July 23, 2008

Evolution is a fraud! now Evolution Exposed!

Seven reasons why Evolution is a fraud.

1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work — to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people — was not. (evofraud.com)

Also, Hitler even tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race because of the belief of evolution. Please tell me honestly does evolution really sound logical to you personally? Really? Is this a great example of mass hysteria?

1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"

This will go down in history of mankind's biggest blunder.

UPDATE: I am not the only one that holds this viewpoint. Many highly accredited Scientists believe in a Creator instead of evolution. Here is a little handy list: A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM Here is another: Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE and another with comments: Creation Scientists and Teachers Comment

I briefly skimmed this article called: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution which has good referenced facts in it.

Thanks to that article (Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution) I found out about A book that was written and is available online to read if you choose. It's called The Evolution Deceit

UPDATE2: An atheist with a PhD and is a microbiologist said: "It's not contradicting myself at all. You still think that evolutions "is the consensus view." as you claimed which is false.

This [paltry] list of "700 scientists" was far surpassed by the "steve list" in a very short time."


So I wrote:

Dude, you just appealed to authority, give me a break. Wake up! Are we going to just keep comparing groins? I am getting tired of this conversation.

If one scientist, just one, is questioning the results and interpretation of the data, it warrants review again. These pseudo-scientists are just rubber stamping things to acquire funding and fear of their peers. You call it 'proof' I call it failed experiments with extreme bias and assumptions. But we all will know soon now won't we.

"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of Being, necessarily existing" Sir Isaac Newton (Ibid, 506)

TBC

94 comments:

  1. Seven Reasons why Christianity is Wrong

    1. Mayonnaise. According to Genesis 98:20, the only thing that God ever created was mayonnaise, and mayonnaise is the only thing that has ever existed. Obviously, this is absurd.

    2. Christianity is anti-sports. 2/3 of Americans love sports, and yet the Church condemns it.

    3. African scorpions are more venomous than North American scorpions, unlike what was predicted by the Koran.

    5. No one likes whales anymore.

    6. Christianity is a science. That's right, a science. Christians rely on evidence, not faith. It's not a true religion.

    And there you have it. Seven reasons why Christianity is wrong. Much respect to Poe's Law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason,

    Poe's Law, nice. You still can't refute/deny evolution is a fraud!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, Dan, despite the lovely Planet of the Apes pic, you score zero for seven.

    1. Wrong. Evolution, including speciation, has been observed, in the laboratory and in the wild. It has made successful predictions.

    2. Wrong. Strangely enough, it is only those sciences that more or less directly contradict the Bible- cosmology, geology, and evolutionary theory- that have "legitimacy problems", and only among fundamentalists. Quite a coincidence, isn't it?

    3. Wrong. Natural selection is anything but random chance.

    4. Wrong. See #3.

    5. Wrong. See #3. Neither Hoyle nor Borel were educated in biology, and they did not take natural selection into account.

    6. Wrong. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, so it counts as a science, not a religion.

    7. Wrong. Sure, Darwin and Huxley were racists by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln was also a racist. By the way, Darwin was an outspoken foe of slavery, something that cannot be said for most Christians in the southern states at the time.

    So what? In the first place, the truth of evolutionary theory does not depend on whether Darwin was a racist or not. In fact, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, but he could hardly help being a product of his time. It's revealing that many fundamentalists regard Darwin as something like the "Jesus of Evolution", and attack his person, as if that said anything at all about modern evolutionary theory. And the fact that Hitler tried to hybridize apes and humans likewise says nothing at all. Hitler also admired Jesus- does that prove that Jesus was a Nazi?

    Second- times have moved on. Does modern evolutionary science support racism? No. Do most modern Christians support slavery? Also not, despite the fact that the Bible condones it.

    ***

    I must confess, I'm a bit disappointed in you, Dan. You obviously haven't done much research in evolutionary theory, or you wouldn't have repeated these howlers. I don't have time to coach you, but here's the bare bones of how evolution works:

    1. Inheritance: offspring are like their parents. This is because they get coded information from their parents, in the form of genes.

    2. Variation: offspring are not perfect copies of their parents, because of random* mutations and recombination of genes (in sexually reproducing organisms)

    *note- mutations are not perfectly random, but that's a complex issue we needn't consider here.

    3. Natural Selection: Some variations do better than others. In life's struggle, there is so-called "differential reproductive success", which simply means that some organisms have what it takes to pass on their genes, and others do not. This is natural selection, which is decidedly non-random. It could mean more efficient digestion, or longer legs for running faster, or lots of other things. In any case, what it amounts to is selection for what we recognize as good design for a particular lifestyle.

    4. Speciation and diversification: changes happen, as a rule, slowly, but they accumulate, and at some point, organisms are different enough from their forbears that they can no longer reproduce with them. At that point, they are considered new species. Given enough time, we have a mindbogglingly awesome tree of life- as Darwin put it, "endless forms most beautiful".

    ***

    Now, this is admittedly way oversimplified. I've left out lots of stuff. But the main point is that evolution is not the result of chance alone. If it were, you, and Hoyle, would be justified in saying that it's mathematically impossible, just as a million monkeys typing at random will not type Hamlet until 'way past the Universe's bedtime. But if even just one monkey is typing, and we save the parts that are accidentally the closest fit to Hamlet (we are playing the part of natural selection here, and Hamlet stands for a successful design), we can zero in on Hamlet (or any other text we desire) in a surprisingly short amount of time. You can try it for yourself, using the Genetic Algorithm Weasel.

    Dan, my understanding of evolutionary theory is admittedly that of an amateur. But I did take upper division courses in paleo at UC Berkeley, spent many hours in the lab and in the field, and have been following developments avidly ever since. The vast majority of biologists, including Francis Collins and many other Christians, will tell you that evolutionary theory is the best description we have of how life developed. While there are many debates within the field, there is no serious debate among scientists about the fact of evolution itself. Trying to convince people otherwise is a deception foisted on the public by creationists- in fact, there are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are creationist scientists. The sad fact that many people believe evolutionary theory to be in trouble, is testimony to the power of well-financed public relations, and wishful thinking, not to any real scientific debate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and p.s.: you might try enlarging that first pic you posted of Darwin tearing his hair, and read the text.

    And thanks for thanking me for the info about html links, but to be fair, it was pvblivs who first posted that here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zilch,

    You scored a zero on your rebuttal. I am glad that you said "Dan, my understanding of evolutionary theory is admittedly that of an amateur." because that's obvious.

    I must confess, I'm a bit disappointed in you, Zilch. You obviously haven't done much research in evolutionary theory, or you wouldn't have repeated these howlers at talk origins. You constantly parrot and link to the flawed website of talk origins that has a biased spin to all research.

    "in fact, there are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are creationist scientists"

    In fact there is also a 13 page list (so far) that lists just a few of the scientists that reject Darwin's flawed theory and more are being added daily.

    David Berlinski, a signer of the statement and a mathematician and philosopher with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, said: "Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless and the object of superstitious awe." From Physorg.com

    Here is a similar list over at our favorite creator of the Creation Museum. these are just two of many so don't claim that evolution is set in stone (pun intended)

    Zilch you spin things quite well and we have had many discussion, I like you, but I have been aggravated by your constant ad hominem on my education which is irrelevant. Even if my brain is a bucket of nails that doesn't change truth at all. There is even an apparent bias with your thoughts on this subject, not to mention any subject countering Christianity. I don't mind discussing things let's just personally attacking the character of the people you talk to to make a point.

    And your Richard Dawkin is a weasel thing try typing "debunking atheists" and see how long it goes, so far it's at 73,411 for me. It's obviously skewed to give relults in Dick's favor. The demo found all the letters right away, except the first one "(x)unking atheists" and is riffling through some 77,800 now variations, for what 26 letters? I hope you don't believe RD or his research to be truth, skewed presuppositions, but truth?

    You are parroting the obvious atheistic professors during your schooling and you parrot the scientists that agree with your presupposition, as do I. Biblical creation is real and sound truth, "trying to convince people otherwise is a deception foisted on the public by "atheistic presuppositions of secular humanists. So let's climb down off our horses and have a discussion about the subject not attack each others character. In my opinion, in a different world of an obvious evidential God (to your satisfaction), I believe you and I would be great friends. But hey, "I don't have time to coach you" sigh.

    blessings

    p.s. I have read the small print on that poster, it's hilarious that the Flintstones are more accurate then Richard and his 'like minded claimed' scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a faction of scientists who exclude the supernatural from their possibilities not on the basis of science, but philosophy. Let's hear from some of them:

    "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually- fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins, Darwinian apologist.

    "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." - Aldous Huxley, philosopher, author, lecturer -(REPORT, June 1966. "Confession of Professed Atheist."}

    "We [scientists] have … a prior commitment to materialism [and] we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations… Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” -Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

    "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." - H. L. Mencken

    “[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” - Julian Huxley, British biologist.

    There are more if needed, point clear?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh Thank God I found this blog. Now I have something to do to cheer me up in the evenings. Next time I find something I don't want to believe in, no matter how much evidence there is supporting it, I'm just come along and look here. I can't wait to visit again!

    Take care

    ReplyDelete
  8. Many scientists see the supernatural in their work:

    Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

    "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero." - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry.

    Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

    Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

    Again presuppositions will determine your approach on the evidence. One side is just wrong. There is always someone on the other side of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Freelance:

    Hahahaha! Dan, can you debunk paying rent? It's very inconvenient for me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Dan, can you debunk paying rent? It's very inconvenient for me"

    God gave you the free will do do whatever you want, unfortunately there are consequences for every decision you make and consequences for breaking the Law's set forth by Him.

    You have free will until it's proven that you abused that privilege then it will be taken from you, in a court and for eternity.

    Will I have to pay mortgage in Heaven? I hope not, the payments would be endless for that choice property, location, location, location.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Then can you please debunk the consequences? All you have to do is say something like, "Eviction is a religion, not a law!" or, "The odds against Jason being evicted next month are astronomical!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. No need to get all huffy, Dan. How exactly did I attack either you personally or your education? All I did is point out that I'm not totally uneducated in evolutionary theory. And exactly how am I "parroting" anyone? I rebutted your points, one by one, in my own words. And how did you reply? By throwing more cut and paste quotes at me, none of which had anything to do with your seven claims.

    If that's your idea of how to debate, there's no point in going on, because we can cut and paste till the cows come home. I'm willing to entertain scientific objections to evolutionary theory, but I haven't heard any from you so far.

    cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,

    I really don't feel like explaining evolution to you, others already have for the nth time. What I want to pose is this: even if evolution were unfounded, debunked, etc...how does that make the jesus story true? Obviously you are trying to debunk science because it threatens your faith...but even if evolution is false..doesn't make Christianity true. If you really want to demonstrate that we are wrong, provide evidence that would justify your claim...you haven't done this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Clostridiophile,

    Oh I totally agree debunking one doesn't make other true. You made a mistake though

    "Obviously you are trying to debunk science because it threatens your faith."

