+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14362
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7878 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Vestigial Organs?
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2014, 11:43:59 pm »
Vestigial organs

Quote
An idea destructive to medical science and our health

Editor’s note: Since this 1998 article was written, research has uncovered more functions for such things as the appendix. We recommend that readers also check articles under Vestigial organs Q&A.

By Robert H. Franks

Certain organs of man, as well as of various animals, have long been described as useless ‘leftovers’ (vestiges) of structures which were useful in a former evolutionary stage. However, this evidence is no longer offered with the confidence it once was.

Practically all the so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, especially those in man, have been proved in recent years to have definite uses. They are not vestigial at all.

At one time, evolutionists claimed there were more than 100 such vestigial organs in man. But few are claimed now. Some of these are essential to everyday existence. So what are these so-called ‘vestigial’ organs? Some regarded as vestigial are:

1. The little semi-lunar membrane at the corner of the eye.

Facial expression in the human being far exceeds that in any other vertebrate.
2. The pineal gland in the brain.
3. Ear muscles.
4. Wisdom teeth (molars).
5. Tonsils.
6. The thymus gland in the neck.
7. Nipples in the male.
8. The appendix.
9. The tail-bone (coccyx).


Let’s take these one by one and look at what modern medical science knows about them.


Semi-lunar membrane

The plica semilunaris is a little fold of tissue at the inner corner of the eye. Some evolutionists feel that it is a remnant of the third eyelid of a lower form, such as the third eyelid in birds and reptiles. But in man this tissue has several essential functions. If you did not have the tissue for support at that location, the eyeball would sink. This would cause double vision. The tissue not only supports the eyeball, but the tearduct as well. Without this tissue, tears would drain over the cheeks causing a cosmetic problem.

This area also serves to collect foreign matter. When you wake up in the morning, you will often find some white material in the inner corner of your eye. It collects in this fold, the semilunar fold of the eye. It is not true that this fold has no purpose. It was designed. And it does not represent the cleverly designed third eyelid of the bird which prevents the bird’s eyes from drying out during flight.

Pineal gland

The pineal is a small gland situated on the mid-brain. This little organ, the size of a peanut, is said by evolutionists to be derived from the third eye of primitive reptiles. The organ is covered by the skull, so it is certainly no eye. But it does help regulate our biological clocks. This makes it an essential organ. It secretes a specific hormone,melatonin, which influences the activity of a number of glands probably by a direct action on brain centres.

When the interplay of various factors governing the pineal is finally understood, man may be able to adjust his biological rhythm and become nocturnal like an owl for a period of time, or for long-distance international travel.

Frog pineal cells may be similar to the cone cells of the retina and even be photo-receptors, or so-called ‘third eyes’. But pineal cells in man are certainly not eyes. To postulate that the human pineal is therefore a vestige serving no biologic purpose is erroneous. The vestige theory for the pineal is rapidly being refuted.

Ear muscles

Ear muscles are muscles of facial expression. Facial expression in the human being far exceeds that in any other vertebrate. By no means are facial muscles vestigial. Evolutionary reasoning argues that rabbits have large ears and well-developed ear muscles.

Since humans have smaller ear muscles, these must be vestigial. Does this mean that any human who can wiggle his ears is primitive? Ear muscles allow the ears to be moved to gather sound, and thus are a worthwhile mechanism. It is possible that this was more efficient in our (human) ancestors, and that degenerate mutations have caused a partial loss. But this is certainly no demonstration of upward evolution!

Wisdom teeth

Wisdom teeth are often mentioned as vestigial organs. It is true that when they do not erupt, and then become impacted, they cause problems. Infection and pain can ensue. But ingrown toenails also become impacted and cause infection and pain. And toenails certainly are not vestigial! Molars are grinders and necessary for chewing certain foods. It is no more fair to say that molars are non-essential than it is to say that incisors are non-essential.

Tonsils

Tonsils are glands in the throat which function as part of the lymphatic system. They are part of the defence mechanism of the body to resist bacteria and other disease organisms. The evolutionary argument is that since they can be removed with impunity, they must be useless. Actually, if a person were unfortunate enough to be born without tonsils or any other lymphatic tissue, he would be in bad shape. In the case of the tonsils I try not to remove them before the child is two years old. By then, I don’t worry about removing diseased, infected lymphatic glands because the body has many lymphatic glands. The Creator has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that removal of the tonsils does not render a person incapable of resisting disease. Thousands of lymphatic glands remain.

