Friday, 25 June 2010

An interesting 'how does instinct evolve' fact about orchids

Here is a quote from the Naked Scientists Forum ( - beautifully written till we get to the last idiotic sentence. But you must judge for yourself. I've broken it up into smaller paragraphs for easier reading.

There was a wonderful paper written by a lady called Jennifer Brodmann, who is a researcher at the University of Ulm, and she was on the Chinese island of Hainan looking at an orchid called Dendrobium sinense.

Now, this is a really interesting orchid because no one knew what pollinated it. It makes these beautiful flowers. It's a white flower with a red centre, but it's rewardless.

In other words, the flower doesn't give anybody anything if they come and visit it. So she decided to do a stakeout and she watched this flower , 121 hours of footage to see what came by. And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet.

And she thought, "That's interesting." At closer inspection, revealed that these hornets didn't come in and spend much time loitering there. They flew in and pounced on the flower and then abruptly left.

But when they looked more closely, they saw that as the hornet was doing the pouncing, it was actually depositing a bit of pollen on the orchid, fertilizing it and also picking up some pollen to take to another flower.

So they thought, "There must be something which is attracting this hornet to this flower." So they made extracts of all the chemicals that come out of the flower and they found one really interesting one.

It's eicosen-1-ol. And this particular molecule is a pheromone made by bees. And, in fact, it's an alarm pheromone that bees make when they want to tell other bees about something exciting going on.

And what they realized is that this hornet species eats bees and it feeds the bees to its young hornet larvae.

So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised. And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.

The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.

If you want to read it, it was actually published in Current Biology, last year, Jennifer Brodmann, a wonderful bit of science.

Here's the evolutionary madness in full swing!

The plant somehow 'evolved/ figured out' how to perform this miraculous piece of biochemical wizardry!

BEFORE it did so, it wasn't pollinated at all. Remember what Brodmann found from her stakeout:

"And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet."

Only hornets/wasps did the job.

Therefore, in the time BEFORE any wasps/hornets appeared on the scene, the plant was unable to be pollinated! And therefore couldn't exist!

But it did somehow (heh heh!), and then, miracle of miracles, it performed this miraculous biochemical feat, producing this wonderful chemical which attracted the wasps/ hornets and conned them into fertilising its flowers.

Do you see the role that instinct plays in all this?

The wasps MUST HAVE HAD the instincts in them which caused them to be attracted to the chemical - whether produced by the flower or not. How did they get that instinct? And how did it enter their genome?

The plant MUST HAVE HAD THE INSTINCTS and biochemical mechanisms IMPLANTED completely in ONE GO - or it would have perished! No instinct, no chemical. No chemical, no fertilisation. No fertilisation, extinction followeth immediately.

So dear evolutionary friends, explain to us how this happened.

It is a huge pity that this utterly brilliant piece of research, which deals with the wonders of the natural world, and not with test tube Biology, should be made to serve such an idiotic theory.

Just to remind you of the stupidity:

"So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised.

Heh heh heh! It knows what a bee smells like, you see, and has figured out that if it makes itself smell like one - how to do that, one wonders! - then it'll get pollinated!!!

And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.

Heh heh heh! It figured out how to make the chemicals, guys! I bet there are millions of graduate chemistry students who couldn't figure that one out! And look! It knows about 'subversion'! Quite a brain in that little plant!

The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.

Oooooh! Just look! The plant 'evolved' to have the same 'genetic pathway' or the 'same synthetic pathway' to get itself pollinated!!!!!

Somebody - allegedly intelligent - wrote that nonsense! Should get a PhD in fairy tale writing.

Come on BenV, how can you remain attached to such nonsense?

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

The Herring Gull Chick and its Mother's Red Spot

by Wilfred Alleyne

How Well-Researched Modern Science
Helps You to See That


The Most Completely Overlooked and Fatal Question
Evolution Has Ever Had to Face!

A Herring Gull Chick Taps the Red Spot on Its Mother’s Beak. The Mother Then Regurgitates Fish She Has Caught – So the Chick Can Eat and Survive.

But How Does the Chick Know about Tapping Her Beak? And How Does the Mother Know About Regurgitating?


( A BBC video showing this is here:

But How Did this Instinct Start? And How did it get into the Bird?

The instinct was there in the very first Herring Gull – however many millions of years ago that may be. And it was there complete and fully formed: or there would be no Herring Gulls today.