    What I am doing is debunking "evolution" not science. Are you suggesting evolution "is" science? If that's the case then we can discuss it.

    Subjectivity of scientists to squeeze evidence into the box of evolution theory is the real crime here.

    Once proven then we can evaluate other "mistakes" mankind is making like big bang. Once we get these two out of the way, logic will lead us to the path of a Creator of the universe and man. Once that get's established then we can see where the Bible fit's logically into this scenario.

    Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Jesus will come before then and Judge the world but this will continue to be my wish.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Before we can do that, Dan, maybe you can start by showing us even a little bit of evidence that you have even the tiniest idea what evolution even is, because so far this is like Paris Hilton discussing oral sex techniques with the chess club.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You constantly parrot and link to the flawed website of talk origins that has a biased spin to all research."

    You are laughably the biggest hypocrite out there Dan. A paragraph after writing that you link to "discovery.org" a bias creationist website.

    You should know that Talk Origins was set up to research both sides of the debate, and they found that Evolution is very well supported with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What I don't understand is: Why do you even care whether evolution or the Big Bang is right or not?

    I thought the purpose of this blog is to save souls.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Adrian,

    "You are laughably the biggest hypocrite out there Dan. A paragraph after writing that you link to "discovery.org" a bias creationist website."

    Cow come on you don't understand sarcasm? I can do the same thing, pointing to a biased website. You call me a hypocrite when I was showing an ironic situation. Whatever, give me a break.

    I call foul.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "What I am doing is debunking "evolution" not science. Are you suggesting evolution "is" science? If that's the case then we can discuss it.

    Subjectivity of scientists to squeeze evidence into the box of evolution theory is the real crime here."

    Dan,

    Since you think that the theory predicts that chimps and humans should be able to produce a stable hybrid...I don't even know why you are trying to debunk it...you don't even understand it. I actually do molecular biology research, which uses evolutionary theory....it is also my favorite subject in science. I don't think you want to go here, but if you want to why don't you start for us by providing the basic postulates of the theory. That way, we can see if we are on the same page or not. Either that or you could just admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clostridiophile,

    "Since you think that the theory predicts that chimps and humans should be able to produce a stable hybrid"

    You my friend are guilty of taking things out of context. If I say that Hitler said "All Jews should die" then you turn around and say to everyone "Dan said all Jews should die."

    Yes I did say that but you are taking things out of context.

    To be more accurate you should claim the following:

    "Dan says Hitler thinks that the theory predicts that chimps and humans should be able to produce a stable hybrid."

    That would be more accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Also, Hitler even tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race because of the belief of evolution. Please tell me honestly does evolution really sound logical to you personally? Really? Is this a great example of mass hysteria?"

    Dan,

    I didn't take this out of context. You could have said "because of his mistaken understanding of the theory"...which I don't even know if this actually happened, I would have to do some research on it. To someone who knows nothing about the theory, they would think this is what it said. So I took this completely in context. Dan Debunked. Still waiting for you to explain the basic tenents so I can show you are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Clostridiophile,

    "Still waiting for you to explain the basic tenents so I can show you are an idiot. "

    No need for that, Diane and Quasar already proved that by charts saying that Christians are retarded because we have more active brain activity. So no need to worry about

    Diane said "In fact, the brains of the religious have a higher blood flow (showing more brain activity) in the Limbic system (emotional parts of the brain), which is exactly the same place as those who are active drug addicts. Basically, the highly religious are "stoned" which explains why the religious have such a hard time making cogent, intelligent, and rational statements and arguments."

    To which I said "If there is a direct correlation between retardation and Salvation then where do I get fitted for my helmet?"

    Now using this same logic and study, try to disprove that Atheists has a less active brains and are proven to be emotionless. Maybe that study Diane provided proves why atheists eat babies? Maybe not. I digress

    If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. Then, I can say the same for evolution. Just replace the word God with evolution.

    You then, by your own logic, are an idiot about God.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ""Still waiting for you to explain the basic tenents so I can show you are an idiot. "

    No need for that, Diane and Quasar already proved that by charts saying that Christians are retarded because we have more active brain activity. So no need to worry about."

    Oh, so now you chicken out and hide behind something meant to be funny. You made the claim that evolution is not science. I am a molecular microbiologist and actually know something about the topic. As confident as your post suggests, this should be an even matched discussion. But in reality, we both know that you don't know what you are talking about...you just know that to be a Christian you have to preach that evolution is false. Well, I'm giving you a chance to show that it is wrong, but first we have to make sure that you understand the fundamentals.

    Or you could just admit that you don't know what the evidence is...like Ray Comfort did when I pressed him to talk with me about it. Maybe it would be prudent to think "will an expert be reading this?" and write accordingly. You called down the thunder...now can you put your money where your mouth is?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "you just know that to be a Christian you have to preach that evolution is false."

    Yes this is a true statement that I agree with, but the burden of proof is on you then isn't it? I cannot stand and prove that something doesn't exist. That is just not logical. But you can go ahead and prove that evolution is truth if you wish. I'm waiting in anticipation since I have already stated my disbelief.

    Burden of proof is now on you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Yes this is a true statement that I agree with, but the burden of proof is on you then isn't it? I cannot stand and prove that something doesn't exist. That is just not logical. But you can go ahead and prove that evolution is truth if you wish. I'm waiting in anticipation since I have already stated my disbelief.

    Burden of proof is now on you."

    That is actually different. You are claiming the theory is false. In science, evidence can be offered that would falsify a theory. If you can present the basic tenants, then you can show that the theory is false. You made the claim that it is, so the burden is on you, as it were. This is different than the claim that something exists...something for which there is no evidence. Then the burden is on the one who claims it is, without evidence. There are tens of thousands of journal articles that present evidence for the theory. There are no scientific organizations that think that evolution is anything less than a fact. You, on the other hand, claim that it is false, which implies you have some compelling evidence to the contrary. Again, present the basics and then your evidence against it. When we get to the basics, you will look pretty silly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "In science, evidence can be offered that would falsify a theory."

    So far there are 'Seven reasons why Evolution is a fraud'.

    your turn, unless you can't then it's understandable

    ReplyDelete
  27.      I should point out that I think the claim of evolution being a fraud is without merit. For something to be a fraud, the perpetrators must believe it false. I am convinced that scientists as a whole believe evolution to be true. Even if they are wrong, that means it is not a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It is clear, Dan, that you have no idea what the theory says and your "7" don't say anything meaningful that would show anything.

    (1). The theory states (A) There is variation in a population (B) This variation must be heritable (C) There are too many organisms born than can survive (D) Some traits will allow differential reproductive success relative to other traits in the population

    I have provided a single case out of thousands in the literature where the theory has been tested and could have been shown a fraud here.

    You number (4) is just stupid. If you study genomes, like I do, you wouldn't say something this ridiculous. In the human genome, for instance, there are 1,000 genes for olfaction (smelling)...but 300 of them are pseudogenes...they no longer function....they are junk left over. These same genes function in other related organisms. I wrote on this here.

    (5) is not true. Hoyle used faulty assumptions in coming up with his calculations. They were non-biological and assumed that amino acid sequences came together at random and also that only one polypeptide sequence resulted in a functional protein.

    You can choke on this for awhile. I don't feel the need to address all of these because some of these are not even arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pvblivs "I should point out that I think the claim of evolution being a fraud is without merit."

    Valid point...if that were true. I added a picture for just you to prove that point.

    Would you like to discuss the fraudulent claims and diagrams made by evolutionists in the past?

    ReplyDelete
  30.      "Would you like to discuss the fraudulent claims and diagrams made by evolutionists in the past?"
         I am quite aware of the tendency of the faithful to try to make their position stronger than it really is. But that would be like me saying christianity is a fraud because faith-healers use "plants" in the audience. So, I recognize that some of the "evidence" has been fraudulent. But that was not your claim. Your claim was that the belief was fraudulent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pvblivs ,

    "Your claim was that the belief was fraudulent."

    OK I understand your valid point here. Am I claiming that the belief is fraudulent though. Evolution is a belief system?

    I want to evaluate my claim in light of your point though. Evolution is defined as 'A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form;'

    To me that is fraudulent claim as there is no real observational or repeatable evidence to this claim.

    If someone has belief system that includes evolution, fine. I am, by no means, calling them fraudulent.

    Is that a better clarification?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan said,

    "Evolution is defined as 'A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form;'

    To me that is fraudulent claim as there is no real observational or repeatable evidence to this claim."

    Evolution does not necessarily denote "advancement" or "increased complexity". I posted a couple of links to "real observational" or "repeatable evidences" that would justify this claim. I can point to many more. Actually, if you would have to be living in a vacuum not to be able to find the info.

    Also,

    you recycle an old creationist claim that the evidence is a fraud due to a few well known cases...that were exposed by SCIENTISTS. No conspiracy here. The scientific method is not perfect, but it will eventually expose fraud if the data is important enough (i.e. if others are working in the same specific field). These frauds are merely evidence of the self-correcting nature of science. You ever going to address my points?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan- if you admit that Hitler was mistaken in believing that apes and humans can be hybridized, what exactly did you mean by posting that picture and your comment? Perhaps something vague along the lines of "Hitler was inspired by Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is wrong and/or evil?" If so, as clostridiophile and I have pointed out, whatever Hitler may or may not have thought about evolutionary theory says nothing whatsoever about its truth.

    Furthermore: "On the Origin of Species" was banned in Nazi Germany in 1935. Hitler was a creationist who was far more influenced by Martin Luther than by any science or pseudoscience.

    Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfängen das gewesen, was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, daß im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veränderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben müsste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

    "Whence do we have the right to believe that Man was not from the very beginning that which he is today? A glance at Nature shows us, that in the realm of plants and animals, changes and progress has happened. But nowhere within a kind do we see a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, supposing that he developed from an apelike condition to what he now is."

    -from Hitler's Tabletalks, 1942, my translation.

    So you see, Hitler was not an evolutionist, at least as far as people are concerned. Not that it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "whatever Hitler may or may not have thought about evolutionary theory says nothing whatsoever about its truth."

    Valid point

    "Hitler was a creationist"

    That's like saying pedophile priests in the RCC are Christians, it just isn't so.

    The differences was laid out perfectly in 1 John 3:4-8 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:(does not practice sinning) whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

    "...from Hitler's Tabletalks, 1942, my translation. So you see, Hitler was not an evolutionist, at least as far as people are concerned. "

    That is just a false claim.

    In a memorandum submitted to Hitler on June 4, 1936, the German Evangelical Church questioned whether the Chancellor was trying "to dechristianize the German people." (Hitler had little place in his heart for a religion that worshipped a Jew.) Of even more significance is the statement:

    "When, within the compass of the National Socialist view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands, for him, opposed to it."