Thymus

Another member of the lymphatic system of the body is the thymus in the neck (not to be confused with the thyroid). It is very prominent in children. In earlier days, perhaps partly due to the influence of evolutionary thinking, the thymus was treated with X-ray in some children with respiratory distress. Sadly, some of these children later in life became leukemic, so we no longer irradiate the thymus in children with respiratory distress.

Since the thymus shrinks, we might conclude that it is not necessary. But that is not the case. A group of physicians reported in 1968 the case of a baby boy born without a thymus. The physicians were able to trace the child’s diarrhoea and continual running nose to lack of the thymus. The month-old boy did not thrive. When his immune mechanism was challenged, he could not respond, because the thymus is involved in the body’s ability to resist invading organisms and reject foreign tissue.

After thymus tissue was transplanted into the baby, the diarrhoea and running nose abruptly ceased. The child responded to irritating chemicals and rejected a skin graft, showing a healthy immune response. He began to thrive. This work gives additional support to current concepts of the essential early function of the human thymus gland.

Nipples

I am sure no one regards nipples in the female as non-essential. Now if I tell you that the human breast does not know whether it is male or female except by responding to male or female hormone, perhaps you can understand the complexity of the situation. In the male treated with female hormone because of prostate cancer, the breasts and nipples enlarge in response to the female hormone.

Many evolutionists reason that since male humans do not suckle the young, male breasts are vestigial. Would this mean that we are descended from some (unknown) mammal in which the male suckled the young? More informed evolutionists actually agree with the creationist that this is an example of sexual homology and has nothing to do with vestigial structures.

Appendix

The appendix is another organ of the lymphatic system, like the tonsils and the thymus gland. The human organ also regulates intestinal immunity to repel germs attacking through the unsterile foods digested. Intestinal immunity also causes rejection of foreign allergenic materials. The appendix is able to sample the bowel contents and form antibodies. It is in a very beautiful location to do this. Of course, like the tonsils it sometimes falls prey to infection and requires removal. Again, God has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that we can get along without the appendix. There are hundreds of lymphatic glands in the mesentery of the intestine (the mesentery is a fold of abdominal tissue keeping the intestines in place).

The evolutionist compares the rabbit appendix, which is a digestive organ, to the human appendix, then states that since the human appendix does not function like that in the rabbit, then ours is vestigial! That is not good science.

Coccyx

The coccyx is also called the tail-bone. If you were designing the vertebral column, would you have it end in a circle, a square, or a triangle? God chose to end it with a triangular bone called the coccyx. Attached to the coccyx are the pubococcygeal muscles important for child-birth, intercourse and bladder control. Would the evolutionist like to be devoid of this important structure?

Important nerves and blood vessels course nearby. Individuals who injure the tail-bone may develop a painful condition called coccydynia. Removal of the coccyx seems to be a poor operation. I counsel my patients with tail-bone pain to resist removal of the coccyx if ever suggested.

Conclusion

In view of the history of this subject, it would seem wise not to claim any organs at all as vestigial. 

The ignorance of scientists about the specific functions of such structures does not prove they have none. It is more than likely that further study will, as in the past, reveal specific functions for the remaining supposedly useless organs.




Related Articles
Vestigial Organs Questions and Answers
Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?
‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?
Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution
Is the dog’s ‘collar bone’ vestigial?
Is the human male nipple vestigial?

Further Reading
Badly designed arguments—‘vestigial organs’ revisited
The plantaris and the question of vestigial muscles in man
The human umbilical vesicle (‘yolk sac’) and pronephros—Are they vestigial?
Cutting out a useless vestigial argument

Related Media
Vestigial Organs
http://creation.com/do-humans-have-vestigial-organs
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #61 on: December 27, 2014, 01:51:39 am »
MORE PROOF that Wall Streeters are EVOLUTIONARY DEAD ENDS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWs6bf7tvI&feature=player_embedded
This is NOT what I was taught about Darwin's Theory in College Biology. But it's nice that they are fighting Wall Street's CELEBRATION of GREED with some HARD SCIENCE!       
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #62 on: December 31, 2014, 08:28:23 pm »
Quoted from an Essay on Dogma and the Universe by C.S. Lewis

Quote
“When a Central African convert and a Harley Street specialist both affirm that Christ rose from the dead, there is, no doubt, a very great difference between their thoughts. To one, the simple picture of a dead body getting up is sufficient; the other may think of a whole series of biochemical and even physical processes beginning to work backwards.