If the chick didn’t tap, it would have starved. If the mother didn’t regurgitate, again the chick would have starved. BOTH BEHAVIOURS had to appear at exactly the same time.

How did this happen?


After all...

Whoever heard of a new-born baby making a 3000+ mile journey home – on its own? Underwater, at that!

That is exactly what young eels do. Their parents migrate from rivers in Europe 3000+ miles south and southwest, down the west coast of Africa, then turn right and swim to the Sargasso Sea. They spawn there, THEN THEY ALL DIE, AND NEVER RETURN to Europe.

The young eels then swim home to Europe, which is 3000+ miles away. With no guides, no adults to lead them home.

How can they possibly manage such a navigational feat? INSTINCT is the only answer that can be given.

But how did the instinct start? And how did it get into the fish in the first place?
And it had to be there perfectly right from the word ‘go’ – or eels would be extinct too.

They HAVE to get to freshwater – there’s none in the Atlantic Ocean - or they would never reach sexual maturity, and the species would perish. So if the navigational instinct misdirected them, they would swim till they died in salt water, in the Falklands, the Azores, the Arctic Ocean or some other unsuitable place.

‘Extinct’ is probably not too strong a description.

Those are just two of the many startling illustrations of instinct in action found in this book. They are beautiful, bizarre, unbelievably complex examples – and evolution cannot account for the origin of a single one of them.

In every case as you will see, if the instinct is absent, or imperfect, species extinction would immediately follow.



Not only these virtuoso displays of startling behaviour like those above, but EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION, of EVERY SINGLE LIVING CELL, in EVERY LIVING ORGANISM depends absolutely on instinct for its survival.

Evolution argues about how legs, wings, lungs and every other organ could have evolved. Did birds’ wings evolve from reptile forelimbs? Did feathers evolve from scales? Did fish develop legs and walk on land?

All the scientific papers written to prove any of the above cases, and many others, are now irrelevant in the light of this discovery. Imagine that! A single discovery uprooting a major scientific theory!

This happens from time to time. A very recent discovery (published in the January 2010 issue of Nature journal – one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet) showed that a major plank of the evolution of four-limbed animals (called Tiktaalik) was totally mistaken. Hailed as the first species of fish to walk on land, and one possible ancestor of all tetrapods, imagine the absolute horror all round when tetrapod tracks, some 18 or more million years older than Tiktaalik were found!

The Law of Asynctropy, first formally stated in this book, at a single blow destroys all such arguments and makes them totally irrelevant to the facts of every case ever presented as support for the theory of evolution...

It is the most powerful and destructive single piece of evidence ever raised against evolution, which is helpless in the face of the Law.

Take Respiration as the most important example possible.

Today, we can possibly mix all of the chemicals found in the respiratory cycle in a test tube. But respiration will not take place. The powering instinct is absent, the driving force is missing.

This simple fact has huge spin-off consequences for the existence of life itself, and for the inadequacy of evolution theory, which are drawn out in full in the text.

Instinct crosses the barrier of death, somehow.

As in the case of the eels above, there are innumerable examples where the parents die, and the offspring do the same marvellous things that the parents did, WITHOUT EVER SEEING THEM! The young of the Yucca moth (Pronuba spp) does just that.

Just as remarkably, a wasp (Eumenes spp) somehow knows the gender of its young before it collects food for it to eat when it hatches! And provides an escape route for it if the prey gets too frisky in the mud igloo the mother somehow knows how to build!

And just to add more fuel to the fire, the mother anaesthetises the grubs it catches for the young – why? So the young wasp can have fresh, non-putrefying food to eat.

She then dies. The young wasp never sees its parents – but goes on to do exactly the same things the parents did.

The naturalist who first made these observations was stunned at the ingenuity displayed – but this is not intelligence, but instinct in action.

And we’re back to the original problem. How did the instinct originate? And in some ways even worse, how did it ever enter the genome? (Assuming, of course, that it is located there. If it isn’t then the problems for evolution become even more horrendous than they are already).

Again notice – if the instinct was absent or incomplete in any way, then the species would have perished immediately it first appeared on the planet. If the young couldn’t feed, then a single generation was all that could ever have existed.

If it only had putrefying food, it would perish – and without training in anaesthesiology – the mother is able to inject a non-lethal, paralysing dose of venom into the grubs which are going to be eaten by the young wasp.

