Darwin's arguments against God

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.¹ Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.² I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’³

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

[demshateGod]

“Death before the fall”

Yes. The fall would have to be what’s being referred to as what made the creation subject unto vanity. That was a really poorly worded sentence. We have to be talking about the fall here because verse 23 says We ourselves groan. Wouldn’t you agree our groaning and nature’s groaning are from the same event by their proximity in this passage?

[CottShop]

[[Ok, which ones? I don’t see it. Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? That states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is supplied with energy in the form of solar radiation. As a result, Earth is not an isolated system of heat transfer.]]

Tis true- tis true- however, you are aware that an open system is even worse for the hypothesis of macroevolution right?

Open vs. Closed Systems

Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’ error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”

The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living system is an exception to the 2nd law.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.

However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.

No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics? http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo

[CottShop]

[[No one is making the claim that single mutations dramatically change an organism into something wildly different.]]

That is NOT what the article stated- nowehre did it mention single mutaitons- as well, the fruitfly experiments involved many many millions of mutaitons, just as species woudl be subject to over their supposed billions of years of ‘evolution’

[[It can even go in the other direction. Laboratory studies on chicks reveal that single mutations can cause atavistic growth of teeth which were inhibited by another gene.]]

Swell- expression of info that is already present, and hten turnign that info on- Again you are NOT creating ANYTHING new via mutation- it’s a ‘johnny come lately’ attempt to, after the fact, look at the completed code, point out somethign that ‘changed’ (But hwich falls squarely, once again fully within species specific parameters, and claim it’s a ‘new and novel’ feature- which it certainly is not

As I mentioend before- when you CAREFULLY examine all the so called evidences for macroevolution, they break down- and hte article I pointed you to shows that NO new novel non species specific info ever arises, and certainly NOT in the massive- MASSIVE amounts and accumulations that MUST have occured IF macroevolution were a reality- ALL we have arte moot examples of species change, species change which falls squarely, once again, within species specific parameters-

[CottShop]

lol- my beleiefs aren’t being htreatened- just answering the silyl arguments against htem- tyou know- the silly arguments that pretend microeovlution is macroevolution, pretend mutaitons are endowed with magical powers, pretend that natural, biological, chemical, and mathematical laws don’t exist when it comes to macroeovlution?

Trust me, the science supports my beleifs just fine- it’s yours that is in trouble. Speaking hte TRUTH about scientists who both are unwilling to ever cede evidences, and who ostracise and malign and belittle those that don’t tow the darwinian line isn’t derogatory- it’s callign htem to the carpet to account for hteir deception- most intentionally- some ignorantly

[CottShop]

[[Mutations change the amino acid. You may have ‘silent site’ mutations, moderately disabling, or lethal changes in the nucleotide sequence. They can have a variable effect on fitness, from highly advantageous to highly disadvantageous. Most mutations are simply neutral until another mutation causes a significant change in the amino acid sequence.]]

You don’t see the problem do you? ANY changes MUST be anticipated- in other words, the metainfo MUST first already be present- mind explaining how that metainfo arose from chemicals? Simple changes don’t just affect one aspect of a system, it affects many, and IF ALL the systems aren’t able to cope- then the changes won’t be assimilated into the whole- in order to cope however, the whoel system must have had the metainfo already present to regulate, direct, and utilize htese changes

[[The end result of “fixing” advantageous genes in a population can sometime be that an existing structure is modified to gain a new function.]]

And hten he goes on to show an ABNOMALITY such as an extra digit- for which the info was ALREADY present- Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info, morphology, or major organs or systems not specific to that species arising from mutaitons- He just A PRIORI ASSUMES they must have- ‘sometime in the past’, and is doing nothign more htan pointing to MICROEVOLUTION and claiming it is MACROEVOLUTION, or at least claiming such microevolutionary changes ‘could result in’ macroevolutionary changes ‘sometime i nthe past’ (For, once again, which we have NO evidence)

[[“Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.”]]

Yup- but mind explainign to everyone how simple conservation can lead to NEW NON SPECIES SPECIFIC systems arising without hte info to do so?