    The world today, for the most part, despises Hitler-Stalin, also. Both rejected the ethics of loving neighbors as set forth in the Bible, and both slaughtered millions. Stalin self-consciously chose Darwin. Hitler tried to ram survival-of-the-fittest down the world's throat. Entomologist Vernon L. Kellogg, mentioned by Gould, summarized the position held, "That human group which is in the most advanced evolutionary state...should win in the struggle for existence..."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clostridiophile,

    "Dan, Still waiting..."

    Your not going to trap me. I stated my case, you semi countered. Now you state your case so I can counter it. Fair debate rules apply. If you have something to say then say it. Your turn

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Dan, Still waiting..."

    "Your not going to trap me. I stated my case, you semi countered. Now you state your case so I can counter it. Fair debate rules apply. If you have something to say then say it. Your turn."

    Nice try. And what do you mean by "trap" you? You mean by discussing the science you will be forced to admit that evolution is true and thus fatally undermine your position? I presented two blog articles which reference some good, testable predictions of the theory...you know, ones you say are impossible? You haven't addressed them or anything else I said. Further, you still misunderstand the burden of proof. It is not up to me to "present my case" for evolution because this is the theory with the greatest support. All competing theories must state their case until they can better explain the data. If "fair debate rules" apply as you suggest, then you should address the Grant's study of Darwin's finches and the data regarding the g-coupled protein receptors involved in olfaction that I linked to. Let's just stick to one point at a time. I countered claim 1. And you respond....

    ReplyDelete
  37. Clostridiophile,

    Thanks for your patience with me. You indeed provide evidence for your case and I was mistaken. Wait a minute though, do you wish me answer or counter your claims that you posed?

    With your evidence presented, your question: " Have I falsified the hypothesis that the enzyme metabolizes my substrate? No."

    Your asking me to respond? " I countered claim 1. And you respond.... "

    My answer would be something to the effect of, "I have no clue". I just don't have enough background data to make an educated decision about the subject. I do not know enough about the experiment, or even microbial manipulation for that matter. I can read though, I would have to do some real study to catch up to the conversation. I am sure I can find someone that would love to address that question, but as for our discussion, apples to oranges here. May I submit as evidence a point that I made earlier, here? Would that suffice? (I think I know what your answer will be) I just have no clue at the time to make any claim. Plus your making my head hurt if you wish me to get informed about your subject.

    Are we talking about evolution or Darwinian evolution since the two are different and have changed, as someone posed in your blog comments?

    Darwin’s postulates; 1. Individuals within a species are variable

    I concur, Creationist make no claim to the contrary. In fact I said this to Quasar earlier: "Not true. The Bible says things are made from their own kind. 'Kinds' are probably best represented today by the classification 'families'

    For example, the horse family. Equidae, includes horses, zebras, donkeys, and extinct horses. Horses and zebras can be breed with each other and produce "zorses", and donkeys and horses can be breed to produce mules and hinnies. This indicates that they are probably from the same created kind. You could make the same argument for Cats also: lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, and house cats all from the same family. Canine also, but canine and cats don't breed and cannot mutate."

    What evolution claims is that ALL families of EVERY species arrived from ONE source.

    2. Some of these variations are passed on to offspring.

    I concur.

    3. In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random: The individuals who survive and go on to reproduce, or who reproduce the most, are those with the most favorable variations. They are naturally selected.

    I concur, and the evidentiary support of this claim can be seen in the Heike Crab, because of the superstition that Chinese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face (They believed It's a manifestation of the spirits of drowned Samurai warriors) they would toss those particular crabs back into the ocean resulting in a species explosion. Man's influence dictated there survival, not nature I might add.

    4. The age of the earth must be very old, as natural selection worked at the rate at which mountains form.

    False! Evidence by the example I just provided. Wild assumptions being postulated here. Claim not supported by evidence.

    Your turn.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "My answer would be something to the effect of, "I have no clue". I just don't have enough background data to make an educated decision about the subject. I do not know enough about the experiment, or even microbial manipulation for that matter. I can read though, I would have to do some real study to catch up to the conversation. I am sure I can find someone that would love to address that question, but as for our discussion, apples to oranges here. May I submit as evidence a point that I made earlier, here? Would that suffice? (I think I know what your answer will be) I just have no clue at the time to make any claim. Plus your making my head hurt if you wish me to get informed about your subject."

    I checked the links. the first is to my post on the Grant's study of Darwin's finches, I break this down so that anyone should be able to understand it. I know the microbial one you are talking about..I'm not sure how you ended up there. Again, try the first link and see if it lists the postulates and uses the Grant's study. The second is called "I smell evolution". I would be interested in how you spin this into a creation account.

    Also, your link isn't evidence...you quote scripture.

    "Are we talking about evolution or Darwinian evolution since the two are different and have changed, as someone posed in your blog comments?"

    There is no difference. The theory can be likened to a building. The base is darwinian, and we have built upon it. We have had to tear down some of what Darwin originally built from the foundation, but the foundation itself is very strong.

    "Darwin’s postulates; 1. Individuals within a species are variable

    I concur, Creationist make no claim to the contrary. In fact I said this to Quasar earlier: "Not true. The Bible says things are made from their own kind. 'Kinds' are probably best represented today by the classification 'families'

    For example, the horse family. Equidae, includes horses, zebras, donkeys, and extinct horses. Horses and zebras can be breed with each other and produce "zorses", and donkeys and horses can be breed to produce mules and hinnies. This indicates that they are probably from the same created kind. You could make the same argument for Cats also: lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, and house cats all from the same family. Canine also, but canine and cats don't breed and cannot mutate."

    What evolution claims is that ALL families of EVERY species arrived from ONE source."

    This would suggest that the history of life should be represented rather statically with no real changes. This is not what we see. The first mammals don't arrive until very recently. What "kind" did a mammal come from if not a mammal? Darwinian theory successfully predicted that we should see a transition between reptile and mammal and we do see a smooth transition in the fossil record. DNA evidence also clusters mammals and reptiles as sharing a common ancestor. The only claim you can make is that the fossil record was not put down over a few billion years, but through a catastrophe. This is so easily refuted I can't wait for you to posit it ;>

    Also, "kinds" is so poorly defined, and if this is the case, you should be able to provide evidence that speciation cannot occur. If speciation occurs, the rest follows. If you claim a barrier exists at families, please present evidence for this claim. Hybrid formation won't work because this is not the mechanism by which new families form.

    "2. Some of these variations are passed on to offspring.

    I concur."

    Good. This is testable, and we now know the mechanism and we understand how these variations can lead to new species.

    "3. In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random: The individuals who survive and go on to reproduce, or who reproduce the most, are those with the most favorable variations. They are naturally selected.

    I concur, and the evidentiary support of this claim can be seen in the Heike Crab, because of the superstition that Chinese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face (They believed It's a manifestation of the spirits of drowned Samurai warriors) they would toss those particular crabs back into the ocean resulting in a species explosion. Man's influence dictated there survival, not nature I might add."

    Sagan used this example in Cosmos, but he didn't get the conclusion wrong as you did. Yes, in this case the selective agent was human beings. However, this shows the immense diversity in nature, diversity that can be used in selection for survival. Also, I don't know what you mean by "a species explosion". I think you mean that directional selection was being imposed by us..but they remain the same species of crab. This by the way does not imply that evolution did not occur simply because the crab stays the same species. Evolution occurs both within a species as well as results in new species.

    "4. The age of the earth must be very old, as natural selection worked at the rate at which mountains form.

    False! Evidence by the example I just provided. Wild assumptions being postulated here. Claim not supported by evidence."

    Wild assumptions? Claims not supported by evidence? The age of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our species has each been tested through multiple lines of evidence, and each suggest this universe is very old. This is the precision:

    see here

    "In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billon years!"

    The expertise required is various fields in physics and it is not mine. To claim that the universe is 6,000 years old because of a geneology in a book written in primative palestine is absurd. This is not evidence; to determine this, we have to study the universe itself and its contents.

    I would also like to point out that ANYTHING can be evidence for special creation. Anything, and everything. This is because by definition, the being you postulate is undetectable, and has nearly unlimited power/knowledge. Therefore, this is worthless in explaining anything, because it could be thrown out to explain everything. In the end, it explains everything away. However, you make certain claims such as the age of the earth, how the fossil record came to be the way it is and in what time. The order of creation, and how the variety we see got here. These can be tested against the evidence. They fall apart.

    Please respond to the "I Smell Evolution" post, as well as the finches. We have discussed darwin's postulates which you claim have no observational evidence. Actually this is what you said:

    "1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation."

    You need to show how the finch studies were not tests of the postulates and therefore are not testable observations that can be repeated. Otherwise, you must admit that it is science. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  39. UPDATE: I am not the only one that holds this viewpoint. Many highly accredited Scientists believe in a Creator instead of evolution. Here is a little handy list: Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE

    I briefly skimmed this article called: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution which has good referenced facts in it.

    Thanks to that article (Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution) I found out about A book that was written and is available online to read if you choose. It's called The Evolution Deceit

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan,

    Nice, instead of taking on my argument you go right to arguments from authority. The problem is that just because someone gets a research degree, doesn't make them honest or competant in what they are doing. Kurt Wise is a prime example. He recieved two graduate degrees in geology from Harvard...under Stephen J. Gould no less. But he had a crisis of faith and decided that even if ALL the evidence pointed to an old earth and evolution, he would still be a young earth creationist.

    Jonathan Wells has two PhD's, one in theology from Yale, the other from Berkley in embryology. However, here he demonstrates his motives for the second PhD in biology:

    "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

    You may be able to find people who say that they want to do science to undermine religion. If that is the case, whatever. The point is that it is not the credentials, it is the data. I have a PhD in biology, so I can follow the arguments and check their sources. This does not mean that what I say is correct. This is why we have peer review, and why we are skeptical of each others claims. Kurt Wise said that none of this matters; Wells says that he was going to "battle Darwinism". This is not how science works. These people may be scientists but they are not practising science.

    Also, one of your links argued that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. That is the oldest and one of the stupidest arguments there is. If this were true, life would not be here...and we wouldn't observe single celled organisms in the precambrian to multicellular organisms, many of which increase in size and diversify throughout the geological column.

    I am still waiting for you to address some very simple examples that I posted. If you need me to explain anything, feel free to ask. Please don't tell me that "evolution is false because so and so says". That is not an argument. You could simply admit that you don't know whether evolution is sound or not. This I would understand.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Clostridiophile,

    "it is not the credentials, it is the data."

    I don't believe that's your perspective from your past comments about me. I believe you feel credentials is a very important factor.

    Plus, I don't believe it's the data either. Interpretation of said data is a whole other story. If you take data and push it into the very tiny box of evolution some things get squeezed out (figuratively) but If you let the truth be what it is then the data will show a worldwide flood, for example, or design characteristics as theorized by the Creation model.

    There is a tremendous amount of people that agree with what I am saying. Some very highly esteemed in the scientific community. They have many many more credentials then yourself even. Are you claiming that all of them are just idiots (as you claim I am) and have no clue about the field? Can ones arrogance believe such a thing?

    I may not be a biologist but I am nobody's fool either. I do know how to read, so anything can be grasped with time. Something I have much less of lately, unfortunately.

