myDigitalLife Blogs

A short description about your blog

Evolution - The Final Blow

Posted by: guardian angel

Tagged in: Untagged 

guardian angel
This blog has been created to answer some of the statements that were raised by an “evolutionist” on MDL and i felt that it was necessary for all to see what was being said, as I believe that it would benefit all of those that are seeking answers to this age old question of Evolution. I must mention I am merely a scholar on this subject and always try to seek the truth.
It began with the statement ...“ enables you to copy & paste a complete load of nonsense, so littered with fallacies it is difficult to know where to start!!   I actually think it is not worth responding to a lazy copy & paste (the original piece was not even written by a biologist, but a computer programmer...).”
Let us look at this statement . It does not mean that if a person is a computer programmer he does not have the ability to put forth a logical argument (ie Pythagoras was primarily a philosopher and yet one of his greatest achievements was mathematics – Theorom of Pythagoras. I also needed to copy and paste due to not wanting to misquote. And yet the writer didn’t have a problem recently when he copied and pasted pictures misrepresenting what it stood for and refused to accept any explanation when provided with verifiable facts.
Another statement was “But just because we do not know that does not make the whole theory false.” ....It may mean that some rethinking needs to be done, depending on what comes out”. We agree with that, however, this method would only prove true if anything of the theory is proven. One needs to prove a theory, not the other way round. You cannot prove a negative that carries no weight. In fact there has been more to disprove evolution to the point that people have had to falsify their submissions in order to try and prove their point (eg  Haeckle fraudulently altered the embryonic stages of growth; Piltdown Man hoax, etc). Given all this evidence it is legitimate to ask why hasn’t this theory been tossed into the dustbins of history. Instead it is taught in schools today as a factual theory on par with proven theories, like Pythagoras.
As for genes, genetics seems to disprove evolution. See below site highlighting Darwin thinking vs Mendels experiments pertaining to genetics :
The other buzz word amongst evolutionists is “mutation” and yet there is not a single documented example of a positive mutation (ie an orange without seeds. While it may be a useful mutation, it is not necessarily a positive mutation because those oranges cannot reproduce)
The writer also mentioned “.....the great Ibn al-Haythem” whose scientific method is practised all around the world. We agree with this but when that observation proves that there is a problem with the theory, then the theory itself should be rejected – categorically (eg black cannot be white.  Hence the idea is repulsive). I would like to know where the writer got the statement “attack the text and disbelieve everything our ancestors tell us”? In fact, being a devout Muslim, he says “the seeker of the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them”. He wrote, “but rather, the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration”. In simple terms what he is saying is not to follow blindly. Question everything. This can nowhere be misunderstood as rejection. It says if it is true, accept it, if it is false, reject it.
As demonstrated, evolution is false – reject it. To end here is a test that I have done with my 8 year old who knows nothing of evolution. I took his bionical (lego type toy) and put it together without his knowledge. I then told him that it actually formed by itself. Naturally he rejected this and went on to demonstrate how he could reconstruct it, claiming that it is impossible for his bionical to be put together by itself. I would love for anyone who believes in evolution to try this simple experiment, and then notice, no matter how young or old, how quick this idea becomes unrealistic. 
Comments (11)Add Comment
written by Dissol, February 18, 2009
That's a brilliant scientific test that clearly disproves could we all have been so silly...all we needed was to hand out lego to schoolchildren!!! I guess that if you are to describe me as an "evolutionist" then you also need to refer to me as a "gravitationalist" & a "generaltheoryofrelativityist" (my office call me something else!!!)

I am happy to try to answer sensible questions, and investigate claims further...but if we are discussing science, then can we limit the research to scientific data, and websites.

Indeed I have already answered many of the questions that you pose already, if you care to have a look at some previous posts.

How do you explain that when Darwin noted similarities between humans & chimpanzees, and then when genetics were discovered, and DNA, that we find we are genetically 98% similar? Or that we have the same retro-viruses (most of which serve no purpose in the genetic make up, but can clearly be seen and shown in the genes?

How do you manage to explain the fossils, that Darwin's theory posited would be found...and then the prediction proved correct? How can you explain that it has never been falsified?

