Posted on 03/30/2010 2:34:25 PM PDT by Patriot1259
aving established that the universe must have been created by an Intelligent Designer, let us now consider the issue of the origin of life in the universe. Though many believe science has proven that evolution is a fact, we will demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth. At best evolution is a theory, a “guess” about the origin of life, and many scientists will tell you that there are a lot of unanswered questions. Even Darwin admitted as much in his Origin of the Species: “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being to some degree staggered.”
Evolutionist W. LeGros Clark wrote, “What was the ultimate origin of man?… Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural.”
Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut stated, “I believe that the theory of evolution… is in many ways a satisfying explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of evolution from a unique source… is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present day evidence… The supporting evidence remains to be discovered…. I for one do not think that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.” After listing the seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based, Dr. Kerkut stated that “these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
What a pant load
Agreed.
In other words, to have an apples/apples comparison, you'd need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two plausible candidates would be Rastafari and Voodoo.
In fact, Rastafari would lend itself rather admirably to certain kinds of team teaching situations in public schools: a teacher looking for a way to put 30 teenagers into the proper frame of mind for indoctrination into an essentially brain-dead ideological doctrine like evolution could then walk across the hall to the Rasta class for a box of spliffs...
False. That's what evolutionISM is. Google it.
And, at most, all religion is hypothesis
BTW, A Theory is not a "guess", it's a developed framework for experimentation and testing. I can explain that for you but the problem is I can't understand it for you.
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools.2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
Amazing how people who might possibly want to be taken seriously on this issue cannot seem to differentiate between evolution and the origins of life, or the difference between a scientific theory and a “guess”.
Ludicrous.
Intelligent Design and Evolution are presented as mutually exclusive and contradictory theories.
WHY?
But your point is quite valid. To it I add this query...
What would be a more intelligent design, I design something that adapts to changing circumstances, or I design something that cannot change in response to changing circumstances?
you’re speaking nonsense no more reasonable than astrology. I won’t waste bandwidth with people like you
Translation into plain English: “I didn’t really understand any of that, therefore you must be an idiot...”
So, you can't think, can't write and can't even translate either. Must have been a heck of a head injury you suffered.
How exactly can evolution be tested?
Epithets aren’t arguments, Redwoods.....deal with Wendy’s arguments......
There are such markers on all humans' genomes. The same marker is on the exact same link of the genome of the chimpanzee proving that an ancestor common to both got the virus and passed on the change to all of its descendants; human and chimp.
There are many such examples. Coincidence is on the order of billions to one against.
Wendy doesn’t have an argument; she has a hopeful speculation based upon an absurdity. She and the other ID-iots are deluded.
“In this country, evolution is taught in elementary schools as science. The only one’s in this country who object to that are conservative Christians, who are put down as anti-science.
“The arguments of the “pro-science” (mostly global-warming environmentalist type academic) zealots are absurd. Even if there were any science in evolution, teaching it in grade school is tantamount to teaching the Calculus to third graders who have not learned long division yet. First teach them some physics, some chemistry, some biology, some organic chemistry, cell biology, and genetics; then, perhaps, they will be ready to learn about evolution, but would probably know enough by then to see that it is all bunk.”
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=88
Hank
Evolution has BEEN tested, repeatedly, and has failed every test.
The most spectacular of such were the tests involving fruit flies in the early decades of the last century.Fruit flies breed new generations every other DAY, so that running tests on fruit flies for two or three decades will amount to more generations of fruit flies than there ever have been of anything remotely resembling humans on this planet.
They subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined mutants every possible way. All they ever got was sterile freaks and fruit flies. No wasps, hornets, butterflies, caterpillars, bees, ants, spiders, or anything else, just fruit flies. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution as a bunch of BULLSHIT as a result of those tests including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who claimed afterward to be being subjected to something akin to Orwell's two minute hate seances of 1984 by colleagues.
The reason they never got anything but fruit flies is that our entire living world is driven by information, and the only information they ever had was that for a fruit fly. When the information code of RNA/DNA became known in the mid 1960s, the mystery was basically resolved. There has never been a valid reason for anybody with any semblance of brains or talent believing in evolution since that time.
Should we keep the fossils at the museums off in a different area so they won't see them until they're ready?
When I consider the complexity of the electron transport chain, I understand why Creationists/ Intelligent Designers believe what they do. Then I remember that they have never heard of the electron transport chain.
"gratuitious"? Edumakation my friend. Edumakation!
“Should we keep the fossils at the museums off in a different area so they won’t see them until they’re ready?”
Only an academic, or someone who thinks they are, would make such a suggestion. Fossils are facts, at least when they aren’t made up ones. There is never any reason to hide facts.
It’s the grown-up fairy tales about those facts, which keep changing every few weeks, that children do not need to be burdened with.
There is no reason to “teach” (propagandize) children with any version of “origins.” Once they can teach children to read, to do arithmetic, speak read and write English, know something about the geography of the world, (and that Islands are not in danger of capsizing from overpopulation), then, perhaps, people’s various conjectures on origins might be talked about.
Hank
see my post #17. refute that.
“When I consider the complexity of the electron transport chain, I understand why Creationists/ Intelligent Designers believe what they do. Then I remember that they have never heard of the electron transport chain.”
Not sure who this was directed at, or even what it’s intention is. I do not believe in a diety, know that ID is absurd, and do not swallow the evolutionist fairy tales either. I have no idea why so many people are terrified to admit, with regard to origins, no one knows, and evolution is not science.
By the way, Darwin never heard of the “electron transport chain, or mitochondria, or adenosine triphosphate either.
What’s your point?
Hank
How do you propose that they be insulated from that concept in the meantime?
Congratulations, you've actually produced some sort of a halfway rational statement which might could be construed as supporting ape/hominid/human evolution if nobody ever took any sort of a harder look. Evolutionists on FR only get that far about once or twice every three or four years.
There are three possible explanations for how modern man got to this planet and macroevolution is not one of them. The three are these: Modern man was
1. Created here from scratch recently
2. Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos
3. Genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids.
What the harder look would indicate in this case is that you might want to put your money on item 3. It would not altogether rule out items one or two.
Here's the basic problem: In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.
Now, it was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods of time; one fairly good description of the problem was published in Discover Magazine around 96.
And then, in the late 90s, they resolved the mystery by analyzing neanderthal DNA; the result they turned up was that neanderthal dna was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and pretty much everybody involved in these studies views that as altogether eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Even standard sources like PLOS Biology agree with this assessment.
Again as I noted, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. In other words, if you wanted to go on thinking that we are descended from hominids, you would have to produce some new hominid closer to us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of such a creature would be all over the map and exceedingly easy to find, had he ever existed. There is, of course, zero evidence of it.
The basic bottom line is that there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from via any process resembling evolution.
Because we do know, and because evolution is one of the most established theories in science. Thanks for googleing "electron transport chain". Now at least you know ATP exists.
Here’s an article on my site that discusses a few of the problems with evolution. It was written by a geneticist friend of mine.
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/pee/evolution.php
She’s also a nurse, by the way.
Evolution is a fairy tale, just like creationism, only the story tellers of evolution have to keep changing their story, because they pretend it’s a science, just like environmentalists, another academic religion.
Why do people like you presume things about people you do not know and know nothing about?
Hank
Not only nonsense, but non-science as well
Germ cells replicate the genes of somatic cells. This is what is called a straw man argument. You make claims for your opponent that they would never make for themselves. It is a sign of ignorance or dishonesty. Democrats do it a lot.
“Germ cells replicate the genes of somatic cells.”
First, the writer did not claim evolutionist make the argument, it was hers. No straw man.
Second, germ cells do not replicate mutations unless the mutations are of germ cells. Which is the point you apparently did not understand. You can have mutations all through an organism, but if the germ cells are not affected, nothing will be passed on.
You do a lot of accusing and name calling, which is typical academic harrassment, not intellectual discussion. Before you call someone dishonest, ignorant, or imply they might be a Democrat, first get your science right.
Hank
Ofcourse this means recent mutations. How do you explain heriditary diseases like downs syndrome?
“Of course this means recent mutations. How do you explain heriditary diseases like downs syndrome?”
Not exactly. It means at the moment a mutation becomes a step in evolution, if there were such a thing, the mutation must be of germ cells. (I’m not arguing against evolution, only that at the present stage of knowledge, it is not yet a science.)
Since I’m not defending any particular view, I don’t need to “explain hereditary diseases.” Evolutionists always conveniently drop the main issue. It’s not evolution within species, but the “origin of species” that is the issue. Perhaps hereditary diseases are examples of evolution within species, but even so, they would be irrelevant to the question of whether one specie can evolve from another.
By the way. I have no objection to your believing in evolution if you are convinced it is science and true, anymore than I object to those theists that believe in creation, or ID. I think you are all mistaken, but lots of people are mistaken about a lot of things, but so long as their views are not forced on me, they do me no harm. But I have noticed something about most evolutionists I do not understand. Why do most, especially those in academia, become positively apoplectic when someone else doesn’t believe in evolution. What do they care? Perhaps you have some insight into that.
