAYED LITTLE PART IN EVOLUTION OF MODERN HUMANS |
|
|
|
Link
- Rates and Patterns of Chloroplast DNA Evolution |
|
|
|
Link
- Evolution of antibiotic resistance genes |
|
|
|
Link
- Parrot evolution and paleogeographical events: mitochondrial DNA
evidence |
|
|
|
Link
- Evolutionary trees of apes and humans from DNA Sequences |
|
| 206 |
Information is always
made by some intelligent personal being. First, the person must purpose,
that is, originate in his mind, the concept of the final product, goal,
or outcome. Then, the person must, by reason, determine the materials,
tools, and specific sequence of steps needed to achieve the goal. So,
clearly, information always comes from intelligent process, from an
intelligent mind. |
An unsupported assertion. |
unsupported assertion |
| 207 |
In the case of the
genetic information system it is very clear that this must be a mind of
supreme intelligence and a person of awesome power. |
An unsupported assertion. |
unsupported assertion |
| 208 |
Science News, Vol. 164
#24, December 10,1994, "Does nonsense DNA speak it's own dialect?"
reported extremely significant results of genetic research. It cited the
December 5, 1994 issue of Physical Review Letters containing research by
molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School and physicists at Boston
University strongly indicating that so-called "junk" DNA, is
not "junk" after all. Their study of 37 DNA sequences
containing 50,000 base pairs from a variety of organisms showed that the
"junk" DNA, amounting to 90% of the human genome, is actually
written in a special language. Their tests showed "language like
properties" in the "junk" DNA indicating it to be
distinctly different from the "code" of the genes. |
If the 'language-like
properties' of junk DNA are different from the code of the genes,
doesn't this support the view that it is junk? |
inverted logic |
| 209 |
Plainly, this
development effectively removes the "junk" which evolutionists
have supposed is left over from eons of evolutionary trial and error,
and enormously strengthens the argument that God just plain made the
genetic code to begin with. |
See my answer above. |
false inference |
| 210 |
It has been wondered
just where in the genome are the instructions that tell the genes when
to "express" and when not to -- so you get fingernails on your
fingers and not on your elbows, for example. It would seem the "junk"
DNA, now discovered to have its own programmed language, will turn out
to be the place. |
Confusing - is the
reference to hox genes? If this is the case, it is nothing to do with
junk DNA. |
incomprehensible |