[[There is much more to say. Shall I go on? Any questions?
]]

Hopefully it’s not goign to me just more examples of microevolution that is trying to be passed off as ‘evidence for macroevolution’?

[Fichori]

“Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.” [excerpt]

Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?

[Soothesayer]

“Swell- expression of info that is already present, and hten turnign that info on- Again you are NOT creating ANYTHING new via mutation- it’s a ‘johnny come lately’ attempt to, after the fact, look at the completed code, point out somethign that ‘changed’ (But hwich falls squarely, once again fully within species specific parameters, and claim it’s a ‘new and novel’ feature- which it certainly is not”

Huh? Of course the genes for teeth are already present, that’s the whole point of the experiment! Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome? Even if we could, what would that prove besides that we’re really cruel to lab animals?

[Soothesayer]

We may very well be talking past each other because I still don’t understand where you are coming from. What exactly do you mean by “metainfo”? Are you referring to the genome?

“Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info”

That is one scientist who co-authored a few papers about very specific genetic data and about very specific species relationships. The rest of the data is produced by the rest of the scientific community.

I still don’t know what you mean by “species specific info”. Are you referring to DNA nucleotides?

I don’t think I should argue further until you clarify this.

[CottShop]

the metainfo is the higher info that controls all lower info, or subinfo in species

[[The rest of the data is produced by the rest of the scientific community.]]

There is no ‘rest of the data’ that I’m aware of, only assumptions without evidence, and a priori beliefs.

Species specific- each species has it’;s own set of metainfo which controls all species specific lower info, as well as prevents outside manipulations beyond their own species specific parameters- that is why species can ONLY be manipulated within certain species specific ‘guidelines’ or parameters- that is why fruitflies remain fruitflies regardless of how many mutaitons your throw at them (whcih sceicne certainly has done in hopes of chasing the ever elusive unicorn of Macroevolution), that is why ducks remain ducks- kinds remain kinds- following hte evidence, both through repetable experiments in the present, and the evidence of the fossils, shows just what htey show- discontinuity, and species specific parameters preventing continuity. Species have several built in, coded for, protection levels that prevent mangling of hteir species specific paramters as well, and it’s all controlled by a higher metainfo that science simply can not explain via chemical to chemist macroevolution

[CottShop]

[[Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome?]]

Nopwe- didn’t say it was false- I said the scientists are johnny come lately’s who are trying to manipulate code that is already present, and buffalo the public into htinking that the expression of previously turned-off gene functions somehow translates into Macroevolution, and can somehow, despite any evidence, account for the trillions of dissimilarities between species kinds, when infact, the ONLY way to introduce the absolutely necessary NON species specific info into a species to facilitate major morphological changes is via lateral gene transferences, which we know only occure between some low life bacteria of hte same KIND.

I’m saying, that just like in Miller’s supposed ‘explanation’ for the ‘evolution of higher blood clotting’ He and other scientists take code that is ALREADY PRESENT, and fantasize abotu how it ‘could have arisen’ and hten take the gigantic leap to extrapolation land and claim it did happen- the problem is though that it would take an icnredible INTELLIGENT DESIN in order to achieve their fantasy claims- when Miller’s ‘explanation’ for blood clotting evolution’ is examined, in detail, you will quickly come to realize just how incredibly complex it really is, and how much intelligent manipulation, protection, nurturing, and development really went into Miller’s ‘all natural’ ‘evolution of blood clotting’- He is taking code that already exists, decons tructing it, and htne claiming that because lower clotting systems exist, higher more complex ones must have simply naturally evolved- this is goign WAY beyond the actual facts, and infact shows just how much intelligent design really is needed. The panda’s ‘extra digit’ functions are nothign new- the info was already htere, and htere is NOTHING to state that info worked on via mistakes can not be of some use, but htis is a MUCH MUCH different proposition than is the issue of introducing trillions of NON species specific info which absolutely MUST have happeend in order to arrive at hte millions of different species kinds i nthe world bot present and extinct.