    So tell me, out of these 13 pages of names of highly qualified individuals, can you tell me which are just idiots (your words) on the subject?

    Eugene Buff, or example, his Ph.D. in Genetics tells him Darwinism is just plain wrong. In your eyes though, he is an idiot?

    These people appear to be more scientists then you because at least they are, as all scientist should be, skeptical. "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." They feel it's wrong in trusting it as gospel, as you may be doing.

    I have an idea, take the presupposition that it's totally false and construct your experiments around that premise. Disprove the hypothesis instead of the other way around, as you appear to be doing, see if your results are different. Evolution does not need cheerleaders such as yourself, we need skeptics true scientifically trained skeptics to get to truth.

    (Boasting alert!) Amusing that I am an idiot just shows how biased you can be towards the data. I helped a start up company that went from less then a million that first year to $50 million dollars a year in 6 short years. I ran scientific experimentation and even started the Quality Department in a the company that saved hundreds of thousands quarterly based on my recommendations, as I chaired the engineering comity.

    At the time, I am a stay at home Dad homeschooling my kids and having a blast. Watching my children grow up under my instructions is the greatest gift that God could of given me. God even promises more to me which I feel unworthy, humbled, and grateful. I wish I could do a better job to show you the light but I will always fail if it isn't God's will.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan,

    Credentials are important in the respect that these people should know more than most about the subject...there are experts, not authorities. You presented this as an argument. The Discovery Institutes wording is such that I could sign it myself without any reservations…other than my knowledge of this group:

    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    I don't know many evolutionary biologists who claim that natural selection alone can account for the diversity we see. I never said this either. I didn't say these people were stupid. The point is that the data and yes, it's interpretation are critical. I have followed the ID crowd for several years, read their books and online material..and it's all junk. All of it. The only interesting question they pose is how can we account for the diversity of life. However, they don't even attempt to answer it. We actually have quite good explanations which are evidence based. Is the theory complete? No. However, no scientific theory is complete.

    "These people appear to be more scientists then you because at least they are, as all scientist should be, skeptical. "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." They feel it's wrong in trusting it as gospel, as you may be doing.

    I have an idea, take the presupposition that it's totally false and construct your experiments around that premise. Disprove the hypothesis instead of the other way around, as you appear to be doing, see if your results are different. Evolution does not need cheerleaders such as yourself, we need skeptics true scientifically trained skeptics to get to truth."

    Dan,

    Just because I recognize that the theory is sound because I have studied the data and use the theory in my own research isn't the same thing as "holding it as gospel truth". Go ahead and work to disprove the theory, or the numerous hypotheses regarding individiual lineages. No one is stopping you. The theory has been tested thousands of time, it makes predictions that have held up.

    I presented some cases in point...specific cases, which you haven't touched. You just tell me that I take the theory unquestioning, that i am not skeptical, that I am not a good scientist....you are just babbling. Your last several responses have been completely defensive, have lacked substance, and are simply personal attacks and appeals to authority. You have quite frankly bored me. You clearly shouldn't be making the accusations you are if this is how you are going to respond to someone presenting data to refute your initial claim. Stick to thumpin that bibble.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Your last several responses have been completely defensive, have lacked substance, and are simply personal attacks and appeals to authority."

    I admit that I was getting frustrated being attacked personally. Someone calling me an idiot with utter contempt in the conversation kind of erodes the patience slightly. I have a lot to learn about offering the other cheek for you to slap. In time I will learn to do that. Defensive? Yes, I agree I was.

    To be completely fair, in reflection of what I said. I performed experiments with a scientific discipline instead of "scientific experiments", there is a difference.

    Thump, thump

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I performed experiments with a scientific discipline instead of "scientific experiments", there is a difference."

    I'm not following, can you explain?

    Also, I suppose you have conceded either that evolution is in fact an example, based on my examples, or you at least admit that you shouldn't be talking about the theory, since you don't understand it. Is this fair to say?

    Dan,

    All I said was I am waiting for your rebuttal so that I can "show that you are an idiot". The definition being, "an utterly foolish or senseless person." To say that evolution is not observable or testable...despite tens of thousands of journal articles-many of which are available free online-not to mention the books that you can check out at your public library, or the online science sources free to the public....this would qualify you as a foolish person. To believe the creationists, is astounding given their obvious twisting of data to fit scriptures. I mean, claiming the universe is 6,000 years old, that a flood enveloped the earth and that's why we have "billions of dead things in rock layers all over the earth", and that the second law is violated by evolution is just ridiculous.

    Dan, you have been reduced to lying for Jesus. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oops,

    this:
    Also, I suppose you have conceded either that evolution is in fact an example, based on my examples, or you at least admit that you shouldn't be talking about the theory, since you don't understand it. Is this fair to say?

    should say this:

    I suppose you have conceded that evolution is a fact, based on my examples...

    ReplyDelete
  46. If you can say "Dan, you have been reduced to lying for Jesus. Sad."

    I could say "Clostridiophile, you have been reduced to lying for science. Sad."

    All truth will be revealed with time. we can agree it disagree until then.

    Because of His blood I am healed. I am Free.

    "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior. This only serves to confirm my suspicions that I still am a man in need of a Savior. I want to be in the light" DC Talk

    Seek truth, God is truth...seek God.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Unbelievably, Dan said, "If you can say "Dan, you have been reduced to lying for Jesus. Sad."

    I could say "Clostridiophile, you have been reduced to lying for science. Sad.""

    Oh no, Dan, because unlike your claims, mine can actually be checked and tested. You don't believe me, set up experiments in the field to duplicate work that has been done, or similar premises. Recheck phylogenetic work...this can be done with existing and new data in the NCBI database and programs such as PHYLIP. YOU are the one lying with this creationist nonsense, because unlike the god hypothesis, or Jesus, these claims can actually be tested. Same with your claims that evolution doesn't occur and cannot be observed, tested, etc. Therefore, what you say here is humorous:

    "All truth will be revealed with time. we can agree it disagree until then."

    You can simply disagree, but you are wrong.

    "Because of His blood I am healed. I am Free."

    Drink plenty of it then!

    ""What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior. This only serves to confirm my suspicions that I still am a man in need of a Savior. I want to be in the light" DC Talk

    Seek truth, God is truth...seek God."

    Yeah, yeah. Help me Jebus!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Clostridiophile,

    If/when evolution is proven wrong then indeed the statement would be true and that you have been reduced to lying for science. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  49. HaHaaHaaa!! Oh, Dan, thanks for that. I needed a good laugh. "If and when" gravity is proven wrong, then you will be lying for science. You might as well have said that, Dan. The lengths you well-meaning deluded people will go to lie for your man-god! Priceless. How about you don't talk about evolution anymore? Deal? Unless you want another Debunking by an atheist!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Insert Jay Novella saying, "Oh yeah????"

    ReplyDelete
  51. Facts are not discerned by majority opinion, as you believe. I even offered a list as to attempt for 'appeal to authority' to no avail. Just because you believe and accept the data as evolution is truth doesn't make it true. Your logic is flawed and so is your experiments. Evolution is an opinion to you but the burden of proof is on you to show it factual, just like you need others to prove the claim that Jesus is God. So far transitional proof has not made a solid case.

    As I said before: There are many presuppositions used by evolutionists that govern how they interpret data in a manner prejudicial toward their theory. Given that all of the discovered so-called "human ancestor fossils" can be placed on a single pool table, and that there are consistent and large gaps in the fossil record between every animal group, it is not difficult to see that those who do not serve the living God, will use whatever evidence they can to promote a theory that denies God's creative work.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan said, "Facts are not discerned by majority opinion, as you believe. I even offered a list as to attempt for 'appeal to authority' to no avail."

    First, you contradict yourself in these two sentences. Second, if you go back and read what I wrote in response to your list, you will see that I agree with you.

    "Just because you believe and accept the data as evolution is truth doesn't make it true."

    Fine, then please show where it is wrong. You haven't. Each of the points you made are easily refuted.

    "Your logic is flawed and so is your experiments."

    Which experiments "is" mine? And what is wrong with the experiments you are talking about? This is a "just so" statement. Where's the beef?

    "Evolution is an opinion to you but the burden of proof is on you to show it factual, just like you need others to prove the claim that Jesus is God. So far transitional proof has not made a solid case."

    First of all, the evidence for evolution doesn't even require the fossil record, we would still infer evolution from extant life. For the second time, the burden of proof is on competing theories since this is the consensus view. This is not an appeal to authority, because if the data is compelling enough and can best be explained by a competing construct, it will begin to be accepted. What evidence can one present to confirm or refute that Jesus is god?

    "As I said before: There are many presuppositions used by evolutionists that govern how they interpret data in a manner prejudicial toward their theory."

    Which are? You have said this, but you haven't shown what our biases actually are. Maybe we accept the theory because the data, when taken together, makes the most sense in an evolutionary point of view. If anyone here has "presuppositions" it is you, Dan. Your book has to be true, regardless of the data. That is the only reason you are in this argument; why any creationists are in this argument. There is no amount of data that will convince you, because you won't accept anything that isn't described in your holy book.

    "Given that all of the discovered so-called "human ancestor fossils" can be placed on a single pool table, and that there are consistent and large gaps in the fossil record between every animal group, it is not difficult to see that those who do not serve the living God, will use whatever evidence they can to promote a theory that denies God's creative work."

    Actually, there are tens of thousands of hominid fossils in museums, there are only a handful of species of hominid, but then again, we haven't been around for that long, geologically speaking. What is compelling is that each of these species is found consistently in a given region of the geological time-table. Homo sapien doesn't occur until last, and alongside Homo neanderthalensis, which has since gone extinct. New fossils are reported all the time. There are many lineages with very smooth transitions. Fossilization is a very rare occurrance. We don't expect to have preserved every dead creature. Look around you today, do dead organisms pile up around you? What normally happens to dead organisms? Use your head.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Clostridiophile"First, you contradict yourself in these two sentences."

    Read what I wrote, dude.

    "Facts are not discerned by majority opinion, as you believe. I even offered a list as to attempt for 'appeal to authority' to no avail."

    Because you believe facts are discerned by majority I sent a list to 'appeal to authority' but it still didn't register to you. Get it?

    It's not contradicting myself at all. You still think that evolutions "is the consensus view." as you claimed which is false.

    "the evidence for evolution doesn't even require the fossil record"

    Or an evidence.

    "we would still infer evolution from extant life."

    So does the Bible as long as the evolution is within the classification of "families" or 'of their own kind'

    "If anyone here has "presuppositions" it is you, Dan."

    Is that a claim that you don't? We all do, that has never been disputed by me.

    "There is no amount of data that will convince you, because you won't accept anything that isn't described in your holy book."

    Now that is just unfair and untrue. The data we accept, the certain biased interpretation of the data is a what we don't accept. Grand Canyon and Mount St Helens shows us proof of a global flood, certain biased interpretation of the data claims millions/billions of years. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  54. When a lake dries up, the sediment at the bottom of the lake also dries up, contracts, and forms the classic mosaic pattern we've all seen in roadside puddles, our backyards, etc.

    The Grand Canyon exhibits this same pattern in rock layers deep below the surface. It also exhibits the impressions of raindrops that have turned to stone, again, not on the surface but deep beneath it. This and other similar features strongly suggests a feature that was built up over a very long period of time, and then eroded away over a very long period of time. It couldn't have happened in the time the Flood supposedly occurred. How is that proof of a global flood?

    Also, how many animals do you suppose were on the ark? Did Noah take a pair of every individual species, or just a pair of each kind?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jason, "Did Noah take a pair of every individual species, or just a pair of each kind?"

    I believe that the un-clean animals came in as pairs (two - one male and one female) and the clean animals came in by seven pairs (14 animals).

    Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

    ReplyDelete
  56. "I believe that the un-clean animals came in as pairs (two - one male and one female) and the clean animals came in by seven pairs (14 animals).

    Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.""

    Dan,

    I will address your other comment tomorrow, as I need to get to bed...been a long day. In any, case, this is ridiculous. If this were true, there would be 350,000 species of beetles on the ark. You are telling me that Noah collected each "kind" of beetle, from all over the earth and put them all on a boat? What about everything else?? Where all these species living in ancient Palestine? How could Noah and his family herd all these species into a boat? Further, the fossil record does not suggest a flood. Henry Morris used two arguments for the flood, one of which is known as hydrodynamic sorting. I will quote Michael Shermer:

    "18. Hydrodynamic sorting during the Flood explains the apparent progression of fossils in geological strata. The simple, ignorant organisms died in the sea and are on the bottom layers, while more complex, smarter, and faster organisms died higher up.

    Not one trilobite floated upward to a higher stratum? Not one dumb horse was on the beach and drowned in a lower stratum? Not one flying pterodactyl made it above the Cretaceous layer? Not one moronic human did not come in out of the rain? And what about the evidence provided by other dating techniques such as radiometry?"

    I could think of numerous other questions that don't make sense with Flood geology. One other such explanation is that organisms of equal size, shape and density will be found in the same strata. This can be refuted by looking at brachiopods found only in lower strata, and clams which are found in upper strata.

    Not to mention the obvious...herbivores need plants to eat and would have starved after a world-wide flood...carnivores need other organisms to survive and if only one pair of a "kind" was eaten, they would be extinct. There would be nothing left..organisms would not have been able to reproduce, the carnivores would have eaten the herbivores and themselves. I have read some stupid accounts where ALL the organisms were herbivores then...but the anatomy of many "kinds" is inconsistent with this lifestyle. Also, "kind" is so vague as to be useless. You claim it is "family", but members within a family cannot interbreed (hybrids are not stable after 1 to 2 generations).

    For anyone today to think there was a Noah and a worldwide flood is mystifying.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Also, according to you, all the organisms that ever existed were created from the get-go...what was the purpose of influenza? Cholera? TB, HIV? Were all of these created in the beginning...before we transgressed God? I mean, according to you, they couldn't have evolved...so where did they come from? If God loves us..why did he provide us with a host of viruses, bacteria, protozoa, prions, and fungi that torture us throughout life and kill many of us?

    Also, if E. coli reproduces after a "kind"...how is it that E.coli K-12 and E. coli O157H7 differ 30% in genome content? Bacterial species are based on the phylogeny of the 16s rDNA gene, however, the microbiology community see the species concept as useless because bacterial genomes are mosaics. Bacteria acquire DNA from each other, the environment, from transposons, viruses, hosts, they duplicate genes, rearrange their genomes, etc. A "kind" could never last in microbes. There is nothing keeping them static. This also applies to the archeae. Indeed, we find plasticity in all organisms..our genome contains a history of our evolutionary past. I used the example (which you never touched) of the 1,000 genes used in olfaction...300 of which are non-functional in humans...1,000 of which that we share with dolphins-all of which are non-functional in them! They have a different suite of genes that function in water. The question is why would we have 300 genes that work in some other primates and in other mammals that still exist in our genome but don't function? Why would God design us with a bunch of knocked out genes? And 700 more in dolphins? Why is 30% of our genome virus? Why can we delete thousands of base-pairs in the mouse genome in embryonic lines and they grow up to be completely phenotypically normal? The only thing that makes sense is that this is history left over due to common ancestry and neutral selection at useless loci.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Clostridiophile"First, you contradict yourself in these two sentences."

    Read what I wrote, dude.

    "Facts are not discerned by majority opinion, as you believe. I even offered a list as to attempt for 'appeal to authority' to no avail."

    Because you believe facts are discerned by majority I sent a list to 'appeal to authority' but it still didn't register to you. Get it?

    It's not contradicting myself at all. You still think that evolutions "is the consensus view." as you claimed which is false."

    Consensus does not mean 100%. This paultry list of "700 scientists" was far surpassed by the "steve list" in a very short time. That is any researcher with a name derivative of "Steve" or "Stephanie" could sign the list in agreement that evolution best explains the data. You can view it here.


    ""the evidence for evolution doesn't even require the fossil record"

    Or an evidence."

    I provided evidence....hello!!! Go to pubmed.org and do some searches in peer reviewed science journals.

    ""we would still infer evolution from extant life."

    So does the Bible as long as the evolution is within the classification of "families" or 'of their own kind'"

    Oh, so you let an old book tell you what the limits of a selective process are?? Poor reasoning.

    ""If anyone here has "presuppositions" it is you, Dan."

    Is that a claim that you don't? We all do, that has never been disputed by me."

    Except, I arrived at mine after much study of the subject, I was brainwashed with that literal interpretation crap until I started studying the theory, reading science literature and doing my own field transplantation studies as an undergrad. I found natural selection working in a population of crustaceans near my university. You are telling me that your book is right because it says so....

    ""There is no amount of data that will convince you, because you won't accept anything that isn't described in your holy book."

    Now that is just unfair and untrue. The data we accept, the certain biased interpretation of the data is a what we don't accept. Grand Canyon and Mount St Helens shows us proof of a global flood, certain biased interpretation of the data claims millions/billions of years. Get it?"

    yeah, I get it. You twist the hell out of everything so it conforms to your little book. THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!! This is special pleading and an argument from authority.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Clostridiophile,

    "This [paltry] list of "700 scientists" was far surpassed by the "steve list" in a very short time."

    Dude, you just appealed to authority, give me a break. Wake up! Are we going to just keep comparing groins? I am getting tired of this conversation.

    If one scientist, just one, is questioning the results and interpretation of the data, it warrants review again. These pseudo-scientists are just rubber stamping things to acquire fundings and fear of their peers. You call it 'proof' I call it failed experiments with extreme bias and assumptions. But we all will know soon now won't we.

    ReplyDelete
  60. If one scientist, just one, questions whether or not gravity actually exists, should we look into that? (I don't mean how gravity works, I mean whether or not things actually do fall to Earth when you drop them.)

    Or does there ever come a point when the predictions have come true so often that we accept the weight (lol) of evidence in favor of gravity's existence?

    If Clostridium, as a scientist, decided that things actually do fall up all the time, and scientists ignored him and wrote him off as a fringe lunatic, would you then start writing blog entries about how physicists are rubber stamping things to acquire fundings and fear of their peers?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jason,

    If Clostridium had proof I would listen indeed. I would not write off anyone that would have a viewpoint. All of the great minds of this world started as little children wondering about things. I would never disregard that child because it was that little child with Asperger syndrome that grew up to be Sir Isaac Newton. I am sure you would write him off as a nut job because of your bias.

    "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of Being, necessarily existing" Sir Isaac Newton (Ibid, 506)

    ReplyDelete
  62. That's fine, but could you answer my question?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan, you could stand to do some reading. Try The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. He documents how the original developers of the old earth and global flood refuters were originally YECers like you.

    When they got out into the field, the observations they found couldn't be reconciled with their religious beliefs.


    You may also be interested in some articles (click on the red word "article" in each section to read) from Glen Morton's site, or the Natural Sciences section of Theology Web, a christian run site, for many discussions that deal with creationism, global flood, and the age of the earth.

    The first link in Morton's site deals with people who converted from YEC global flood belief, and the second link deals with various evidences against the global flood.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "If Clostridium had proof I would listen indeed."

    Dan, are you dense? First, we don't offer "proofs" in science, this isn't mathematics. Second, you haven't even touched the various evidences that I have presented. Why can't you just admit that you have no idea what would constitute evidence; or admit that I have presented compelling evidence and the correct interpretation. Lying for Jesus....

    Notice you didn't defend your Noah fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Clostridiophile,

    Dan, are you dense? Lying for Jesus....

    Be careful of your tone. Poking fun is one thing being spiteful evil and is another.

    Notice you didn't defend your Noah fantasy.

    You are very pushy, I tell you what, I will do a new post about it so every one can get into the discussion. Bear with me though, I only have so much time to devote to these things. I can't do it on your schedule. fair?

    ReplyDelete
  66. First, we don't offer "proofs" in science, this isn't mathematics.

    I agree I was wrong

    Would it of better if I said "had proof for his doubting the scientists interpretation"

    Proof is not a good word though, I concur.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Dan, are you dense? Lying for Jesus....

    Be careful of your tone. Poking fun is one thing being spiteful evil and is another."

    My apologies, it is difficult to repeat something over and over and remain objective. How about, in addition to your Noah post, you address your claim #1 which I showed was wrong. I'm waiting for you to either show that the theory has no observational basis and you cannot test/repeat experiments based on Darwin's premises. You have not acknowledged the data. You merely said the experiments were "wrong". I'd appreciate an answer, Dan. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Clostridiophile,

    How can I possibly argue with someone that claims the following: "Darwinian theory successfully predicted that we should see a transition between reptile and mammal and we do see a smooth transition in the fossil record."

    That is just not true, you are vastly misinformed. And more:

    DNA evidence also clusters mammals and reptiles as sharing a common ancestor.

    The DNA shows a common designer, not common ancestry.

    "If speciation occurs, the rest follows."

    Do you have proof of this throughout all of creation? We aren't talking about just one or two questionable specimens either, we are talking concrete evidence of speciation. So much that not even I can refute it. I will wait for evidence that cannot be refuted by 13 pages of scientists or even little ol me.

    BTW did you see the cartoon I added? Peer review

    "The theory has been tested thousands of time, it makes predictions that have held up." and " because unlike your claims, mine can actually be checked and tested."

    Yet we both agree that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.

    On something else you said. I countered what you were stating so I made the clarification:

    If/when evolution is proven wrong then indeed the statement would be true and that you have been reduced to lying for science. Sad.

    You then replied: "HaHaaHaaa!! Oh, Dan, thanks for that. I needed a good laugh. "If and when" gravity is proven wrong, then you will be lying for science. You might as well have said that, Dan. The lengths you well-meaning deluded people will go to lie for your man-god!"

    The fact is Galileo might have got some things wrong in his theory, right? So If Galileo can be mistaken, couldn't you be also? Evolution may be debunked someday without question. A new theory may replace it. I fully understand these days that just isn't the case. Because of my Bible I make the bold claim that evolution and the theory is a fraud and needs to be reexamined. I fully understand you have great faith in it since it's your life's work.

    "Finding a flaw in the underpinnings of relativity could lead to a new "Theory of Everything," finally combining quantum physics and gravity in one harmonious framework." Maybe the "Theory of Everything" will include God (Creator) but one can only hope. Let's move on.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dan,

    I think you got yourself a good number of responses. I could not resist to comment on this one:

    If one scientist, just one, is questioning the results and interpretation of the data, it warrants review again.

    Nope, to warrant review again there has to be a reasoned questioning of the results. If people have validated their results, and I just say "I do not believe it." I have given no reason for review.

    We do debunk other scientists claims and conclusions. But we do so using science and reason, not bibles.

    ---

    Now by the end of this post you claim something about the "new peer review method." I do not think it is "new." And actually, you are quite wrong. There is an ongoing discussion about how good the peer review system is, and about how to ensure that "back scratching" does not happen.

    Personally, I have seen both things, some dishonest back-scratching, and lots and lots of very honest and ethical peer reviewing. Unfortunately, the number of scientists and the many areas of specialization are making the publication structure very complex, the finding of good "peers" capable of reviewing your work becomes harder, and the amount of stuff to do becomes too much for most scientists to have the time to do good, deep, peer reviewing. That is a new thing. Peer reviewing did work very well before, and it still works all right in most areas of research. Still, we should acknowledge the current problems and improve and find solutions before the system starts to be more noise than knowledge. But your claim is groundless Dan. Evolution was well established before peer reviewing started to be problematic. And its problems are still in their infancy.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well said G.E.,

    But I have a question on your statement "to warrant review again there has to be a reasoned questioning of the results."

    Are you saying that of all the questionable things in evolution's theory there is no warrant to question the results? Really?

    If it were such and easy clear cut theory without question, how is it that there are so many questions about said theory.

    I may have taken a very bold stance on this subject calling evolution a fraud. I am after all a black or white kind of guy. I appreciate your input, but I believe the jury is still out on this one, agree?

    ReplyDelete
  72. How can I possibly argue with someone that claims the following: "Darwinian theory successfully predicted that we should see a transition between reptile and mammal and we do see a smooth transition in the fossil record."

    That is just not true, you are vastly misinformed. And more:

    DNA evidence also clusters mammals and reptiles as sharing a common ancestor.

    The DNA shows a common designer, not common ancestry.


    Oh really? I've been misinformed? We can clearly see the evolution of the jaw and earbones, among other things in these transitions. This is also true of whale earbones and the position of the blowhole in whale evolution. Not to mention the fact that some whales and some snake species still have vestigial hips and leg bones. See here

    Also, with your whole thing on speciation, it is so easy to find this info, you must work really hard to miss it (AIG ain't gonna show it). There have been numerous observed speciations with plants, and a classic example with Drosophila. In the field, we find recent speciation events in pools of African cichlids which have been separated as water level receded over a long period of time. Mechanisms of speciation are understood now, and there are many resources to learn more about how God did not create everything ex nihilo in a static form reproducing after its "kind".

    ReplyDelete
  73. Clostridiophile,

    If it were so cut and dry more then half of the worlds populace would agree with you, but that just isn't the case. That is not an appeal to authority that is an appeal to logic. The 'questionable evidence' can't convince the world yet, even the scientific world. If public schools didn't teach that unscientific conclusion that evolution is fact, then there would be a whole lot less people that believed it. Count your blessing that you have this fringe amount of people that still believe in that old theory. Logic isn't buying it but you have the free will to go ahead and believe it.

    Public schools that teach evolution as fact is simply fraudulent. That will change very soon.

    Whales pelvic bone? From what I have read the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column. This bone in the whale, serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs.

    Being an evolutionist, you naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, the bone in question is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone.

    "many resources to learn more about how God did not create everything ex nihilo in a static form reproducing after its "kind".

    It is atheists who say everything happened ex nihilo, don't spin things here.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dan said, "If it were so cut and dry more then half of the worlds populace would agree with you, but that just isn't the case. That is not an appeal to authority that is an appeal to logic."

    Most of the world's population haven't studied biology, nor have most done research. Facts about nature aren't up for democratic vote. I don't care if ANYONE agrees with me; I have looked at much of the data, done experiments which have asked evolutionary questions, and I am fully satisfied with the theory of evolution, it's power of prediction and its explanatory power. You haven't refuted ANY of the points I have made or taken a crack at ANY of the data presented to you.

    "The 'questionable evidence' can't convince the world yet, even the scientific world."

    The scientific world would say that evolution is a fact. Sure there are fringe elements...but what human institution doesn't have their fringe elements? Again, it is the data that is compelling. I can't see how a biologist could look at this data, understand the theory and come to a different conclusion. Those that have have been put under the microscope, and their arguments are easily exposed as vacuous...and in each case, they have been found to have significant religious baggage which has influenced their position. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is an objective analysis.

    "If public schools didn't teach that unscientific conclusion that evolution is fact, then there would be a whole lot less people that believed it. Count your blessing that you have this fringe amount of people that still believe in that old theory. Logic isn't buying it but you have the free will to go ahead and believe it."

    Yeah, yeah, you keep repeating this but can't seem to come up with an argument to back it up. Hot air, and nothing more :>

    "Public schools that teach evolution as fact is simply fraudulent. That will change very soon."

    Fraudulent? Because you say so? Ha!

    "Whales pelvic bone? From what I have read the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column. This bone in the whale, serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs."

    Uh huh...AIG nonsense. Listen, a vestigial structure will still hold some function, however, minor, this doesn't make it any less vestigial. Some good data is found here. Now, the vestigial pelvis is not found in all modern whales and the loss of hind-limbs is pronounced in the various intermediates. Furthermore, several whales and dolphins have been found with fully formed hind appendages. This strong embryological evidence tells us that whales/dolphins still have the instructions for hind appendages, but they have been silenced during development...these mutant forms are a result of the inability to "turn off" certain developmental genes that now should be silent. Let's not forget the evidence that I presented a couple of times (which you completely ignored each time) in which whales and dolphins contain 1,000 olfactory genes that are non-functional...because their ancestors used to live on land..this class of g-coupled protein receptors works in air, not water. The DNA evidence also points to whale ancestry with ungulates as the link explains:

    Molecular studies by Goodman and others (1985) show that whales are more closely related to the ungulates than they are to all other mammals - a result consistent with evolutionary expectations. These studies examined myoglobin, lens alpha-crystallin A, and cytochrome c in a study of 46 different species of mammals. Miyamoto and Goodman (1986) later expanded the number of protein sequences by including alpha- and beta- hemoglobins and ribonuclease; they also increased the number of mammals included in the study to 72. The results were the same: the whales clearly are included among the ungulates. Other molecular studies on a variety of genes, proteins, and enzymes by Irwin and others (1991), Irwin and Arnason (1994), Milinkovitch (1992), Graur and Higgins (1994), Gatesy and others (1996), and Shimamura and others (1997) also identified the whales as closely related to the artiodactyls, although there are differences in the details among the studies.

    By placing whales close to, and even firmly within, the Artiodactyls, these molecular studies confirm the predictions made by evolutionary theory. This pattern of biochemical similarities must be present if the whales and the ungulates, especially the Artiodactyls, share a close common ancestor. The fact that these similarities are present is therefore strong evidence for the common ancestry of whales and ungulates.

    Here is the discussion on vestigial evidence:

    4. Vestigial evidence
    The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.

    Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.

    Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. In many, it is merely the size of a thin piece of string, about 1 mm in diameter, and often pinched off about midway. All whales have a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears - a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing.

    The diaphragm in whales is vestigial and has very little muscle. Whales use the outward movement of the ribs to fill their lungs with air. Finally, Gould (1983) reported several occurrences of captured sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs. Similarly, dolphins have been spotted with tiny pelvic fins, although they probably were not supported by limb bones as in those rare sperm whales. And some whales, such as belugas, possess rudimentary ear pinnae - a feature that can serve no purpose in an animal with no external ear and that can reduce the animal's swimming efficiency by increasing hydrodynamic drag while swimming.

    Although this list is by no means exhaustive, it is nonetheless clear that the whales have a wealth of vestigial features left over from their terrestrial ancestors.


    "Being an evolutionist, you naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, the bone in question is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone."

    Same with our tail bone...so what? What happens to the structure after disuse isn't the issue..it is the homology between these bones in whales and in other land mammals. The bones of the fins of whales, while much larger, are still homologous to the bones in bats, humans, dogs, etc. That is, they share a common genetic makeup, and a common evolutionary origin. We know this due to the degree of character changes in the genes responsible.

    "many resources to learn more about how God did not create everything ex nihilo in a static form reproducing after its "kind".

    It is atheists who say everything happened ex nihilo, don't spin things here."

    Yeah, but we actually have an explaination of how it came to be once it started. We at least admit we don't know how it got started...you claim to know, yet you cannot produce evidence of this, or how things got this way. Oh, and btw, you can check my story, I can't check yours.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Clos,

    The scientific world would say that evolution is a fact.

    Thank you, thanks for admitting that truth. We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method. But thanks for the honesty. So whoever thinks evolution is a fact, just doesn't understand science yet. Does this possibly include yourself?

    "Public schools that teach evolution as fact is simply fraudulent. That will change very soon."

    Clos: Fraudulent? Because you say so? Ha

    Because all of science says so. Introduction to the Scientific Method

    "Listen, a vestigial structure will still hold some function, however, minor, this doesn't make it any less vestigial.

    You are so cute. You are so lost in your religion you might not even understand anymore. Do you know what vestigial even means? It means totally lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

    Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. It is a crying shame how a belief in evolution has even destroyed modern medicine. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

    Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendixhas a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over"

    There are so many examples of how evolution-thinking , such as your god Dawkins, has actually been detrimental to medical science. Too harsh? Truth hurts, I perfectly understand.

    Some good data is found here I believe that Talk origins is full of propaganda for the evolutionists. It's extremely biased. It is certainly NOT objective like science is so I will NEVER look at anything from that website.

    "Yeah, but we actually have an [explanation] of how it came to be once it started." STOP! that is just too much comedy for one day. You are cracking me up. Thanks for the entertainment but really I have had enough.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dan said, "Clos,

    The scientific world would say that evolution is a fact.

    Thank you, thanks for admitting that truth. We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method. But thanks for the honesty. So whoever thinks evolution is a fact, just doesn't understand science yet. Does this possibly include yourself?"

    I said "fact", not "proof". Shermer defines this well:

    "Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
    Theory: a well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.
    Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement"

    -pg 19, Why people believe weird things.

    Provisional...that is, subject to future evidence calling it into question; however, at present, the evidence is so compelling and continuously pouring in that we would call evolution a fact-one that is very, very unlikely to be overturned.