And all of that so far, is meaningless without the ‘igloo’ she builds. The young would have to forage for itself, the food grubs would scatter to the four winds, and the species would be extinct.

The full development of this concept is given in the text.


One of the very biggest problems for evolution, is that plants ‘act’ with purpose. This is most obvious in the reproduction of plants (and animals, as shown in the Section on ‘Reproduction’ in the text).

That wonderful, and extremely common species called Vallisneria is a pest because of its reproductive success. But the way it reproduces is simply mind-blowing. The female flower - UNDERWATER! – produces a stigma which grows up to the surface of the water, and there is produces a substance which creates a small depression in the water round it. The male flower .... well, you’ll just have to read the book, as that would be giving the wonderful game away!

There are other huge problems too. The second biggest, is the fact that the land plants we see everywhere are supposed to have evolved from the algae (like the seaweeds). How did they get on to land and survive? The process as one evolutionist says ‘ must have been very difficult’!

Plants produce roots, which normally grow downwards into the soil and shoots which grow upwards. They could have done the exact oposite – and perished.

What makes them do this? Instinct. And how did that originate and enter the genome?

The flowering plants appear with extraordinary abruptness in the fossil record. Darwin rightly called their appearance ‘that abominable mystery’. That mystery still remains, and the instinctive behaviour of plants is an embarrassment to the evolutionary botanists. Why do they produce flowers, with pollen and ovaries?

Instinctively, in order to reproduce – because they do not learn how to do so – it is inbuilt into them, and that is a definition of instinct. But where does it come from, and how did it enter the genome?

We could go on, drawing wonderful example after wonderful example from the text, and from nature. But you owe it to yourself to read it.

Read it, and ask your evolutionary friends, teachers and professors for comment and explanation of these facts. Make sure they get a complimentary copy (it’s cheap enough for the time being), and let their cup overflow.

Are you tired of the failure of conventional biology to explain how evolution could have occurred?

Do you need examples to confound the evolutionary establishment?

Why not buy a copy today, and equip your armoury with these armour-piercing shells and bombs that can blow evolution sky-high?

Share the facts and concepts with your children. If you believe in evolution, then forewarn them of the coming deluge.

If you don’t, then here is your battle-axe with well-sharpened blade. Teach them about these facts, and let them go fearlessly into the world of evolution theory and demonstrate its inability to provide explanations for these fatal facts.

It is probably not overstating the case to say that just as Darwin’s Origin of Species overturned the existing scientific world opinion, just so this book will destroy Darwinism and everything that goes with it.

As a special introductory price, this will only cost you £4.97. Go here to order.

Saturday, 12 June 2010

Hey Dawkins, Ruse, whoever supports evolution come forth and debate!

Hey you evolutionists - stop slithering around, and come out and fight like men!

I have an increasingly interesting track record.

I regard these as Medals of Honor, won in the heat of battle! I have now been thrown off

1 The Richard Dawkins forum. not surprising, where I challenged him or his supporters to emerge from hiding and debate like a man. I repeat the challenge.

Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins, if you ever read this, stop skulking in the undergrowth and come forth and fight for your pestilential theory. You might like to read my new book here: and scare yourself silly. It's only £4.97, and I'm sure professorial salaries can run to that.

If any reader is interested in reading high quality abuse and vilification then go here:

These guys are really foul-mouthed. Understandable: when you've nothing to say, abuse is the next best thing.

They really can't stand any informed opposition and intelligent questioning of their theory. Poking the sacred cow with a sharp stick in the behind is not the done thing, obviously.

2 I have been thrown off Physics Forum. Trolling, they say. No answers either! Well, what's new?

3 I have been thrown off the Naked Scientists forum ( they couldn't stand the facts either. But give them their due, they took the blows for a few months before becoming punch drunk.

(Hey, BenV, this is your old friend, Asyncritus again. I should have the democratic right of reply to all these comments that are being made by the readers, as a few of them are at my expense. I've now got your forum nearly 45,000 views of my thread.

Interest is obviously very high - higher than in any other topic or even section of the board - and you've shut me up! Now act like a man. Show some guts and get me back on there so I can lay about me with the sword of instinct!)

4 I engaged in a debate on the Bible Truth Discussion Forum, with Bible-believing Christadelphians, believe it or not, but the debate got shut down just when I'd got the opposition sweating profusely.