IF we’re havign trouble even describing insignificant poiojnts, then why am I to believe trillions of these changes and additions of new non species specific info occcured in the past, all without some form of higher metainfo controlling it? This metainfo didn’t just accumulate via chemical to chemist ‘evolution’ via mistakes in coding-

[CottShop]

[[“Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.”]]

No you don’t- ALL you have to do is look more objectively at hte actual evidence of science, it will lead you, as it did for the fella in one of my previous posts, to the conclusion that the evidence shows NOT Macroevbolution, as evos liek to claim, but rather special creation and discontinuity- it all just depends on which you wish to put your faith in- the actual evidences? Or someone’s projections of the evidences WAY beyond what hte actual evidences really show such as macroeovlutionists do.

IF You’ve accepted Christ as Savior, asked Him to forgive you of your sin- honestly and sincirly, then you are saved, and I’m not suggresting we are saved via science, or hsould put our trust in science, BUT I AM saying science just further strengthens God’s creation model when you look at it honestly and objectively and htrow out all the projections and assumptions that simply are NOT an actual representation of where the evidences lead.

Anyway- late- night- Macroevolution isn’t nearly as ‘solid’ as you’re told it is- or you’ve studied about- look closely, you’ll see how the hypothesis is propped up with assumptions and claims that lack evidence- everywhere you look in macroevolutionary claims it’s glues together with claims that simply do not fit the evidences. Also try to understand fully the difference between macro and microevolution- there is a big big difference, and micro can not biologically lead to macro- the ONLY thing that can bring about macroevolution is lateral gene transference, and even this has many serious problems associated with it when it’s tried to be extrapolated to continuity between species kinds (Again, built in species specific parameters prevent such manipulation, and again, species psecific metainfo simply doesn’t allow it). The problems with Macroevolution are NOT insignificant- they are serious death blows to the hypothesis, and presenting microevolution as though it was macroevolution, or ‘could lead to’ macro, won’t help the hypothesis one bit- they are two seperate biolgical processes- one a reality, the other a non reality that simply can’t happen biolgically, mathematically, naturally, or chemically.

[tacticalogic]

I’ve investigated the creation science theories enough to know there’s holes in those theories you could drive a bulldozer through, and plenty of deceptive arguments and questionable evidence used to try and justify them.

[CottShop]

I seriously doubt that tactic- Are those 'holes' larger than the IMPOSSIBILITIES associated with macroevolution? ID science follows the evidence- that's it- there aren't any 'holes' when you follow the evidence- the evidence is what it is- IF the fossil records show discontinuity, then that is what it shows- period- to go beyond the actual evidence and claim it shows continuity when you don't have the slightest evidence to show it does is NOT science- it's pure projections based on ASSUMPTIONS and an A PRIORI advocacy, and you're going to tell me that Creation science and ID have 'holes' in it? While IGNORING the glaring canyons in Macroevolution?

Let me just give a brief but lengthy synopsis of what I've found when Evos have presented their 'best evidences' for macroevolution over the years, and you tell me which has the bigger 'holes'- remember, these are the 'best' arguments for Macroevolution- I'll present it with the claim first in red, and my response after I investigated the claims for myself- NOTE the intentional deceits that went into the claims for macroevolution as well, and then get back to me and tell me again how ID is being deceitful when they present the EVIDENCE that refutes the evo's claims: (I'm sure you will just ignore this post altogether or at worse- simply deny the deceits made by macro's- but here it goes)

1:We can witness evolution in the lab. Eukoroytes and prokaryotes are an example of macroevolution: No, no they are not- but amazingly, it is STILL taught in schools that they show 'evolution in action'- EVEN AFTER getting caught and exposed evos STILL present them as 'evolution in action. prokaryotes, it turns out upon carefuly examination, engage NOTHING more than a symbiotic relationship with a host with euko's- pure symbiotic relationship- nothing more- but this was, and still is presented as 'evidence for macroevolution' today

2: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of macroevolution: Nope- sorry, wrong again. It is well known that bacteria are able to laterally transfer genetic info between their OWN KIND, and that combining genetic info from one and another, a bacteria is able to handle many stress situations most species can not- but they REMAIN their own kind- nothing NEW is gained- Bacteria are precoded to be able to utilize this unique ability seen only in bacteria.

