The Data Continues To Disagree With Evolutionary Assumptions

One of the most fundamental principles within the framework of evolution is a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time. As technology has improved, the empirical evidence has failed to confirm it but rather is falsifying this belief…

Let’s start with, Cosmology. It’s been alluded to in comments in this blog (here) after making a point about the Hubble discovering them back in 1995, more mature galaxies would be discovered. Confirmation has been accommodating! The most recent setback for galaxy formation theories was discovered using gravitational lensing.

The Hubble Telescope team announced

“Johan Richard, the lead author of a new study [1] says: “We have discovered a distant galaxy that began forming stars just 200 million years after the Big Bang. This challenges theories of how soon galaxies formed and evolved in the first years of the Universe. It could even help solve the mystery of how the hydrogen fog that filled the early Universe was cleared.”

Make note of this, there are more mature galaxies or stars deeper in space that have yet to be discovered! Has maturity in the vast deep regions in space been the only thing complicating on what evolutionary scientists believe in galaxy formation? No! It’s also happening in biology.

Live Science reports

“Most of the time we assume that life originated in the oceans, that the primary divisions and the events of evolution took place there,” study researcher Paul Strother, of Boston College, said. “The fact we are finding this complexity and diversity means that the eukaryotes probably had some history of evolution in the freshwater.” 

Science Daily also reported

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the leap from tiny, simple bacterial (prokaryote) cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land. The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land.”

Even with the evolutionary assumptions on dating, the data is not giving evolutionary scientists what they want. a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time is being eroded all the time with the advancement of science. It wouldn’t be surprising to see secular scientists embracing a shift in the speed of evolution to warp speed or even instant evolution. So these ‘theories’ are not explaining nature or the universe but rather the data is explaining the ‘theories’ themselves. New discoveries hasn’t been complicating creationism rather it has been making its case even stronger!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Data Continues To Disagree With Evolutionary Assumptions

  1. One of the most fundamental principles within the framework of evolution is a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time.

    First sentence, three mistakes of fact. About average for Michael.

    (1) Biological evolution is not necessarily slow. Bananas evolved in two years Adruiatic frogs in about 30. Cichlids are veritable quick-change artists.

    (2) Whay do creationists all believe that evolution necwessarily increases complexity? FAIL. (Why would they even believe that design increases complexity?)

    (3) Michael’s first example of “evolutionary” problems lies in cosmology, which even creationists think do not show the characteristics of biological evolution..

    Hopeless. Michael again proves hopeless.

  2. Michael, can you explain what a ‘mature’ galaxy is ?

    The authors of the article, some of which I know personally, would balk at your statements. There is no problem for all galaxy formation models, just for some: they’ve seen oldish stars, not old galaxies. I’ve read the paper. I work on this topic. My own models still works perfectly fine.

    They claim stars start forming 200 million years after the ‘big bang’ (lousy term still), stars they now see in a galaxy that exists 600 million years later than those stars formed. Big deal.

  3. E#elco, sa typical comment from Michael. One thing we have noticesd about creationists is that they have all had their humor organs removed at birth. They do not understand sarcasm, and fail miserabl;y when attempting it.

    .

    Oncer again, Michael has been caught in falsehoods by one who actuqally knows something about the field.

    The purpose of this post is to hide the fact thqat he’s a no-show in the previous post. MICHAEL CANT EVEN NAME ANY OF THE “STRENTHS AND WEAKNESSES” THAT HE WANTS JUNIOR-HIGH TEACHERS TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR STUDENTS.

  4. @Michael,

    Even with the evolutionary assumptions on dating, the data is not giving evolutionary scientists what they want…

    As usual, Michael does not understand what scientists are in for.. Scientists DO NOT want a particular result… Funny that creationists do!

    …. a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time is being eroded all the time with the advancement of science.

    And here Michael shows yet again he does not understand evolution: Evolution does not necessarily lead to more complexity over time. It may; it may not.

  5. @Michael,

    Are you going to lecture me about how teens have babies to determine how mature a galaxy is?

    Interesting to note that Michael is avoiding Eelco’s point completely.

  6. . . . . . The Data Continues To Disagree With Evolutionary Assumptions

    And every 10.3 seconds the data disagree with creationist assumptions. Yet you’ll never hear about that from Michael.

  7. Michael,

    Are you serious?

    I live in a country where nobody takes creationism seriously. I am always amazed when I read creationist stuff. I sometimes wonder if creationism is a joke intended to make Americans look stupid.

  8. @Herpy McDerp

    I live in a country where nobody takes creationism seriously. I am always amazed when I read creationist stuff. I sometimes wonder if creationism is a joke intended to make Americans look stupid.

    The U.S. certainly has among the lowest Science standards in the world. Is it a coincidence that we also have one of the highest populations of Creationists in the world?

  9. Michael:

    “I take it your [sic] French, or live in France. ”

    Michael, there are many other countries where creationism is universally thought to be a joke. Including the largest two.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s