The Doctor knows that, in his experience, they never have worked backwards; but the African knows that dead bodies don’t get up and walk. Both are faced with miracle, and both know it. If both think miracle impossible, the only difference is that the Doctor will expound the impossibility in much greater detail, will give an elaborate gloss on the simple statement that dead men don’t walk about. If both believe, all the Doctor says will merely analyze and explicate the words ‘He rose’.

When the author of Genesis says that God made man in His own image, he may have pictured a vaguely corporeal God making man as a child makes a figure out of plasticine.

A modern Christian philosopher may think of a process lasting from the first creation of matter to the final appearance on this planet of an organism fit to receive spiritual as well as biological life.

But both mean essentially the same thing. Both are denying the same thing—the doctrine that matter by some blind power inherent in itself has produced spirituality.”

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2015, 08:02:58 pm »

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in our Brave New "Scientific" World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&feature=player_embedded
I won't hold my breath waiting for those so THREATENED by religions in general, and Christian Fundamentalists in particular  ,  to UNDERSTAND how a much GREATER a threat to science and rationality the DARWINST RELIGION IS.

Science has stated that 250 COMPLEX proteins are required for the most simple life form to form in the correct order. Mathematicians have stated that it is statistically impossible, in 12-14 billion years, for that many complex proteins to "mutate" into the proper sequence. I've written about that here before. Twelve Billion years is not even ONE PERCENT of the time needed for that to occur. A NON-RANDOM event produced life, PERIOD. The latest hypothesis is that we were "seeded" by intelligent life. Who made them? NOBODY! You see, there are trillions of parallel universes with trillions of variations. SO, in one of THOSE, there was enough TIME for those 250 proteins to get this show on the road. Umpteen billions later, the aliens got huge brains. Then they found our YOUNG universe and seeded it. End of story!

Homo SAPS are expert
in demonizing any teachings that, no matter how rational, would require acceptance of the mere possibility that they OWE THEIR EXISTENCE to a superior being (unless it's ET). So it goes. 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2015, 08:52:34 pm »
Eddie said,
Quote
The term "evolution" has been completely struck from the text books, and has been replaced with euphemisms designed to placate the fundies, like "change over time" and "developmental progression". Did you know that there are 94 synonyms for evolution? And that textbook writers are expected to use them in order to be "more precise"?

There is a Law of gravity, but Evolution is a theory, NOT a law. If you and your daughter want to "go with the flow" on the theory of Evolution, why should the rest of us be force fed it?

Your argument against "force feeding" creationism is a form of mockery. Next you will be telling us creationism requires we believe the earth is 6,000 years old and is flat too.   

The implications of intelligent design are one thing; the science is another. Let's not confuse the two. Science does not do slippery slopes.

The evidence of cell biology nano-molecular machines has been presented, peer reviewed and fastidiously fact checked over and over. The complexity of these machines could NOT come about through random mutations in 12-14 billion years. If your daughter does not know this, she is behind in her science. As you know, a scientist MUST be ready to question any theory that no longer best explains the evidence.

Intelligent design is not "the tooth fairy did it"; it's a more rational explanation of life than Darwinian evolution.

The belief, and that's all it is (regardless of what textbooks claim) that modern scientific advances are a result of the acceptance in the scientific community of the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of how life came to be here is merely human resistance to change.

The Piltdown man fraud is history. So is the "tadpole to human evolution" fetal development baloney that was in biology textbooks for half a century AFTER it had been proven a clever fraud.

It's time the theory of evolution was sent to the dustbin of failed theories. That's science. If people don't want to believe in God, so what? You supporters of evolution think that people in your camp will be given a firing squad for being an infidel if intelligent design is accepted. That's just silly.

The reality is that if ANYBODY that is a credentialed scientist and attempts to discuss or write about, with accompanying scientific HARD EVIDENCE, the irreducibly complex cell machinery and the theory of intelligent design, he or she gets fired from their university or research lab position and CANNOT get a job in the same field because WORD GETS AROUND!