3: 'Feathered Dinos' show a link between reptiles and birds: Bzzzt- Those aren't feathers- they are degraded scales- Scales when they degrade show a slight resemblance to feathers. As well, they lacked the actual characteristics of TRUE feathers, and could not possibly have sustained flight EVEN IF the reptiles magically evolved the many other absolutely necessary bird features such as avian lungs, avian breathing tubes, avian sternums, avian bones, avian flight muscles, avian wings etc. For which there is zero evidence to support- just wild assumptions about 'missing evidence'. Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn't infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth etc- this would still be a LONG way off from establishing a link between birds and reptiles.

4: Mutations that cause sickle cell anemia show a 'rise of new info, and show macroevolution: Bzzzzt- wrong again. LOSS of info is the exact opposite for what Macroevolution needs. As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works. Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment. There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters, and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution. (You'll note that this statement will arise quite often, as it is KEY to understanding just what exactly separates macroevolution from micro evolution)

5: The fossil record for the evolution of land dwelling hearing is the most complete and settled scientific evidence we have and clearly shows evolution in action: Bzzzzzt! Wrong again. Have any of you even bothered to examine this ridiculous claim? Have any of you even bothered to look at the chart and investigate the matter? Seriously! This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught! But nope- it's still presented as 'the best and most complete' example of evolution in the fossil records.

Where to begin... The chart shows the supposed movement of jaw bones in fishes to the inner ear canal, but when you examine the chart you will note that #1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the 'earliest' fishes to land animals, #2, there are gaps of millions of years between the supposedly closest related species- who's to say those jaw bones didn't move back the other way in species not yet found in those millions of years gaps? #3, the 'link' between the water dwelling cynodont, and land dweller show skulls the SAME SIZE- this is a blatant intentional MISREPRESENTATION! The water dweller that is supposedly related to the land dweller is the size of a RAT while the land dweller is the size of a HIPPO! These two are related? And supposedly show a nice neat flow of jaw bones to the ear? How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they? It is ridiculous to think that the scientists thought we'd be so stupid as to not notice this glaring deceit! (I've spoken about this chart in depth elsewhere here on FR- but this is the crux of the issue)

6: Apes are related to humans because 'our genomes are very similar'. Bzzzzt- this 'similarity is dropping more and ore the more we look into this supposed link. As well, the differences are in the billions, something for which Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively 'short' period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically. (This category also involves many claims of 'missing links' which when examined turn out NOT to be as 'settled' as some claim them to be, and also turn out to be either fully ape, or fully human, with one category, Ergaster, not even being a legit 'category' but none-the-less it's given as an example in the nice neat little charts which again are intentionally deceitful) (I'll not go into this one further as this has been discussed ad neauseum many times here on FR- Let it be known that there is WIDE disagreement even among secular scientists about the classifications, and let it be known here that there is a WIDE variety of human skulls even among modern day beings, but this is NEVER discussed because evos desperately wish those 'missing links' to be 'transitionals' and won't cede that they could be deformed skulls, and let it be known here that MANY of the 'examples' of 'missing links' have themselves, many missing parts for which inventive imaginations simply draw in the huge blanks)

7: Natural entropy isn't a problem for Macroevolution because we live in a open system, and in open systems, there are examples of processes which 'violate' the entropy rule (Creationists don't really understand the second law): HUH? What a crock! First of all, those processes that 'violate' the entropy rule are STATIC processes such as snowflakes forming simple geometric patterns that follow geometric rules! EVERY other system, especially living systems, is STILL subject to the second law, and in an open system, things are even WORSE for them! Crystal growth is a lame example of this 'violation' when it comes to living systems:

1) Evolution calls for the development of life itself and subsequent life forms from a purely natural process. Life does not function without the strictly controlled conversion of raw solar energy into useable energy. What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?

2) Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. What specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes have led from zero genetic data in raw matter to the vast array of voluminous genetic data inherent in living organisms as we know them? [Link: TRUEORIGINS]

Be sure to read that whole exchange, because it goes to prove just how deceitful evos are when it comes to waving away SERIOUS problems associated with Macroevolution. Creationists understand the second law just fine thank you, and it is quite obvious after reading that exchange that it is the evos that don't understand it despite their stubborn insistence that they do.

8: Tiktaalik shows transition from water to land: Bzzzzt- Tiktaalik does no such thing- it is a lobe-finned fish- nothing more! The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish's weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom. These lobes are used not for scooting along the bottom as once thought, (and claimed, and taught in schools) but for unique maneuvering while suspended in the water. While the fish did have a separated head, unlike fish, this doesn't show anything but that it was a unusual species of fish- extrapolating it to mean it was a 'transitional' is a statement of devout a priori assumption that fish became land dwellers. We know today that many fish have unusual fins, but they are still fish and could NOT survive out of water- Stating otherwise is a religious statement, and NOT a scientific statement

9: I'll stop here for now, as there is much much more I've personally investigated and found to be severely wanting. your claim that there is 'plenty of deceptive arguments' in the creationist ID camp is a false one based on a few websites which do NOT represent the actual sciences of Creationism or ID no more so than the DECEPTIVE sites like Darwin Central, and Talkorigins and Panda's Thumb website represent true science. IF you wish to discuss actual evidences, instead of pointing out some inaccuracies on sites like answers in genesis (All the while ignoring the reams of factual science they do present) then let's discuss the actual evidence and see if they, the claims of macroevolutionsits, hold up- I've found that no! They do NOT hold up when examined closely, objectively, and carefully. When the layers of deceit are peeled off, we're left with anemic examples that fall apart. I'll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists 'best examples' a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related" (they do not, but show a bias of the virus for certain similar insertion points- period- and show common design, not common descent, and htere is MUCH that macroevos LEAVE OUT when makign htis claim- such as how similar species would be susceptible to very similar viruses seeings how there are millions of viruses bombarding every species, and it coudl very well be that the two species coexisting in the same region, fully formed, fully functional completed species of unique but somehwhat similar designs, woudl be susceptible to similar viruses- (this they will NOT cede- ever it appears) and Nylon degradation by bacteria show evolution in action- it does NOT and I'll show exactly why later- this was another highly deceptive argument put forth by macroevos which intentionally HIDES the FACTS of nylon degradation by bacteria- But you wouldn't;'t know this when reading the over-reaching, broad, deceptive claims of macroevos because they INTENTIONALLY misled everyone by NOT presenting ALL the facts)

[CottShop]

We’re not talking ‘theories’ here Tactic- and you are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting Creationism and ID by tryign to extrapolate a few moot examples of mistakes or innacuracies posted by sites that do NOT represent the movement’s sciences, but rather simply report on the sciences, and you are trying apply these few example to the whole theories’ evidences and sciences. IF you are goign to simply wave away the whole of Creationism and ID based on the OPINIONS of individuals from lay sites that exist OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCES of the sciences of ID and creationism, then you are goign to HAVE to dismiss ALL sites like Talkorigins, Darwin central, panda’s thumb, DU and others- and MANY scientific journals as well which all have severely deceived, intentionally, and have voiced their OPINIONS that exist outside of the actual evidences.

We’re discussing hte actual evidences here Tactic- I’m not itnerested in your biased opinion of Creationism or ID- We ALL know how you feel about them- you’ve repeated tyour false claims many many times ghere on FR- what we’re discussing here however is the actual evidences and whether they hold up under careful objective scrutiny or not.

IF you want ot discuss which sites are more intentionally deceitful, then start another thread and I’ll be happy to point out the blatant intentional deceit of sites like Talkorigins which claims to have 29 evidences for macroevolution but for hwich every one of htose 29 ‘evidences for macroevolution’ was ripped to shreds by Timothy Wallace at TRUEORIGINS who monitors the DECEIT of Talkorigins and exposes them as the chal’rlatans they are, and we’ll see just which sites are really deceiving people- Your claims of ‘deceit’ at sites like answers ion genesis are based on actual deceitful ‘rebutals’ which have been exposed over and over again as the lies that htey really are- so yeah- you wanna start an argument about who is being intentionally deceitful, then start another thread- your argumetns will be destroyed in a quick hurry!