Hank
Your Post #17 is not a test.
It is an examination of something that exists today and trying to figure out what happened in the past.
You want absurdity?
Hemoglobin is made up of 287 Amino Acids that must be in sequence. There are 20 Amino Acids used in building life. The odds of Hemoglobin randomly assembling (randomly.... no intelligence) is 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20, etc. The odds of getting hemoglobin end up being 1 X 2.5^373.... I’m sure you know that there are 373 zeros in that number. Just as a point of reference, Science estimates that the number of atoms in the known universe is 10^80.
Hemoglobin is one protein. Science argues about the number of proteins in the human body but on the low side of the estimates it is claimed to be 10,000. Hemoglobin is only one of those. What you saw above has to occur at least 9,999 more times.
While I’m thinking of it, here’s a few more questions for you:
1. How exactly did we get from organisms that reproduce asexually to those that produce sexually.....and then to just happen to have two different sets of plumbing evolve all at the same time to make it possible?
2. Which came first, blood or veins....or arteries.... or the heart? If the heart came first what did it pump? If the veins came first, how did the blood know (when it came along) that it was supposed to go inside the veins? Wait, it had to go through the heart first....how does it know that? Did the blood already have coagulating properties? How did it know not to coagulate while still inside the body?
3. Wendy referred to fruit flies in one of her posts. Everything I’ve ever read about these experiments is that no matter how many they radiate and no matter how many generations they go they wind up with one of three things: fruit flies, damaged fruit flies and dead fruit flies. Do you have an explanation for that?
4. We are told by science that macroevolution occurs via Natural Selection and Mutations. By definition, Natural Selection can only select out traits that already exist and there has never been a mutation that has ever been observed that increased genetic information....all have been information-neutral or lost information.
For evolution to be true then, since there hasn’t been a mechanism found that increases genetic information, I can logically infer that every trait of every living organism, bacteria, plant, animal or human had to have been in that first gene that popped out of the primordial mud puddle 4.5 Billion (or whatever number they are using now) years ago. What do you think the odds are of that?
I’ll close by saying something that I said in an earlier post. An epithet is not an argument. If you can’t make your point respectfully without insulting someone I can only assume that you are incapable of it.
brilliant read and the close was honorable as well.....got a question for you now..........why is 3/ 4’s of the earth covered in salt water
Hey advertising guy.... in real life I’m a printing guy. Life is tough, too much electronic communication going on.
The simple answer to your question is that I have no idea.
The only thing that I know about salt water is that when it evaporates the salt (and minerals) are left behind... meaning that rain is free from both.
Also... the percentage that I’ve always read is that 2/3 of the earth is water...including salt and fresh water.
Why do you ask the question?
just under 3/4’s is actually salted water.....the reason I ax’d is 2fold....1. your knowledge in the above posts and I expected a “no I don’t know” answer
in fact, ax a million people and no one can answer. Why ?
Either no curiousity or they were not taught.
the answer also is 2fold...........the earth is mostly salt water so when the sun is it’s most active, our waters do not evaporate to extinction and when the sun is it’s most inactive, our seas do not freeze to immobility. And both sun cycles within a margin that still allows evaporation to replenish earth with useable water
As a kid at church gatherins we made lots of home made ice creme.....granny would pop the top of the hand cranked ice creme machine to see if the ice creme was “hard enuf”.....if not we put rock salt on top and continued crankin til the ice creme was hard enuf to scoop
So much for global warming huh...........and the reason this universal truth is not taught ? GOD....it admits a supreme being made us and all things and well....we can’t teach that can we.
You cannot refute the genetic test I cited. It proves conclusively that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. All of your other questions must be answered in light of that.
I have studied the Creation/Evolution debate in great detail for many years. I have never seen the evolution side of the argument make the claim that you have made.
Please provide me with access to the study that you cite.
In the meantime, I respectfully ask for your answers to my questions. “It doesn’t matter” does not cut it.
Amen.
And according to this article creationism is established scientific fact? Ridiculous.
There are thousands and thousands of actual scientists who would disagree with you on that one.
And they’re all wrong.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. </sarcasm>
And no, your other questions don't mean anything as the matter is well settled.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/11/4982
OK Redwoods.
I’ll look into it. I notice that the article was written in 1989. I have been studying the creation/evolution debate for over 5 years and have never seen this argument used by the evolution side of the argument.....not even once.
If the proof is so irrefutable, I can’t help but wonder why it is never brought up.
I have a friend who has a PhD in Microbiology who I will talk to about this.
In the meantime, don’t pretend that my questions don’t matter...... your inability to answer them is the reason you won’t try.
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.