THAT is what I consider THREATENING, FASCIST, INTOLERANT and UNSCIENTIFIC behavior.

But you think those scientists that get kicked out of THE CLUB for talking irreducible cell complexity deserve to go. Don't deny it. The fact that you are sweating fundy craziness and are happy as a lark about the "way it works" in the evolutionary true believer university club is proof.

When I see you weigh in equally against intolerance on both issues, I will accept you are being objective. Yeah, I know, you aren't going to lose any sleep over my opinion. Join the crowd.  ::)
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2015, 08:33:50 pm »
Eddie provided us this gem of erudition. I consider it a diversion from the real issue. Nevertheless, I will argue the merits:

Quote
THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You just don't want to go there.

So, not only does the BELIEF in Evolution not qualify as a LAW in science, it's not even a THEORY according to the proper definition as you presented it!
NO EVIDENCE, NO THEORY. Science is based on EVIDENCE, not good narratives about how this, that and the other happened.

Newton, Pasteur and many other scientific greats were DEVOUT Christians.
That did NOT stop them from providing the basis for the scientific method. Are you saying they were childish people that learned their science in Sunday school? I didn't think so. Those scientists ALL went to Sunday school back in the 19th century, ya know! Somehow, that did not prevent them from doing good science, DID IT?

THEY had to fight furiously with the "KNOW IT ALL" scientific community of THEIR DAY to get the truth out. The TRUTH, along with the presented EVIDENCE, was RESISTED TOOTH AND NAIL! Pasteur wasn't talking fairy tales, now was he? But they still tried to shut him down for MOST OF HIS LIFE.

The doctor in Poland that PROVED that women got disease (causing the death of their child and sometimes the mother too!) from doctors that delivered babies after doing autopsies died in a NUT HOUSE. Lister came LATER. Spare me the stuff about how the scientific community welcomes dissent as long as evidence backs it. That is just not so. I wish it was. That's the pretense, no the reality.

IN FACT, when the science textbooks tell the TRUTH about the history of scientific inquiry, the belief in ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH is attributed to the basis of the scientific method.

The relativistic baloney that is peddled today is a DETRIMENT to the scientific method. Fun and mocking games about Gods and Goddesses shows disdain for metaphysics and caricatures the OBVIOUS fact that, if there is ONE GOD, said being doesn't DO reproduction, regardless of what reproductive mechanisms IT sets up in his created critters. But I digress. All that stuff about God this or God that is NOT the issue. You (and others  ;))always try to make it the issue. The ISSUE is the LACK OF EVIDENCE for the Theory of Evolution.

As for me, do you think the 35 college credits I have in Biology, zoology, parasitology, genetics, botany and microbiology is SUNDAY SCHOOL!!!?

That was quite a cheap shot, pal! Shame on you.   

Do you think I WANTED to buck that rigid mass of groupthink in the scientific community that puts the word "evolution" in every other article and paragraph out there? I just did the math.

They've got nothing. I cornered my profs. They've got nothing. They would get thoroughly upset  but could not counter my arguments. I told them over and over that the evolution story is not based on science. Yes, it's a nice story but it's NOT evidence based.

They claimed that BECAUSE of that theory, we left the dark ages of scientific inquiry and modern science OWES its existence to the Theory of Evolution. I KNOW you believe that.

THAT, and not natural selection or the irreducible complexity of molecular machines in cells, is what you evolutionists fear will be LOST if the theory of evolution is discredited.

You are defending a BELIEF system, not science. You think if that belief system is discredited, SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY will be discredited.  That's why you use every tool in the book to mock and discredit THE EVIDENCE that makes mincemeat out of the Theory BELIEF in Evolution. I accepted that possibility back then. It beat the hell out of magic and incantations.   :icon_mrgreen: It seemed to be CFS. 

But, after  several decades of wading through scientist publications, I have become convinced that the reverse is true. Your prized theory is a groupthink, unscientific world view holding science back. No, I am not advocating a return to magic and incantations. That's NOT what Newton or Pasteur did, is it? I admire them and respect the way they went at science. Their faith AIDED them, by their own admission, in their scientific research. They didn't say that to avoid being burned at the stake!  8)

I am advocating a rejection of the Theory of Evolution based on the FACT that there is NO EVIDENCE to support it.