You are right; the scientist of Baghdad suggested that should the observations not meet the theory then it should be rejected...but guess what? ALL the observations fit! Without rushing off into the supernatural (which is the only answer "answersingenesis" can offer). See if you can come up with the clear cases where evolution has been disproved? At the moment this theory is safer than gravity!

That is not to say it cannot be thrown out though...of course it can be...anytime. But that has not happened yet...and each year of testing makes the theory stronger, each new fossil find strengthen's the theory so far. Remember one wrong fossil in the wrong strata and a major re-think is required!

An orange without seeds is very, very easy to produce actually. It is called an F1 hybrid, by cross breeding across species. It often produces sterile (lack of seeds) produce, but there is often noticable hybrid vigour. This came out of Mendel's work. It is not due to a mutation.

There is a lovely podcast put together by the Royal society, which goes into great depth on the issues that you raise. I can search out the address for you, if you would wish?

By the way, do you go for young earth creationism, old earth creationism, islamic creationism, or perhaps another form? Just intrigued as there are a few different views it seems, which are clearly not compatible with one another. I am delighted to be able to discuss this (my own sphere of science is not biology, so I guess I only also qualify as a scholar!).
written by thenack, February 18, 2009
No Dissol, the LEGO example is exactly accurate of what evolution suppose happened.

Life needs basic building blocks. So lets suppose that they are available (which they would not have been without prior life, but lets leave the evolutionists to come up with some more rediculous explanatiosn for this)

so like the lego blocks , lets a*sume the basic building blocks are available. Evolution supposes that givena enough time, these blocks will start to magically a*semble themselves in different structures untill one works. The basic point is that in nature, everything reverts to disorder, not order. Energy and information is needed to keep things the way they are, and even then they go downward. Not become more complicated by themselves.

Genetic similarities may just as well point to a common designer. No point here really.

Fossils were mostly laid down by sediment bearing water laid down by Noahs flood. The order of fossils is not nearly as repeatable as you would have us believe. Evolutionists usually make predictions, and then keep on searching untill they finally find something that fits. How does this prove evolution? It is circular reasoning.

Anyway, mutations, and viral splining of genetic information ALWAYS operate on existing information, and the best it can do is to swop information, and usually it actually destroys information, as with mutations. Upward genetic gain (increased informatin) has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. So how does evolution happen. You can have dogs turn into big dogs and small dogs, because each lost information, you cannot have cats turn into dogs.

Now do not dodge this point, because this is exactly what evolution teaches.

Please find the podcast.
written by thenack, February 18, 2009
"Remember one wrong fossil in the wrong strata and a major re-think is required! "

THis happens all the time, in fact there are living animals today that were thought to have been extinct for gazilions of years. How wrong can one be...and why didn't these creatures evolve for billions of years and are the same today as they are in this fossils.

Many fossils are found in the wrong place, and the worst is, when a fossil is found in a strata where it is not supposed to be, people just give it a new name, even if it is identical to something that should'nt have been there.

Strange as it may seem, Darwin himself said that the fossil record is "one of the most obvious and serious objections which could be urged against the theory," and "the absence of transitional forms between species...presses
hardly on my theory."

Read this concise and briliant piece on the matter:
written by Koo, February 18, 2009
written by Dissol, February 18, 2009
I am not trying to dodge any point, and enjoy good discussions...and I am not meaning to offend...

I do not think that you understand the process of evolution, when you compare it to a lego model at all... That begs the a*sumption that everything we see is perfectly designed...and looking at my own bionical body, it is far, far from well designed.

I will agree, that given the current knowledge (which is the rider one that is a*sumed with any scientific understanding), that we cannot know for certain yet what first caused the first life on the planet, there are various hypotheses, and several are being tested. But here we are talking about evolution, and not abiogenesis, yes?

But going back to the use your example. So you have your bionicle and it looks pretty cool with its arms and legs and helmet. And let's for the sake of argument say that you have a mrs bionocle too...and they are living happily in bionicle land. They are able to mate, and to produce baby bionicles, who eventually can mate...and on we go.

