É bom ler estas frases ( intermediadas com opiniões vindas da minha interpretação dos modelos da Matrix/DNA), pois elas ajudam a pensar o fenomeno da evolução e servem para testar nossas prórprias teorias. Um trabalho meticuloso, bem feito, de coleção por…
Quoting scientists themselves:
“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!” (Professor Harold Morowitz)
Matrix/DNA: Ok, but, natural informations is not in shape of electrons, and so, in shape of photons. Which we don’t know the number. By the way, I don’t agree with chance formation either…
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” (Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)
Matrix/DNA : Porque temos que sair de uma teoria extrema e cair em outra teoria extrema? Você não pode enxergar que existem mais teorias sem serem tão extremas?
“Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as…to make the theory of evolution impossible.” (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)
“A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)
Matrix/DNA: No. A close inspection suggests the empirical impossibility of Darwinism, not about natural evolution.
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in “Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105
Matrix/DNA: O problema é que a origem da vida aqui não foi como a construção de um Boeing 747, e sim, como o desmonte de um existente Boeing 747 para com suas peças e material fazer um pequeno avião. O sistema astronomico – esta galaxia – que produziu a primeira simples célula viva aqui era a maquina mais perfeita possível de ser feita pela Natureza. Entidades muito complexas podem darem um enorme salto construindo coisas muito simples, porem o contrario é impossível: coisas muito simples não podem dar o enorme salto de construírem imediatamente algo muito mais complexo.
Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress…..The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science….I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
Matrix/DNA: You are right, really this non-complete theory have prejudicing scientific evolution into the right and best way for human life’s conditions. But, still, it is better with Darwin than with the creationist myth alone as it were at the Middle Ages.
“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)
Matrix/DNA: Yours own body is the result of a big explosion occurred inside an ovule, when exploded the spermatozoon membrane. But… we know that yours body and that event did not occurred by accident.
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)
Matrix/DNA: Yours mistake is that the formation of life did not occurred from inanimate matter, but, from animated natural systems, which have no fixed limits with animated “life”. Yours problem is that you does not know the astronomical system where this event occurred, and which, produced this event.
ON THE FOSSIL RECORD:
“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.” John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), “Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
“We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information …. ” – D. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25
“The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time.” – David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College
“In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution
ON MISPLACED FOSSILS:
“Evolutionists believe, for example, that the land plants didn’t appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out. Yet over sixty genera of woody plants, spores, pollen, and wood itself have been recovered from lowest ‘trilobite rock’ (Cambrian) throughout the world. The evidence is so well known that it’s even in standard college and biology text books.
“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” David Berlinsky Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.
ON THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)
“We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. …Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.”Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88
“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.” (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the “Hopeful Monster” theory.)
“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “The return of hopeful monsters”. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28
ON CIRCULAR REASONING:
There are twelve major layers that form what is called the standard geologic column. Each of these layers is identified by the fossils that are found in it. But, strangely enough, most often the fossils are dated by the strata in which they are found. Can you see the faulty logic in that approach? Let us read what some evolutionary geologists say:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), “Paleoecology and uniformitarianism”. Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning … because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” Dr. J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science. (1976)
“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.”S. Welles: World Book Encyclopedia Vol.7 (1978) p. 364
“Palaeontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.” S. Welles: World Book Encyclopedia Vol.15 (1978) p. 85
(Samuel Welles was Research Associate, Museum of Palaeontology, University of California, Berkley)
“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here reasoning in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.”
R. Rastall (Cambridge geologist): ‘Geology’ Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 10 1949.
ON THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION:
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-celled marine invertebrates in the lower Cambrian rocks on the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age…
…however when we turn to examine the Pre-Cambrian rocks for forerunners of these early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over 5,000 feet) sections of sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them.” Axelrod (1958), a paleontologist
This evolutionary paleontologist was willing to ask some hard questions about transitional forms showing how one organism turned into another.
Ager, an evolutionary geologist, seems to think this is a problem all the way through the fossil record. He predicted that no matter where we searched we would find: “not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” (This is what the creationist model predicts!)
“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record SUDDENLY and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)
‘Phyletic gradualism [gradual evolution]… was never “seen” in the rocks’.” Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge (both evolutionists).
The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of around 600 million years ago. The animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the necessary evolutionary ancestors:
“It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history…Despite tempting fragments of evidence, such as cutinized [waxy] spores and bits of xylem [wood] dating back to the Cambrian period…” Richard Dawkins,Weier, Stocking, and Barbour
Most evolutionists still believe that land plants didn’t evolve until much later. But notice, the evolutionist argues ‘in spite of the evidence.'”
ON THE “FACT” OF EVOLUTION:
“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the BritishMuseum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species”)
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present has been capable of proof.”
L. Harrison Matthews FRS – Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species – 1971 p.11
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, states that every system left to its own devices will always move from a condition of order to disorder.
“… all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out all by itself.” – Isaac Asimov – “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, You Can’t Even Break Even,” – Smithsonian (June 1970) p.6
“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, NationalCenter of Scientific Research.)
“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, “The emperor has no clothes.” (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)
“The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century.”(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)
“9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view.” (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)
“We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not onlyunproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact.” (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?” (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion….The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational.” (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology atPrinceton University)
“Evolution is faith, a religion.” (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for byDarwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
“There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “general theory of evolution,” and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” (Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)
“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.” (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)
“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that thetheory of evolution is impossible.” (Dr. P. Lemoine, “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?” Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)
“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.” (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by adecline in scientific integrity.” (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)
“The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle—an architect.” (Scientist Allan Sandage)
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?” (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in “The Fresno Bee”, <?August 20, 1959.
ON ACCURACY of RADIOMETRIC DATING:
“It will never be possible to prove scientifically whether the earth and universe are old or young. All calculations involving processes which antedate recorded history must be based on assumptions which can never even be tested, let alone proved, scientifically.” Dr. Henry Morris
“When the blood of a seal freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago.”Antarctic Journal, Vol.6 – (1971) p.211
“Richard Leakey’s ‘1470 Man’ was variously dated using the same rocks, the same equipment and the same technicians, at both 220 million years and 2.6 million years BP.
Similarly, rocks associated with Louis Leakey’s ‘Nutcracker Man’ gave a date of 1 .75 million years, although material from the same stratum submitted to Carbon 14 dating gave an age of 10,000 years.
A single sample of rock, one of many brought back from the moon, was dated by the uranium-thorium-lead method to give results ranging from 5.4 billion years (somewhat more than the estimated age of the moon) to 28.1 billion years (half as old again as the greatest estimate of the age of the universe!).
Results have been published that show that recently erupted rocks have been dated at 22 million years old by the Potassium Argon method … The hair on a mammoth was found to be 26,000 years old while the peat in which the mammoth was preserved was measured by the same Carbon 14 technique and found to be only 5,600 years old.” Dr. D. Rosevear Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry
“If a C14 date supports our theories we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put if in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it” Professor Brew (1970 – speaking at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile) – The Revised Quote Book – p.23
“Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
“No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error”. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.
ON WHY EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE AS THEY DO:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist