Posted on 11/25/2009 5:15:33 AM PST by nysuperdoodle
EC takes on the liberals' sacred cow of evolution and their favorite book," The Origin of the Species or The Preservation of Favored Races." EC discusses three crucial areas where Darwin's half-baked theory, and his fully-baked followers, fall flat.
1. The mysterious total absence of "transitional" fossils. 2. The intellectual dishonesty of failing to differentiate between macro-evolution, which is when a new species mutates from an existing species (has never been observed) and micro-evolution (what we used to call adaptation and happens all the time). 3. Darwinists say mutations bring new species and improved functionality, but every mutation ever recorded seems to do exactly the opposite. Mutations are never good.
I'm not even going to comment on Darwin's racism and how his little tome has been used to justify mass murder and genocide repeatedly. Oh crap. Maybe I just did.
(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...
This is a rough draft of a miniature essay. I would like to have some feedback.
The scientific community has mistakenly called self-ordering phenomena, self-organize. A self-ordered phenomenon is not to be confused with self-organize. Self –organization and self-ordered should be thoroughly examined to correct the current paradigm. Many scientific papers have been published that confuse self-organization when self-ordering events.
Stand-alone physicodynamics has never been observed to give rise to sophisticated formal function nor a formal utility of any kind, yet scientist hold the metaphysical belief that stand-alone physicodynamics can give rise to sophisticated formal function. Self-ordering events are in accordance with physical law; no known law has been observed to give rise to formal self-organization, laws do the same thing every time: they are forced behaviors, they do not program at any level, nor generate the organization, coordination, and cooperation required by complex formal function(biological). When we, as humans, organize something, we do it with a choice in mind, organization does not take place as the result mere chance. Organization cannot occur in the absence of someone making the correct choices. Randomness of physical elements cannot self-organize, however, they can self-order. Bona fide self-organization has never been observed.
One of the requirements of organization is true decision nodes at every level, pre-programming is required to make the correct choices. All know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering,limited by physical laws, are not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, controlling and regulating integrated formal functions, produce prescriptive information, or manifest useful utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines. In other words, self-ordering events do nothing useful, there is no goal, only self-organization is able to do these.
We cannot self-organize ourselves internally, we only find ourselves already organized internally. Self-organization cannot happen in accordance with physical law, because physical laws of themselves do nothing. Self-organization can only take place if free from physical laws; natural forces do not make choices with intent, a requirement of formal self-organization, but even free of physical constraint does not program any kind of sophisticated formal function.
The current paradigm is what most scientists believe to be true, not what is true.Most scientists believe self-organization has been observed, but in reality self-order events are observed. Self-ordered phenomenon is purely physicodynamic, not formal. When you do something, such as building a car, you are instantiating your thoughts (non-physical) in the physical world;formal choices are being instantiated in a physical matrix, which is not determined by natural laws. Physical law will not built the car, it is only when you make the choice and intend to carry out that decision, will the car be built. Self-organization requires freedom from constraints of natural laws, and is always the result of choice with intent.
Physical elements cannot bona fide self-organization into a formal functioning biological systems in other words yield complex biofunction. How can this happen considering formal choices are instantiated into a physical matrix by someone who makes a choice with the intent to carry out that decision? How does self-ordering events limited by physical law account for the complex biofunction we observe in living organisms?
Some scientists are evil, therefore all scientists are evil? Makes sense, in a Creationists sort of way.
almost as good as an Evo with a sense of humor; BAHAHAHAHA, LOL !!!
Evo, not evil.
Again, because you say so? That's hardly very convincing.
The instant anybody says there are no transitional fossils they’ve outed themselves as not knowing what they’re talking about. ALL fossils are transitional, they’re remnants of the species that were around then, species that aren’t around now, species that probably weren’t around before then.
I guess so. I've read the post several times and don't see where anyone other than she says that the transitional fossils listed in FAQ are "a big, stupid lie". But I'll defer to you two's creationism expertise in stupid things.
The rough draft of my miniature essay. I would like feedback.
The scientific community has mistakenly called self-ordering phenomena, self-organize. A self-ordered phenomenon is not to be confused with self-organize. Self –organization and self-ordered should be thoroughly examined to correct the current paradigm. Many scientific papers have been published presupposing self-organization, which has never been observed.
Stand-alone physicodynamics has never been observed to give rise to sophisticated formal function nor a formal utility of any kind, yet many scientist hold the metaphysical belief that stand-alone physicodynamics can give rise to sophisticated formal function. Self-ordering events are in accordance with physical law; no known law has been observed to give rise to formal self-organization, laws do the same thing every time: they are forced behaviors, they do not program at any level, nor generate the organization, coordination, and cooperation required by complex formal function. When we, as humans, organize something, we do it with a choice in mind and not mere chance. Organization does not take place, in the absence of someone making the correct choices. Randomness of physical elements cannot self-organize, however, they can self-order.