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

[CottShop]

Soothsayer- metainfo was discussed in detail in this thread (It’s a very long thread, but a LOT of invaluable info was presented there showing how ALL of life is irreducible, not just certain systems like Behe has expressed)- Be sure to give it a read- metainfo can NOT arise via mistakes in nature, and metainfo is absolutely necessary BEFORE any changes can take place in any meaninful manner in species- it’s a VERY itneresting thread- well worth the time to read throgugh) Chemicals can NOT self assemble into anythign intelligently combined enough to even begin hte hypothetical process of macroevolution- there HAS to be a system of metainformation inplace BEFORE any changes can take place- this metainfo- (info about info) is quite amazing really, and we know it contributes to a species specific parameter system that prevents manipulation beyond these limits, and is coded to protect species kinds from losing fitness and from moving beyond hteir own kinds as discussed in the thread- you’ll find your explanation for species specific info in there as well

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts

[Soothesayer]

What kind of evidence, exactly, are you demanding? The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old. We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.

Is this really a fair demand? I’m not going to argue that evolution is definitively proven, it isn’t. It could all be completely wrong. Heck there is even a small chance that 6 day creationism could be correct! The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days. No one is telling us how God may have done the deed. What were the physical forces involved? What was the chemistry? What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating? etc etc

These are tough question to answer but until someone starts gathering serious data, evolution is the best theory we have. Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.

If you could show me some ID experimental studies (if they exist), I would much appreciate it as I have yet to find any.

[tacticalogic]

We’re discussing hte actual evidences here Tactic- I’m not itnerested in your biased opinion of Creationism or ID- We ALL know how you feel about them- you’ve repeated tyour false claims many many times ghere on FR- what we’re discussing here however is the actual evidences and whether they hold up under careful objective scrutiny or not.

What "false claims" have I made, and what exactly is the evidence you're referring to?

[Soothesayer]

“IF the fossil records show discontinuity, then that is what it shows- period- to go beyond the actual evidence and claim it shows continuity when you don’t have the slightest evidence to show it does is NOT science”

In science we pick the most parsimonious explanation. The goal is to acquire knowledge, not to have it from the very beginning. We almost certainly do NOT currently possess the complete record of all life that ever existed on Earth. If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.

1. My bachelor’s thesis was on the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria and eukaryotes. This is a hotly debated question among evolutionary biologists. We don’t yet have an explanation that accounts for all the data. Who knows, maybe God made eukaryotes by a mechanism that creationists may some day discover? If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!

2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at. The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.

3. You are actually correct about this. They claimed that Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China was a feathered dinosaur. Their experimental methods were flawed and they now regard the “feathers” as tough fibers of dermal collagen.

“Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn’t infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth”

No one is precluding it, quite the contrary. Evolutionary biologists regard the original function of feathers to be just that. Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.

4. “As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works.”

No one is arguing that all life on Earth is getting progressively more complex or that genomes are getting bigger and bigger. There are unicellular organisms which have enormous genomes in the billions of base pairs. Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.

“Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment”

Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.

“There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters”

Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate? If so, that’s not a mutation. I’m confused.

“and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution.”

There are sometimes insertions and duplications of DNA nucleotides/codons during transcription. This is very significant in many cases. Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?

5. I agree that the fossil record does not represent the complete record of life on Earth and I’ve already stated that geological forces destroy fossils.

“This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught!”

There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess. Name-calling is also a pretty bad way to argue. Remember that Monty Python skit “ argument clinic”?

“#1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the ‘earliest’ fishes to land animals”

Don’t leave amphibians out of the picture.

“How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they?”

They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.

6. “As well, the differences are in the billions”

Differences of what are in the billions?

“Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively ‘short’ period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically.”