Now they have all this armour an helmets to protect them from the baddies. It is heavy stuff to lug about...but it keeps them alive, they need the heavy armour to stop being eaten by the baddies. But the baddies (because of the heavy armour), have moved on, or found easier prey. So future generations are carrying around this heavy armour for no real is sort of just there (similar, say to body hair on serves no purpose, as we don't need fur to keep us warm any more). So zip forward a few generations...& we find that the armour is not really needed anymore. But some of the bionicles with the lighter armour find that they can swim, and some bits of the armour are useful in their swimming style. This enables them to reach other areas, and be more successful in finding food. So, especially, in times of limited food, these ones are the most successful, the bionicles with the really heavy armour just cannot swim well enough, and so they never make it to breeding to pa*s on the heavier armour in their genes.

Zip forward some more generations and we find that the heavier armour population has given way to lighter armoured bionicles. Then (to get onto ways mutations may work), as is the way with breeding there have been many mutations over the generations...many have no effect...some of the mutations mean that they are weaker, (maybe heavier armour again), and so don't survive. But one particular mutation means that the armour on the legs is not properly formed, and it is say only attached at one place. Which means it can 'flap' a bit. Now this bionicle finds that by flapping the armour it can swim even better...and so survives, and breeds, and it pa*ses on this mutated gene to its offspring. Thereby making its offspring 'fitter' for this new, wetter environment. And so it goes on like that.

Zip forward another few generations (it does take time, and we know it takes time, looking at the fossil record), and we find that bionicles are lighter, and with flippers now, rather than the 'original' bionicles we have. In fact they are quite different in many ways, as each generation has inched further away over time. They don't even look like the 'originals' any more...

Genetic similarities may well point to a common designer (but as that is outside of the scientific realm, if we are looking for scientific answers it does not help us). If we think that is the answer, then we can shrug our shoulders and accept that. End of discussion if that is what we want to believe. But, to me, that sounds like a cop out. Why does the sun come up each morning? One answer could have been, that is how a designer wanted it. In which case we can stop there. Or, maybe there is an answer that lies in the natural world. I find it remarkable that the species which Darwin suggested share common ancestors with us also have remarkably similar genes. We can then also use the genes to discover which ancestors are shared by which species. It also becomes useful in medical research and the like.

Hmmm...fossils laid down by a huge flood... Why do we find them in different aged rock then? If they were all laid down by one event, then we should find them all on one level, but we don't...they are spread through the strata in exactly the way that Darwin predicted. Older fossils in older rocks.

Looking at the fossil record, we can see that around 95% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet have become extinct. To me that hardly points to a good designer?

Actually it has been observed that mutations can give a positive, and not only a removal. Because evolution happens so slowly over the generations, it is necessary, if you want to observe it, to choose something that replicates quickly. So many different lines of research have done just that. There was a really interesting one done over 25 years with E.coli which allowed evolution to be seen, and recorded.

But even without this, the scientific theory holds up. In the same way, we have not found or seen the Higgs Boson, which physicists think is necessary to explain our current understanding of gravity. We have never seen this particle (and may never do so), but that on its own does not negate our present understanding of gravity.

As to the podcast; I would highly recommend the Royal society podcasts, as they are generally well presented by some of the leading figures in the different fields. You can either search for the Royal Society in iTunes, or go straight to the webpage:, if you look down the page, the one I am referring to is "Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right" - Professor Steve Jones FRS. But there are a few other good ones on there too.

I am not knocking computer programmers or mathematicians per se. But given the huge choice we have available to us on the internet, it means that we are able to find experts in the specific field we are looking for. As you rightly corrected my quote; you are more likely to get correct information on say islamic texts if you ask a muslim scholar, rather than an amateur like me. If I want to know about engineering, then it makes sense to talk to an engineer, or mechanic who does that as his profession, and not a shop keeper, who dabbles on his car on a weekend. Of course, that is not to say that the shopkeeper could be the next Mr Porsche, but it is more unlikely. There is a fabulous website put together which tries to pull in all the different threads of these discussions in a non-confrontational way - which I would also recommend.
written by robertbravery, February 18, 2009
Great post. I posted an article on my blog about the recent news that Churches in Oxford are holding a conference to celebrate Darwin and His theory of evolution. I got so knocked down. Its a breath of fresh air to see your post.
written by Dissol, February 18, 2009
What I meant about being lazy, was that 90% of your post was a cut & paste from another place...just give a link, and then people can read it there, and then build from there...
written by thenack, February 18, 2009
You are describing natural sellection, c'mon, get with the program.

