Scientific article rebutting evolution, what do you think?

First, the genome is not made up of "words." A single strand of nucleotides can code for hundreds of proteins, depending on which nucleotides are transcribed and which are left untouched. A set that produces one protein is called a "gene", but the same set transcribed in a different way is another "gene". There is no one to one correspondence between strands of DNA and genes. Thus, a single change in one nucleotide can effect dozens of genes.

Next, the mechanisms for transcription are not in the DNA itself, but are epigenetic. Evolutionary changes need not be on the level of DNA, they could be in the epigenetic mechanisms, etc. Thus, the "language" analogy breaks down exactly where this author wants it to do work.

Finally, this or any other purely logical argument is irrelevant in the face of evidence. Evolution is a fact, with more evidence to support it than all but a handful of scientific theories. The theory explains *how* it happens, because we already know *that* it happens.

It is only the American cult churches, the home schooled and the twisted thinkers that try to rebut evolution - and that is just the christian churches view!!

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!!

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!

Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at your expense!!

Skippy, I even have rebutted and refuted the meant evolutionary "reality" numerous cases in R&S as have numerous different Christians. I the two get thumbs down or disregarded thoroughly by using the meant "specialists" in R&S. I even have yet to get a rebuttal. needless to say a Christian who surely has an answer frightens some evolutionists. it fairly is the reason I seldom answer those varieties of questions anymore. I in no way get any responses returned except it fairly is the two YouTube or a "link" such as you published. Creationists are constantly accused of quoting from Scripture to coach a factor yet evolutionists posting outdoors hyperlinks and video clips is doing the comparable ingredient. feels like a double huge-unfold to me.

Why *would* there be a scientific article rebutting evolution when evolution is a well known theory and fact that is accepted by 99.7% of scientists in the relevant field and it is not debated in the scientific community?

... Cat in the Hat? Really?

One scientist out of thousands rebutting evolution. However, he uses poor sources (ie. Dr. Behe) and butchers other evidence related to the theory.

Considering a majority of the scientific world thinks other wise. . .

Great article, proves people just jumped on Darwin's theory without having any factual evidence to support his claims.

Was this written by a scientition with a PHD in truthology? LMAO!

Cat in the Hat?

Sorry Evolution has pretty much been proven:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/08...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2254884/New-bir...

you fail.