5 The saga continues.

But anyone really wishing to read the arguments which I present about instinct, and which are not on this blog, should get a copy of the book here:

It is truly the finish of the theory. It proves that every living function is based on instinct, and since instinct is immaterial it cannot be subject to the usual alleged evolutionary processes.

Therefore evolution is incapable of explaining something which is a universal feature of all life - it's even more essential than DNA, which only functions when the instincts are present.

Worth looking at.

Thursday, 3 June 2010

A fish walking on land!

Let's discuss this business of a fish coming on to land.

Have you ever seen a fish on land after a fisherman has caught it? I have. I've caught many, dropped them on the bank - and they died. You know the expression - 'like a fish out of water'.

Now what makes you think there's any survival advantage in dying when the fish has dried out?

Look at it the other way. How long would you survive if you tried to live underwater? Not very long at all, unless you had diving equipment of some sort. Do you think, for example, that if somebody held your head underwater for 1 minute today, 2 minutes tomorrow, 3 mins the day after that, and so on, after a year like that you'd be able to live underwater? I very much doubt it, because you'd drown somewhere around 7 minutes.

Why do you think things would be different for a fish?

Here's the problem stated very nicely:

"In trying to decipher the evolution of tetrapods from fish, scientists face formidable problems. The transition from water to land occurred long ago, and various family trees suggested by the fossil record are so tangled that scientists acknowledge they may never be able to sort them out definitively".

For a fish to come out on to dry land - which is what we're talking about - it has to have breathing apparatus, like lungs. No fish has lungs - not even the lungfish. Their lungs are totally different to our lungs, and bear no relationship to them.

You ever heard about the coelacanth?

Well. once upon a time, in this sea far away, there lived a fish called Latimeria. Scientists thought that it was a very special fish which could walk out on to land and somehow breathe air! Hoo boy! This great fish was the ancestor of all the land animals or something. It got out and walked in swamps and such places.

And then you'll never guess what happened.

Evolutionists needed evidence to back up the supposed transition of vertebrates from the sea to dry land. For that reason, they took the fossil coelacanth, whose anatomy they believed was ideally suited to this scenario, and began using it for propaganda purposes. They interpreted the creature's fins as "feet about to walk," and a fossilized fat-filled swimbladder in its body as "a primitive lung." The coelacanth was literally a savior for evolutionists bedeviled by such a lack of evidence. Evolutionists had at last laid hands on "one" of the countless missing links that should have numbered in the millions.

Heh heh!

And then.... ta daaaa!

This evolutionist excitement was short-lived,when a living coelacanth specimen was captured by fishermen in 1938. This inflicted a terrible disappointment on evolutionists.

James Leonard Brierley Smith, an instructor in the Rhodes University Chemistry Department and also honorary director of various fish museums on the South Coast of England, expressed his astonishment in the face of this captured coelacanth:

"Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth."

The discovery of this imaginary missing link, once believed to have close links to man's alleged ancestors, in the form of a living fossil, was a most significant disaster for Darwinist circles.

The coelacanth, the greatest supposed proof of the theory of evolution, had suddenly been demolished.

The most important potential candidate in the fictitious transition from the sea to dry land turned out to be an exceedingly complex life form still alive in deep waters and bearing no intermediate-form characteristics at all. This living specimen dealt a heavy blow to Darwin's theory of evolution.

So back to the old drawing board and some more idiotic inventions.

Don't you see how stupid this whole thing is? You take any goldfish and drop him on the floor, then let me know what happens. If he gets up and walks off into the distance, you are the greatest scientific discoverer of all time, and you'll get 25 Nobel prizes for your discovery.

But I think you'll have a big pile of dead stinking goldfish on your floor before that happens. Try it, and see. Let me know how long he can survive out of water. grin

Here's another nice creationist site for you to laugh at:

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

The Non-Evolution of the Angiosperms


For those who may not know, the biggest and most fatal difference between an angiosperm (like an apple) and a gymnosperm (like a fir) is the fact that the 'carpels' (the parts that become the seed/s) are INSIDE the 'sporophylls' in the angiosperms, and OUTSIDE the sporophylls in the gymnosperms. that's an angiosperm shows the differences nicely.

How did the change take place? Nobody has a clue.

The difference is like holding a marble in the palm of your hand, and having a tumour growing INSIDE the palm of your hand. The marble simply cannot enter the tissues and become the tumour.

I was interested to hear the comment that the fossil record is the weakest proof of evolution.

