Why do they teach evolution as a fact?

Evolution makes zero sense. Research indicates that a division of life into two major groups, the prokaryotes and eukaryotes, is not so simple. Although similar in cell structure, prokaryotes include at least two fundamentally distinct types of bacteria: the eubacteria and the archaea. An examination of equivalent DNA sequences reveals that eubacteria and archaea are as distantly related to one another as they are to the eukaryotes. Although eubacteria and archaea are similar in cell structure, some genetic processes in archaea, like transcription, are more similar to those in eukaryotes, and the archaea may actually be closer evolutionarily to eukaryotes than to eubacteria and from an evolutionary perspective, there are three major groups of organisms: eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes.

Transcription, as previously mentioned, has similarities in eukaryotes and archaea, suggesting that these two groups are more closely related to each other than either is to the eubacteria. Eubacteria and archaea are superficially similar, both are unicellular and lack a nucleus, but results of studies of their DNA sequences and other biochemical properties indicate that they are as distantly related to each other as they are to eukaryotes.

Molecular genetics can't even explain why archaea has the same transcription sequence as multicellular organisms and yet hasn't evolved into a multicellular organism (archaea uses unformylated methionine during its DNA transcription just like a multicellular organism).

Attached: Conjecture.jpg (479x327, 103K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/
anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/02/07/radiocarbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188
youtube.com/watch?v=l17WAyNAHfQ
nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/birds-on-an-island-in-the-indian-ocean-evolved-flightlessness-tw.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Homology disproves evolution.

The development of the vertebrate kidney shows that different organs aren't generated from homologous embryonic tissue in several species. In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, but in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney. It's formed from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros. The alimentary canal is formed differently in different vertebrates. In sharks it is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity and in the lamprey it is formed from the floor of the gut, from the roof and floor in frogs and from the lower layer of the blastoderm in birds and reptiles.

A stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? When you study the sequences you could say there is five gaps and six base substitutions, but it could just as easily be two gaps and nine substitutions or five gaps and three substitutions.

The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequence in the other species?

The answer is that no one knows.

Attached: 1554745524442.png (1144x225, 13K)

Mutation rates in prokaryotic cells are calculated per cell division and when you look at what causes mutations it is mostly spontaneous replication errors. Replication is amazingly accurate because fewer than one in a billion errors are made in the course of DNA synthesis. So when bacteria propagate themselves they rarely produce new genetic features and when they do it's harmful, genetic mistakes that aren't beneficial to the organism (typical mutation rates for bacterial genes range from about 1 to 100 mutations per 10 billion cells, which is practically nothing).

A huge amount of genetic information and an enormous number of cell divisions are required to produce a multicellular adult organism. Even a low rate of error during copying would be catastrophic. A single-celled human zygote contains 6 billion base pairs of DNA. If a copying error occurred only once per million base pairs, 6000 mistakes would be made every time a cell divided and those errors would be compounded at each of the millions of cell divisions that take place in human development.

Neurofibromatosis is a disease that produces numerous tumors of the skin and nerves. It results from mutations in a gene called NF1 and it shows how synthesis of DNA is a complex process, fundamental to cell function and health, in which dozens of proteins, enzymes, and DNA structures take part in the copying of DNA. All you need is a single defective component, such as a DNA polymerase and it will disrupt the whole process and result in severe disease symptoms.

As an example, HIV’s reverse transcriptase is very error prone, giving the virus a high mutation rate and allowing it to mutate rapidly within a single host. This rapid mutation makes the development of an effective vaccine against HIV very difficult.

You think this proves evolution is real according to your mental gymnastics. But it doesn't. All it does is prove that HIV rearranges its nucleotides. It doesn't evolve into something else. It's still HIV.

There are different mutations, by the way, like somatic and germ-line. Somatic mutation arises once in every million cell divisions, and so hundreds of millions of somatic mutations must arise in each person. Many somatic mutations have no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism, because the function of the mutant cell, even the cell itself, is replaced by that of normal cells. However, cells with a somatic mutation that stimulates cell division can increase in number and spread. This type of mutation can give rise to cells with a selective advantage and is the basis for all cancers.

But germ-line mutation can be passed to future generations, producing individual organisms that carry the mutation in all their somatic and germ-line cells. When we speak of mutations in multi-cellular organisms we’re usually talking about germ-line mutations. In single-cell organisms there is no distinction between germ-line and somatic mutations, because cell division results in new individuals.

By default, bacteria should mutate more often, developing into new organisms by the millions but you still don't see bacteria evolving into other types of bacteria or even multicellular organisms for that matter.

Many people like to use fruit flies like an example of evolution. Fruit flies will complete an entire generation in about 10 days at room temperature, and so several generations can be studied within a few weeks. How can any serious scientist claim that you can conflate several fruit fly generations with human ones? The life spans are completely different. Even if you would study fruit flies and their offspring for 50 years in a row, and during those 50 years you could study 100 000 consecutive generations and more, you still would only be able to see differences in eye color, size and weight, just like in humans.

They wouldn't turn into moths or any other flying insects.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/
>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability

No one knows the exact DNA sequence that corresponds between humans and apes. It's all guesswork.

anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/02/07/radiocarbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/
>the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Cosmic rays and changes in Earth’s climate can cause irregularities in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere
>it is only accurate from about 62,000 years ago to 1,200 A.D

Carbon dating is extremely unreliable when you try to date anything older than 60 000 years old.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188
>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity.
>However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances.

J.G.Funkhouser and J.J.Naughton used the potassium-argon method on volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages of up to 3 000 000 000 years when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.

Mentally ill people hate Christianity so much they invent all kinds of junk science trying to prove they are the only gods that exist. Evolution is the go-to junk science theory that feeds their narcissism.

Evolution is a state sponsored religion. It's all bullshit, but you will never convince people of that. Probably not worth the effort anyway.

Yep, it was actually a bronze age semitic skywizard