Are you referring to the molecular clock? There are ways of testing whether or not base pair divergence in species somewhat correlates with a molecular clock. One method is the relative rate test. In the case of hominoids, the differences between the rhesus monkey and the various hominoids ranges from 806 (to Orangutan) to 767 (human). Molecular clocks are generally inexact but the trend indicates a slight slow-down in molecular divergence. Also, the relative rate test, applied to DNA sequence data from various organisms, has shown that rates of sequence evolution are often quite similar among taxa that are fairly closely related. However, distantly related taxa often have rather different evolutionary rates. For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.

Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.

7. 2nd law is not just about contact geometry, that’s only a small piece of it. Chemicals maintain their bonds so long as energy is applied below the activation energy (Ea). I only took general physics and chemistry while in college so I can’t really discuss the higher mathematics.

1) “What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?”

Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.

2) “Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. “

No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches. Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms. Look at the little chemotropic creatures living at the bottom of the ocean trenches or the worm that can survive the vacuum of space. Amazing!

8. “The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish’s weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom.”

How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets. It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.

9. “I’ll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists ‘best examples’ a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related”

Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.

[tacticalogic]

9: I'll stop here for now, as there is much much more I've personally investigated and found to be severely wanting. your claim that there is 'plenty of deceptive arguments' in the creationist ID camp is a false one based on a few websites which do NOT represent the actual sciences of Creationism or ID

Exactly which web sites are my "false claims" based on?

[CottShop]

[[Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.]]

Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions

[[If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.]]

Swell cop out-

[[If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!]]

Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom? Those who DON’T follow the evidence and stop when it’s prudent to do so? Those who extrapolate fantastic scenarios from evidences that don’t warrent doing so? Golly- could I become a story-teller too? Thanks- but I’ll stick to just investigating the actual evidences instead of dreaming up scenrios that include ignroing biological, mathematical, chemical and natural llaws.

[[2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at.]]

You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.

[[The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.]]

Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria

[[Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.]]

Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?

[[Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.]]

Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M

[[Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate?]]

NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference

[[Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?]]

No- I said what I said

[[There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess.]]

That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!

[[They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.]]

Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed- the sad fact is htough that ALL we find are fully completed fully functional species in the myriad fossils we do have. Not one single instance of gradual morphological change- just a LOT of assumptions about completed species.

[[Differences of what are in the billions?]]

The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained. The complete sequencing of the human genome creates an opportunity to ask which genes are involved in those differences. A logical approach would be to use the chimpanzee genome for comparison and the other great ape genomes for confirmation. Until such a great ape genome project can become reality, the next best approach must be educated guesses of where the genetic differences may lie and a careful analysis of differences that we do know about. Our group recently discovered a human-specific inactivating mutation in the CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase gene, which results in the loss of expression of a common mammalian cell-surface sugar throughout all cells in the human body. We are currently investigating the implications of this difference for a variety of issues relevant to humans, ranging from pathogen susceptibility to brain development. Evaluating the uniqueness of this finding has also led us to explore the existing literature on the broader issue of genetic differences between humans and great apes. The aim of this brief review is to consider a listing of currently known genetic differences between humans and great apes and to suggest avenues for future research. The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-456JS82-3X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74c145cd4ff3a5b7e46430e86e9a0ac9

[[For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.]]

You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.

[[Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.]]

Admission? Nah- could’nt be.

[[Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.]]

I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.

[[No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches.]]

No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided

[[Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms.]]

This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.

[[How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets.]]

You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight

[[It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.]]

JUST a theory? It’s one of the mainstays of claims for macroevolution. The Caelocanth (sp?) was once though to have been transitional because of their unique lobes, however, when one turned up, was observed, it was quickly determined it coudl NOT infact support it’s weight with it’s lobed fins, and was thrown out as the previously insisted upon transitional that science assured us existed in hte fossil records- Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.

[[Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.]]

Those are just hte begiinning, and are hte oens most brought up here and in science books that our kids are ‘taught’ (Religious propoganda is more like it, but we’ll use ‘taught’ for now)