Darwin knew this, and not a great deal has changed since his time, except that the gaps have become wider and deeper. Increasing biochemical knowledge has showed that there is nothing 'simple' in nature, and the folly of supposing that some unicell somehow formed itself in a nice warm soup somewhere and evolved into whales, sequoias and man has been heavily underscored by the biochemists at least.

Yet, this is the cornerstone of all evolutionary theory. It is a clear impossibility as we know: because of the protein formation riddle at least.

Such 'transitional fossils' as have been found answer none of the really serious questions such as the origin of life itself, the origins of animals , plants, the protista, the monera and the fungi.

These mighty groups arrive unceremoniously and abruptly in the fossil records as we all know. Attempts to find pre-cambrian fossils are producing some results - but only serve to push the problem one layer down.

As usual, clad in long words, ignorance lies deeply concealed.

For this thread I'd like to present some more facts about plant evolution which the uncommitted readers may not know, and perhaps the committed may not either.


Plants are eukaryotes ie they have their DNA enclosed in a nuclear membrane. (Bacteria are prokaryotes, whose DNA is NOT enclosed in a nuclear membrane.) That doesn’t sound like much – until you realise that the apparent ‘simplicity’ of the bacterial cell is very deceptive indeed.

Mycoplasma genitalium , which has the smallest genome of any free-living organism, has a genome of 580,000 base pairs (wikipedia). This is an astonishingly large number for such a ‘simple’ organism. Needless to say, the larger prokaryotes are even more complex.

The simplest plants cells ie those containing chlorophyll, present insuperable difficulties for any gradualist theory (the only contender in the field since the Punctuated Equilibrium model was punctured by the gradualist opposition).

What did they evolve from? The answer is ‘nowhere.’ They appear in the fossil record as plant cells ie

1 whose cell walls are made of cellulose, unlike the polysaccharide and PROTEIN walls of the bacteria. How did such an enormous chemical transition take place if eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes? And in any case, how did the prokaryote ever figure out how to manufacture PROTEIN of all things?

2 The molecular level biological structures are also very different. The DNA in the bacterium lies free in the cytoplasm. The DNA in the plant cell is not free, but is enclosed in a double membrane. Darnell points out that: The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely.
Darnell, "Implications of RNA-RNA Splicing in Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells," Science, vol. 202, 1978, p. 1257.

3 There are other very large differences. The genes in a bacterial cell carry the information needed for its life and reproduction only. The genes in plant cells carry the information for a gigantic number of living processes – all crammed into a microscopic space. Where did the information come from? And how did it get into the genes at all?

Some bacteria actually photosynthesise. This means that they have the information needed to construct chlorophyll, and use it, improbable as that sounds. Where did such information come from? And how did it get into the genome? In the bacterium there are no chloroplasts to contain the chlorophyll, but in the plant cell, there are these structures which are by no means simple.

Hoe could such things have come into being?

4 Algae are plants. They are just as complex now as they were when they were first found:

Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa. Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.

The oldest fossils so far discovered are objects fossilized in minerals which belong to blue green algae, more than 3 billion years old. No matter how primitive they are, they still represent rather complicated and expertly organized forms of life.

Not only are they the oldest photosynthesisers, but:

Even today, they are the most highly efficient photosynthesizers on the planet, utilizing light energy, carbon dioxide from the air, and hydrogen and oxygen from the water to synthesize a high energy combination of proteins, carbohydrates (starches and sugars), lipids (fats), nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), vitamins, chlorophyll and other pigments.

So we have the remarkable situation that the most ‘primitive’ algae contain the most amazing substances in the universe (eg chlorophyll), which are STILL the top, most efficient photosynthesisers on the planet! All the ‘evolution’ that has taken place since then, has produced nothing better.

This, I may point out, is precisely what we would expect if the Divine Creator produced the design. It simply cannot be improved.


“Despite these new findings, plenty of mysteries remain. None of the analyses reveals when the first flowering plant appeared on Earth. Amborella is not the first one but, rather, a representative of the first branch from that unknown ancestor.”

You note, the question is ‘when’. The bigger question is not asked: it would be too damaging to the appearance of knowledge. ‘HOW’ is that question. Shtumm.