ZIPZIP as much as you want, an amoebas DNA will not increase, it can only change, or if it is lucky, borrow DNA from another. The total information in the system will remain the same. Inteligence does not happen by chance.
written by Dissol, February 18, 2009
Of course I am describing natural selection; that is the one of the building blocks of introduced by Darwin.

The claim that evolution cannot create new information has been widely rejected by the scientific community. Take a look at (where I suggest that you follow the links as they answer many of the claims from your own favoured source of information) or perhaps for a more detailed list of responses, have a look at

But again this is a scientific explanation. There may be a religious explanation...but that cannot be dealt with on scientific grounds. So rather (as you appear to be saying) that you are right, and I am wrong. I am saying that either of us could be right. But my approach is a scientific one, your approach is a religious one. For the same reason that evolution should not be taught in religious studies, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms. They are just different approaches. Evolution does not mean atheism. One can hold deep religious views and still be comfortable with evolution. I am not sure that one could be an atheist and be comfortable with creationism though...I can't imagine that. But that does not make a comment that either approach is any better than the other. They are different ways of looking at things. The scientific approach encourages investigation, testing, and experimentation. The religious approach does not.
written by thenack, February 18, 2009
Well Dissol, I don't either of us are able to understand anything on that page. I'll have to get that degree first.

It seems then we have come to the question of wether or not any type of mutation or "random" process can in fact "create" new information. In the case you referenced, this would that shift mutations created a new enzyme that could digest nylon. the other side would be to show that the ability to change food sources is somehow build into the gogga so that it can adapt.

Perhaps we should get a new post on this, it is a little techical to have mixed in here and will require some reading.

From bother sides of this debate it is clear that nobody really knows how to define what happened there.
written by Dissol, February 18, 2009
Well, to be honest thenack, that is the biggest problem with most science, I think; it is complicated, and difficult to understand. It does require time to read, and to digest, and to assimilate what you are being told. I honestly do not think it is down to intelligence; if I am able to get a Masters degree in science (but not in this field), then believe me, anyone can! :grin

But you have to be prepared to read, read, and then read some more. Often I will read a scientific paper, and get to the end, and decide I have no idea what the article is I have to read it again, and again, sometimes with markers and pens, and whatever in my hands to highlight the facts.

Where I have an unfair advantage over the general population is actually my disability. I have to lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle, certainly not through choice, but that is just the way it is. I cannot get into friends houses, cinemas, theatres, restaurants, cafes, (even places of worship!...ok that one is not so important to me, I'll admit). I also have a short attention span with most TV programmes. I also am an insomniac. This all adds up to loads of reading time!!! I also like to immerse myself in learning. I am naturally inquisitive. I used to be very active, but can no longer do any of the pastimes and hobbies that I used to do. So I read a lot. I enjoy researching. I am in the process of starting a PhD.

But...given the option...I would not bother! I am sure that if I had the use of my legs, I would never have found MyDL. Sure, I was an atheist before all this & sort of remotely interested in science, but to be honest, I never thought much about it. I would listen to different people talk about their different belief systems, and never really give it too much serious thought. I would rather be riding my motorbike, going to the gym, whatever, than taking time out to think about these things. I am sure that 99% of the people reading our comments feel the same as I used to...boring! Oh come on get over it! We have been here before... etc, etc. (Watch, few people will comment on that!!). We could slide in a few Zuma for presidents in here, and no one will notice!!

And this is the issue. Science is tricky. It takes time to understand it. Time that the average person does not have. Or if they do have they would rather be doing something (anything?!) else! Much easier to ignore it...and stick with whatever you think now. Maybe there is a whole post needed on this...but I fear no one will read it!!!

The other problem...and I know I am guilty of this...but when you have taken the time to understand an issue, and you are debating it with someone who has not bothered to read up on it. It becomes clear, and it becomes nearly impossible to stop a sort of smugness coming into the discussion. When I lecture, it is one thing that I try really, really hard to avoid. I think it is more difficult to do without body language or the like maybe... Pure text is not great at emotions...

Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.


Member Login