    Dan said, ""Public schools that teach evolution as fact is simply fraudulent. That will change very soon."

    Clos: Fraudulent? Because you say so? Ha

    Because all of science says so. Introduction to the Scientific Method"

    Thanks, I'm well aware of the scientific method, and that is why we would call evolution a theory and a fact.

    ""Listen, a vestigial structure will still hold some function, however, minor, this doesn't make it any less vestigial.

    You are so cute. You are so lost in your religion you might not even understand anymore. Do you know what vestigial even means? It means totally lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word."

    Stop it, you flatter me (blushes)! I thought you all were against homosexuality...but if you think I'm cute....

    From my college general bio text:

    "vestigial organs, structures of marginal, if any, importance to the organism."
    -pg 425, Cambell et al Biology 5th ed.

    The human veriform appendix in humans is greatly reduced relative to the herbivorous hindgut fermenters...because we have an omnivorous diet with far less fiber. Want to challenge me on this? Please do, this is my area of expertise. Mammals such as mice have a very large cecum due to their diet of complex lignans which require fermentation and aquisition of short chain fatty acids derived from end-products of bacterial fermentation. Our cecum is much smaller, and the appendix is a tiny fraction of that of the mouse (proportional to body weight). It is clearly homologous, and clearly vestifial...reduced in size, and marginal in function...so why is it still there? Some thought it was due to the large amount of GALT (immune function)..but this is more of a defense in case it becomes infected and bursts. Recently, we may have found the answer: the appendix contains a small inoculum of the GI flora which can seed the gut and reestablish homeostasis following diarrheal infection such as cholera which was much more frequent in our ancestors. The GI flora is necessary for human health and so quick reinnoculation would be an advantage in regions more prone to diarrheal disease, which is a leading cause of death in many non-industrial nations. This interpretation makes the most sense due to the shape of the appendix, immunology, epidemiology, and anthropology.
    The original function (fermentation chamber) was lost, but a new function (re-establish gut flora) may have had a selective advantage. We can test various hypotheses with animal models following recolonization (or no recolonization) after diarrheal infection.

    Dan said, "Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. It is a crying shame how a belief in evolution has even destroyed modern medicine. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

    Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendixhas a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over""

    You know, Dan, I just copied and pasted your comment and took this point by point before reading it. There is quite a bit of GALT surrounding the appendix; however, the definition of vestigial does not preclude function as I have said. You wrongly perpetuate a misunderstanding of the term. Natural selection works by exapting (using old structures for new things) preexisting structures; nature can only work with what it has. The GALT surrounding the appendix may be important during development to "taste" the mileau of antigens in the gut lumen..to "train" the immune system; but there is GALT throughout the GI tract. Also, while I sympathize with your father, how was it determined that removal of his appendix resulted in an inability to fight infection? What is his condition if you don't mind me asking?

    "There are so many examples of how evolution-thinking , such as your god Dawkins, has actually been detrimental to medical science. Too harsh? Truth hurts, I perfectly understand."

    Ok, first, I disagree with Dawkins on several things. Second, how has "evolution-thinking" hurt medical science? You mean by explaining drug-resistance? By suggesting that organisms closely related evolutionarily would be good models to determine how the human body works? Evolutionary theory is the basis of biology and medicine. Darwinian selection..."evolutionary-thinking" is the basis for understanding why cancer gains resistance, how immature B and T lympocytes "mature" through clonal selection. Bioinformatics and determining gene function-critical to medicine-uses evolutionary thinking. You don't have a clue what you are talking about!! I work in medical research, I go to seminars all the time in which the speakers use evolutionary assumptions which have led to huge breakthroughs. I sat through a semester of medical microbiology as a TA during grad school...the professors drilled evolutionary concepts into the med students heads in terms of viral evolution and bacterial resistance...including human evolutionary concepts explaining resistance of certain people to certain microbes. I'm sorry, Dan, but you are being really foolish and quite frankly your ignorance of the topic is astounding.

    "Some good data is found here I believe that Talk origins is full of propaganda for the evolutionists. It's extremely biased. It is certainly NOT objective like science is so I will NEVER look at anything from that website."

    All the claims are referenced...you can read the original works yourself. I am familiar with the primary literature for several of their claims and they check out. Next.

    ""Yeah, but we actually have an [explanation] of how it came to be once it started." STOP! that is just too much comedy for one day. You are cracking me up. Thanks for the entertainment but really I have had enough."

    What is comedic is your clear lack of understanding of biology.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dan,

    I notice you are real careful to skirt around the evidence presented. The best you could do with the whale pelvis was misunderstand vestigiality...while in your response you didn't try to refute the transitional forms or the genetic baggage. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  78. clos said:

    while in your response you didn't try to refute the transitional forms or the genetic baggage. Interesting.

    Interesting is right! This is one of the most informative discussions I've read in a long time! I hope people on Ray's blog read this. Good job, Clos!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thanks, Jason, good to see that the time and effort isn't wasted. I just hope that people will look at the evidence rather than what their preachers have told them they have to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Some of them do. I was once a YEC myself.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If Evolution is true then we are related to onions, , it's just not logical. We come from bacterium? If evolution is true then

    There is more DNA information in let's say a horse then a single celled organism, like an amoeba would.

    If evolution was true then the DNA information would have to "increase" and that is just not evident throughout the universe.

    VERY IMPORTANT! Evolution is about an increase of information in your DNA.

    The processes we observe tend to decrease the information in the DNA. It's the opposite of evolution.

    Natural selection actually reduces DNA information, adaptation loses information. It's the opposite of evolution. It's not logical.

    Mutations are a lose of information also. Some of the information get's lost and a mutation occurs. It's the opposite of evolution.

    Evolution claims that a single celled organism mutates and naturally selects into a Thoroughbred horse? Logical or completely wrong? I choose the latter.

    Poodles have so many mutations that causes so many problems for them. How can you possibly think that a Wolf evolved into a poodle? By the lose of information you see mutations to go from a wolf to a poodle and the problems are apparent. Mutations are beneficial at times because it helps the species survive.

    NOT ONE mutation that has been observed, adds information to the DNA. Mutations and natural selection is going in the wrong direction then evolution. There is nothing being added.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Let me continue my thought,

    Mutations are beneficial at times because it helps the species survive like that Heike Crab, because of the superstition that Chinese fisherman had. It helped magnify the mutation. If a face on a crab can be considered a mutation. Lets say an insect loses it's wings on a very windy island the mutation is beneficial to keep the insect grounded and it reproduces a lot and magnifies the mutation. The mutation was originally a lose of information not a gain.

    If science and nature is truth and evolution is the opposite then evolution is a fraud or a lie. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dan said, "If Evolution is true then we are related to onions, , it's just not logical. We come from bacterium?"

    We are very distant cousins of the onion, yes, about 1.6 billion years to be precise. Plants and animals and bacteria share many common biochemical pathways-the fundamental ones in fact-and chloroplasts, where plants obtain their energy are related to current-day cyanobacteria...same with the mitochondria of plants and animals, they are related to current day intracellular pathogens known as Rickettsia. This is based on logic...not as you claim. You are claiming it illogical, because of the superficial differences between us and an onion, but the genetic material and the course biochemistry is very similar. After 1.6 billion years, and different lifestyles, we would expect these two organisms to be very different. Look into the endosymbiont theory.

    "If evolution is true then there is more DNA information in let's say a horse then a single celled organism, like an amoeba would.

    If evolution was true then the DNA information would have to "increase" and that is just not evident throughout the universe.

    VERY IMPORTANT! Evolution is about an increase of information in your DNA.

    The processes we observe tend to decrease the information in the DNA. It's the opposite of evolution.

    Natural selection actually reduces DNA information, adaptation loses information. It's the opposite of evolution. It's not logical."

    Please define information. I have had many of these discussions. Are you speaking of information in the Shannon sense? If so, you are wrong. If you are not talking about Shannon information, I don't see the relevance to biology...

    "Mutations are a lose of information also. Some of the information get's lost and a mutation occurs. It's the opposite of evolution."

    Gene duplication, for instance, increases the information content, in the Shannon sense in the genome, provided that the phenotype is altered at some point.

    "Evolution claims that a single celled organism mutates and naturally selects into a Thoroughbred horse? Logical or completely wrong? I choose the latter."

    You seem to have excised all the relevant steps between single celled organism and horse....strawman anyone??

    "Poodles have so many mutations that causes so many problems for them. How can you possibly think that a Wolf evolved into a poodle?"

    Because we know that we were the ones who domesticated the dog...this didn't happen that long ago.

    "By the lose of information you see mutations to go from a wolf to a poodle and the problems are apparent. Mutations are beneficial at times because it helps the species survive."

    Poodles and wolves are under very different selective pressures. Poodles live in our homes, we feed them, we protect them. If a poodle went out in the wild it would die. Wolves are selected stringently in nature...two different things. Also, we inbreed the hell out of domestic breeds so you are going to have major problems, also there are trade-offs if you want a particular character in many instances.

    "NOT ONE mutation that has been observed, adds information to the DNA. Mutations and natural selection is going in the wrong direction then evolution. There is nothing being added."

    You have a dismal understanding of information content, natural selection and evolution. Evolution doesn't even require "progress" as we have characatured it in popular culture. Evolution is not a principle of progress, it is simply adaptation to a population's local environment. That's it.

    Please read this and this


    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-closely-related-are-h&page=2

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Lets say an insect loses it's wings on a very windy island the mutation is beneficial to keep the insect grounded and it reproduces a lot and magnifies the mutation. The mutation was originally a lose of information not a gain.

    If science and nature is truth and evolution is the opposite then evolution is a fraud or a lie. I rest my case."

    You misunderstand evolution, so there is no problem here. If loss of a given character (wings in your example) is beneficial, i.e., it provides a better adaptation to island life that allows 'wingless' mutants to survive and reproduce more efficiently than 'winged'...this is natural selection in action, this is a population evolving. Again, evolution is not a principle of progress. Fish in dark caves have lost their eyes....but this is an adaptation to their new environment.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Clos,

    "Because we know that we were the ones who domesticated the dog...this didn't happen that long ago."

    I am happy that you are seeing things my way now. Billions of years to go from a wolf to a poodle? Nope a very SHORT time, a few hundred years, provable in dogs.

    "Wolves are selected stringently in nature...two different things."

    Not really if human want a short snout on a dog they keep breeding until they get the bull dog. Same with short legs and such. mutations are still a LOSE of information. Nature would never let a poodle live in the wild because it's not breed to adapt to that environment just like the wingless insect. Adaptation is not evolving (increase).

    "You have a dismal understanding of information content, natural selection and evolution. Evolution doesn't even require "progress" as we have characatured it in popular culture. Evolution is not a principle of progress, it is simply adaptation to a population's local environment."

    So evolve (develop: gain through experience) is not evolution? Adaptation is a mutation that is beneficial not evolution.

    Micro (within a species) we all can agree but that isn't evolution that is adaptation and mutations.