“Sometime before 140 million years ago, flowering plants, known as angiosperms, diverged from nonflowering seed plants known as gymnosperms. [My comment: Note the assurance of ignorance! They did diverge – but we haven’t a clue how, but we know…] Biologists imagine a tree of life with different groups of animals or plants as branches. Flowering plants branched off from within the branch of seed plants.[Assurance of ignorance again]. The first branch within flowering plants separated Amborella from all the rest.”

Imagine! What a splendid recommendation for a scientific theory. But what else is there if you reject the Creation hypothesis.

"This is probably how the carpel looked in the distant ancestors of flowering plants," Donoghue says. "It’s a neat observation that increases our understanding of how flowering plants originated and what the first ones looked like."

What a pathetic piece of disinformation! ‘Increase our understanding’ indeed! We don’t know anything about how they originated.


Here’s an article about how the algae ‘waded out’ of the water and became all the plants we see today. Read and have a good laugh.

“The first tentative moves that got life out of the water and onto the land eons ago were apparently made by slimy green algae, scientists say, [b]and coming ashore wasn't easy.[/b]” (!!!!!) Ho ho ho!

“The ancient history of land plants is becoming evident because of recent advances in techniques for genetic analysis. It's now possible to look at individual genes in algal cells and higher plants and calculate their similarity.”

I said it before, and I’ll say it again. These ‘molecular biologists’ evidently live with their test tubes stuck over their heads or worse. They haven’t a clue about practical biology.

If they had, could they possibly have spewed such garbage? We’ve all seen, I’m sure, seaweed dead on the shore because it was thrown up, dried out, and died. Out of the water, they die from dehydration. And oxygen poisoning – because the concentration of atmospheric oxygen is so much higher than in water. And gaseous diffusion stops because of the dehydration – so they can’t take in the carbon dioxide needed to photosynthesise, nor can they get rid of the carbon dioxide from their own respiration.

The mineral nutrients they need which are normally dissolved in the water of their environment, cannot be obtained, because there is no water around them any more. So they die.

But, as the article says:

“Clues to the history of such organisms lie within the chemical "spelling"—the sequence similarity—of the organisms' genes. The closer they resemble each other, the closer they are related.”

Here is proof positive that this technique is fundamentally flawed. Whichever higher plant the gene sequences show the closest similarity to, the relationship is really non-existent. An alga cannot crawl out, wade out, or anything else from water and survive for any length of time. Certainly not long enough to reproduce and produce a higher taxon. Therefore, if the gene sequences say that the alga’s closest relative is a redwood, then the interpretation of that sequence data is nonsensical.

Most algae reproduce vegetatively. Therefore there is no, or very very reduced possibility of introducing genetic variability. The sexual reproductive methods, are very complex, and show no indication of having evolved. Some useful diagrams are here:

Read, and ask yourself, how did the plant figure out how to do this?

What is common to BOTH types of reproduction, is that water is needed, no, essential. So even if an alga crawled, waded, whatever on to land (and why should it do so anyway?), it could not reproduce. End of evolution.

“He and several colleagues made it clear that today's multicellular plants, such as corn, cabbages and all the other greenery, arose from a single type of algae.”

I wonder how people can say this stuff with a straight face. And why they aren’t pelted with tomatoes and cabbages for talking such rubbish.

One of the reasons I'm arguing from scripture in this debate, is because of the logical, scriptural consequences of Romans 5, which no-one has yet addressed, and I'd like to hear how a TE can possibly square that circle.

[b]Falsification of evolution is impossible[/b]

The great problem with evolution theory, as many writers have pointed out, is that it cannot be falsified. Nothing can falsify it, and that makes it an article of faith. It also puts it on a par with faith in God. Now that I regard as serious.

I say that it cannot be falsified for the following reasons:

1 If it has been seen to occur (it never has, as far as I know) that's proof of evolution(see, it happened!)

2 If it has not been seen to occur, that's proof too. (Never mind, we know it did, pat pat).

3 If it can account for the origin of anything, that's proof. (see, that's proof!)

4 If it can't, then that's proof too. (Ah the evidence hasn't emerged as yet).

It simply cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Popper says so.

One patronising criticism one hears is 'that's found on a creationist site' as if that invalidates a fact! If one were to say, it's found on [i]talkorigins[/i], and is therefore invalidated, then who knows what wrath will descend? There's a double standard here.

It is also most curious and noteworthy that all of the modern evidence is based on molecular biology. There is no palaeontology or natural history that supports the theory, and to my mind that is the [i]second [/i]most ruinous fact about it.