One of the requirements of organization is true decision nodes at every level, pre-programming is required to make the correct choices. All know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering, limited by physical laws, are not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, control and regulate integrated formal functions, produce prescriptive information, or manifest utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines. In other words, self-ordering events do nothing useful, there is no goal, only self-organization is able to do these.
We cannot self-organize ourselves internally, we only find ourselves already organized internally. Self-organization cannot happen in accordance with physical law, because physical laws of themselves do nothing. Self-organization can only take place if free from physical laws; natural forces do not make choices with intent, a requirement of formal self-organization, but even free of physical constraint does not program any kind of sophisticated formal function.
The current paradigm is what most scientists believe, not what is true. Most scientists believe self-organization has been observed, but in reality self-order is being observed. Self-ordered phenomenon is physicodynamic, not formal. When you do something, such as building a car; you are instantiating your thoughts (non-physical) in the physical world; formal choices are being instantiated in a physical matrix, which is not determined by natural laws. Physical law will not built the car, it is only when you make the choice and intend to carry out that decision, will the car be built. Self-organization requires freedom from constraints of natural laws, and is always the result of choice with intent.
Physical elements cannot bona fide self-organization into a formal functioning biological systems. How can this happen considering formal choices are instantiated into a physical matrix by someone who makes a choice with the intent to carry out that decision? How does self-ordering constrained by physical law account for complex biofuntion?
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. (from talkorigins.org)
The truth about "Lucy:":
• Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her “ability” to walk upright. First, Lucy’s pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the “distortion” to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994). In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:
“A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).”
Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May ’79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:
“It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Who’s your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).”
Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983),” let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real “transitional” fossil, or “missing link,” has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980).
Facts about “Lucy” from Evos, none from non-Evos. But you’ll find some way to rationalize this information.
There are no examples of self-organization in nature, only self-ordering, which can sometimes mimic self-organization. The scientific community has thoroughly confused self-order with self-organizing. If you search self-organization in the Wikipedia search engine, you be confronted by endless examples of self-ordering, mistakenly labeled as self-organization.
Key word - BELIEVE.
Every single fossil out there has many detractors...among the creationist community. But Lucy also has many supporters in the scientific community so it's a wash.
But you’ll find some way to rationalize this information.
Not hard at all. The beauty of science is that theories and conclusions are laid out for all to see. This will lead to other scientists discovering supporting evidence and other scientists reaching the opposite conclusion through their own research. Some of the conclusions that science has reached based on their study of Lucy may well be proven wrong. But this proof, if it occurs, will be based on evidence. It will not be based on blanket creationist claims that 'all transitional fossils are lies'. But that's always been the creationist way.
So your premise is somewhat related to nature being a ticking watch with someone having to make the watch?
Take away those Creationist that may say "all transitional fossils are lies," you still have big holes and big lies coming from the endorsers of Evolution, it is your own side that you have to worry about.
Since you wont comment on this false allegation, I will. Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, ahead of his time on race issues. Of course, that doesnt stop canards like this one.
I’m not even going to comment on Darwin’s racism
“Since you wont comment on this false allegation, I will. Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, ahead of his time on race issues. Of course, that doesnt stop canards like this one.”
Very well then. I don’t have the time or interest in checking that, so I’ll concede your point and, next time, try to point out that Darwin was an abolitionist, whose work has ironically been used by his followers to rationalize mass murder, abortion, and genocide.
So, how many millions of lives do you think have been lost to your abolitionist buddy’s ideas?
My premise is not “somewhat related to nature being a ticking watch with someone having to make the watch”
Please expound on your assertion. How did you come to this conclusion?
If you reading my writing you can easily understand my point.
I said, self –organization and self-ordered should be thoroughly examined to correct the current paradigm.
I said,laws do the same thing every time: they are forced behaviors,they do not program at any level, nor generate the organization, coordination, and cooperation required by complex formal function.
Laws of themselves do nothing, they do not produce any kind of formal utility. Why are living organisms so far from thermodynamic equilibrium? What natural process can give rise to biofunctional information?
I said, all know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering, limited by physical laws, are not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, control and regulate integrated formal functions, produce prescriptive information, or manifest utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines.
Self-ordering cannot do any of these, only organization with choice with intent.
You must remember, organization is always the result of chioce with intent. I must ask, how were our biological systems organized, naturally? Has bona fide self-organization been observed in nature? I think not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.