    Macro(creating new species) entailing major changes in biological traits hasn't been observed. Increased, more complex, DNA information has not been observed.

    You even agree that mutations are a lose of information:

    "If loss of a given character"

    "Fish in dark caves have lost their eyes"

    Original traits lost is adapting to environment. I can easily see that as truth. Provable and observable. From Wolf to poodle

    The problem is where that mutation ADDS information. That is evolution not mutations. Onion to Horse, just not plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Dan said, "Clos,

    "Because we know that we were the ones who domesticated the dog...this didn't happen that long ago."

    I am happy that you are seeing things my way now. Billions of years to go from a wolf to a poodle? Nope a very SHORT time, a few hundred years, provable in dogs.

    "Wolves are selected stringently in nature...two different things."

    Not really if human want a short snout on a dog they keep breeding until they get the bull dog. Same with short legs and such. mutations are still a LOSE of information. Nature would never let a poodle live in the wild because it's not breed to adapt to that environment just like the wingless insect. Adaptation is not evolving (increase)."

    Adaptation: a trait that increases the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce compared to individuals without the trait.

    Adaptive traits to be selected either artificially or naturally must be heritable...hence breeding.

    If the trait is heritable, and provides differential reproductive success (is adaptive), the population will evolve; if the environment continues to favor the trait, the trait will become fixed in the population. Your argument is meaningless because, again, you fail to define the term "information". I joke with people who spout the same nonsense as you by the following conversation:

    Dan: You can't show me one instance where mutation increases the information content of an organism.

    Me: Can you define information?

    Dan: I will once you show me an instance of it increasing.


    Dan said, "You have a dismal understanding of information content, natural selection and evolution. Evolution doesn't even require "progress" as we have characatured it in popular culture. Evolution is not a principle of progress, it is simply adaptation to a population's local environment."

    So evolve (develop: gain through experience) is not evolution? Adaptation is a mutation that is beneficial not evolution."

    Micro (within a species) we all can agree but that isn't evolution that is adaptation and mutations.

    Macro(creating new species) entailing major changes in biological traits hasn't been observed. Increased, more complex, DNA information has not been observed."

    The first part is unintelligible. As for "micro" vs. "macro", how do we get to major biological changes without the accumulation of smaller changes? This is what we observe in nature. Again, your whole "information" thing is not defined, so I cannot comment on it. I provided an article for you to read, perhaps you should before responding.

    "You even agree that mutations are a lose of information:

    "If loss of a given character"

    "Fish in dark caves have lost their eyes"

    Original traits lost is adapting to environment. I can easily see that as truth. Provable and observable. From Wolf to poodle

    The problem is where that mutation ADDS information. That is evolution not mutations."

    But the poodle is "adaptive" in the eyes of the breeder that fancies it. You seem to not understand that we are the selective agents and our whim is what drives the production of all these weird phenotypes. This tells us that nature has quite alot to work from; we have been able to produce almost anything we want. Similarly, with directed evolution in SELEX (I suggest you look this up) experiments, we can select RNA molecules that will bind almost any molecule we choose. Your point about the diversity of dogs being produced in a short time is not surprising...the "environment" (breeder fancy) continuously changes, new breeders select traits they like from a common stock, they diverge giving rise to new varieties, now we have all types of dog..but they continue to interbreed, and have not been separated for very long. Breeding has occurred for around 15,000 years or so, a flash in geological time. If new niches are open, and the environment continues to change, the rate of evolution will increase. In times of stasis, little evolution will occur.

    Dan said, "Onion to Horse, just not plausible."

    Dan, you should re-read what I wrote. I never said we had an onion and then it became a horse. I said plants and animals diverged; they shared a common ancestor. Do some reading.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dan said, "You have a dismal understanding of information content, natural selection and evolution. Evolution doesn't even require "progress" as we have characatured it in popular culture. Evolution is not a principle of progress, it is simply adaptation to a population's local environment."

    First you better be very careful on what you are saying here. You even put that in quotes. That is what you said, remember. You see, you move a little term "Dan said" into the wrong spot and you render the information false. Do you do the same in your experiments with DNA? If your mental discipline is so exact please show evidence of it in a conversation.

    Dan: You can't show me one instance where mutation increases the information content of an organism.

    Me: Can you define information?


    You don't know what the information in DNA is? You don't have an understanding of the mutations we are talking about? Really? Or is this a trap again to show superiority of knowledge, which you seem to do all the time.

    I will play along though. There are many mutations for example Point Mutation,Frame-shift mutation,Deletion,Insertion,Inversion,DNA expression mutation.

    For this discussion I want to talk about Insertion mutation which is what evolution is claiming happens.

    Evolution: to evolve to gain, right?

    Only with an insertion mutation, it generally results in a nonfunctional protein.

    Even worse, If I understand correctly, also an insertion mutation often creates a frame shift mutation and can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein.

    So again how is evolution provable in science?

    Plus, since you cannot accept what I said, instead of onion to horse is it fair that you believe we went from plant life to Thoroughbred horse according to evolution 'theory' and if this is the case please show me the millions of transitional fossils for this assumed claim.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dan said, "Dan said, "You have a dismal understanding of information content, natural selection and evolution. Evolution doesn't even require "progress" as we have characatured it in popular culture. Evolution is not a principle of progress, it is simply adaptation to a population's local environment."

    First you better be very careful on what you are saying here. You even put that in quotes. That is what you said, remember. You see, you move a little term "Dan said" into the wrong spot and you render the information false. Do you do the same in your experiments with DNA? If your mental discipline is so exact please show evidence of it in a conversation."

    Dan, oops, I did it again! If you haven't noticed, I have been quoting blocks..you can tell who said what by following the conversation or the quotes. Also, don't tell me what I "better" do. I wasn't implying you said this...how would that benefit me? You seem to be following this just fine, so don't tell me how to respond.

    "Dan: You can't show me one instance where mutation increases the information content of an organism.

    Me: Can you define information?

    You don't know what the information in DNA is? You don't have an understanding of the mutations we are talking about? Really? Or is this a trap again to show superiority of knowledge, which you seem to do all the time."

    I don't know what you personally mean by "information", I hear this term used by creationists all the time, and it does matter what you mean by "information". I was the one in the conversation that actually gave a definition....and you haven't even told me if this is the way you are using it. Why would me asking you to define a term you brought up suggest I don't understand mutations?

    Daniel said, "I will play along though. There are many mutations for example Point Mutation,Frame-shift mutation,Deletion,Insertion,Inversion,DNA expression mutation."

    So you are defining "information" as "mutation"???? This doesn't make sense, Dan. You say that mutations can't increase the "information" content, but if "mutation=information", any mutation would increase information. Tell you what, sport, click that underlined blue link up above and READ THE ARTICLE I POSTED!!!

    "For this discussion I want to talk about Insertion mutation which is what evolution is claiming happens.

    Evolution: to evolve to gain, right?

    Only with an insertion mutation, it generally results in a nonfunctional protein.

    Even worse, If I understand correctly, also an insertion mutation often creates a frame shift mutation and can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein.

    So again how is evolution provable in science?"

    Strawman. Yes, this does happen; however, if the gene has no phenotypic value, or becomes deleterious in a new environment, a frameshift inactivation would be neutral in the first case, or beneficial in the second. A frameshift in a promoter may alter the regulation of a gene...which depending on the transcrition factor binding site, position in the promoter, etc, this could be beneficial by increasing or lowering expression levels of a particular gene.

    Danny Dan Dan said, "Plus, since you cannot accept what I said, instead of onion to horse is it fair that you believe we went from plant life to Thoroughbred horse according to evolution 'theory' and if this is the case please show me the millions of transitional fossils for this assumed claim."

    Holy crap! We share an ancestor with modern plants, Dan, for the third time!! So the sentence should read, "life went from a common ancestor with plant life to a horse." In comes the "lets see ALL the creatures that ever existed line". Dan, go outside. Now, look around (you have to open your eyes to do this), do you see dead organisms just piling up around? When you drive to work, are there thousands of dead organisms blocking the road, and covering fields? No? Well, what in the golly gosh darn is happening? Could it be that scavengers eat most of the dead flesh? Could it be that fungi and bacteria decompose the rest? Fossilization is extremely rare, requiring death by immediate burial in particular sediment, anoxic conditions, etc. We have only been uncovering fossils for a handful of decades, and new finds are reported in journals all the time. I read Science and Nature every week, and many issues report very interesting finds. No one expects to recover a comprehensive history of life. Few things in life are that complete. Do we require a complete cinematic record of a crime to convict a criminal?? Of course not. We actually have some very compelling fossil intermediates in numerous lineages (some of which I addressed and you did not refute).

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dan,

    What is your evidence that the god of the Bible created anything?

    ReplyDelete
  90. wow go clos you kinda make me feel of inadequate intelligence lol even though i didnt study ToE but if i was scientific i would say that ToE has the most compelling case i have ever seen its funny that creationists reep the benifits of science like medicine, technology hell even the courts use science to catch killers, rapists ect and yet after all science has done for them they continue to try to attack the building block of it all talk about biting the hand that feeds you! oh and do you mind if i ask (i always wanted to ask an actual scientist) what do you think of the youtube vids how to pwn a yec?

    ReplyDelete
  91. There is an evolution but it is no way what science makes it out to be. It is a hoax perpetuated by a disgruntled man made Darwin who lost some loved ones and his faith, then set out on a mission to debunk faith. If atheist would wake up to this..they would find that THEY are being FOOLED. Their god is themselves or darwin or whoever is in charge at the time or was. Yet they are all DEAD dead dead today, and God and Christ live forever.This all began a long time ago though before any one them, 'the lie' is referred to numerous times in scripture and that is what they belive. It might change shape anf form and dontent, it's like shape shifter..it is, 'a lie' whatever it is at the time. Truth is, atheists have faith in themselves in their own minds, even if it means they are incorrect the best they can do is throw irrelevant terms to change the subject. But little do they know, that science will NEVER prove anything when it comes to such matters because God is Spirit. Theories? Read that word, Theory. Theory is not TRUTH..that is why it is called a theory. And references to philosophy? That was debunked 2000 years ago as well. People do not realize we've been brainwashed in the western world by the likes of Plato and Freud.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Atheism, the nicely blanketed cover up for "Prejudice". Atheism doesn't exist, people just think it does. It's a mass quantity of contradiction steeped in logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Let's be clear on something. Evolution requires mutations which increase genetic information (create new organs, new limbs, etc.) but the reality is that mutations always result in a LOSS of information. Hence the evolution of new species is entirely impossible through that mechanism. It looks like Satan needs to come up with a new lie to whisper in the ear of the anti-Bible crowd.

    As I said in summary, there is no such thing as evolution in the sense they try to pass off. There are mutations and mutations aren't beneficial. In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing, cancer and infectious diseases. Just look at the deformed fruit fly mutants.

    All multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. We started perfect and just as if you're making a copy of a copy of something, you lose information and it's not as good as the original. We are degrading, not improving.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>