I READ science, as you do. I have been doing it steadily for about 30 years. I am sick to death of seeing every damned thing they can't figure out, and other things TOTALLY unrelated as well, to be explained away as evolution this and evolution that. The most outlandish bull**** is presented in science articles AND papers WITHOUT PROOF as "scientific conjecture" with "evolution coulda done dat" attached to it. Subsequently, every tenured groupthinker that knows which side his bread is buttered on says, "AMEN, brother!".

I follow the EVIDENCE. I suggest all readers do as well. 8)

5. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
 It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernible direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

6. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer’s piece “Intelligent Design is not Creationism” that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director’s piece “ Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same“in Research News & Opportunities.

http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2015, 10:36:22 pm »
FACTS and QUOTES from: The Origin of the Species (sixth Edition published in 1872)

Quote
Darwin spent 13 years revising and correcting what was a literary monument to indecision, uncertainty, and obfuscation.

SNIPPET:

b) Hundreds of equivocations

Far from being a definitive work, the Origin is saturated with conjecture. In the final 1876 printing20 of the 1872 sixth edition, Darwin employed the word “may” 642 times, “if” 493 times, “might” 203 times, “probable” or “probably” 182 times, “tend” or “tendency” 153 times, “suppose(d)” 141 times, “perhaps” 63 times, “no doubt” 58 times, and so on.21 “I believe” occurs 58 times, and “I think” 43 times; down from 97 and 81 times respectively in the 1st edition, because Darwin’s correspondents complained!19

Here’s a sample of Darwin-speak from p. 100 of his 6th Edition:
Quote
“variations in a single species inhabiting an isolated station might be beneficial, and thus the whole mass of individuals might be modified, or two distinct forms might arise.”
(Emphases added.) But equally, they might not might not … might not. Darwinian conjecture does not constitute scientific evidence.

c) No actual evidence of anything

In Chapter 4 on Natural Selection, under the heading: “Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest”, Darwin wrote:
Quote
“In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.”
22 (His words, emphasis added.) Why “imaginary illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything new, the only resources left are imaginary ones!  ;D

The first of these is about wolves chasing their prey. Darwin wrote:

Quote
… let us suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had from any change in the country increased in numbers, or that other prey had decreased in numbers. … Under such circumstances the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected. … I speak of the slimmest individual wolves, and not of any single strongly-marked variation having been preserved.22

Actually, the facts about wolves are substantially different, as Sir David Attenborough has demonstrated in several of his nature-study TV films. Wolves prefer to hunt in packs rather than singly, and whatever their prey group is, they don’t choose the strongest and fleetest individual to attack but the weakest and slowest, which may be injured or sick or old or a juvenile.

So, not only could Darwin not produce a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything, even this imaginary case was contrary to the facts. The Origin is all speculation, ad hoc assumptions, and special pleading. See:

Muddy waters: clarifying the confusion about natural section

Natural selection ≠ evolution

Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment


  Exploring the God Question: 2, Life and Evolution, Part 1 (Darwinism)

Agelbert NOTE: In typical goal post moving fashion, I expect someone will claim that, "It was supposition THEN but we have 150 years of PROOF NOW! Yada-yada ya!" 

NOPE! What we HAVE now is a LOT of Evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that produced the Evolution Narrative. But you fine "scientific" minds here can cling to your "theory" all you want! TPTB are BACKING you ALL THE WAY while you bleat and whine about the "attack" on civil liberties from (LOL!) Christianity!

RIGHT! It's Christianity that pushes justification for offing the useless eaters, hysterics about carrying capacity, justification for wars for oil, game theory, survival of the meanest mother F'ing apex predator by any means needed to destroy the competition and, last but not least, experimentation on living beings, be they humans or not, is A-f u c k ing okay for the "good" of science! 
Keep believin', true believers! It's all those whacko Christians that are messing up this planet... Just get rid of ALL of us superstitious whackos and then everything will be just fine in your truly rational, logical. prudent, measured, do the math, f u c k your buddy world.   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2015, 03:52:56 pm »

Quote
THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You just don't want to go there.

       

JRM said,
Quote

This could be an interesting conversation if we began with a working definition of "evolution".  The evidence for biological evolution is, of course, overwhelming -- e.g., the fossil record and the fact that biological evolution has been observed in current time (say, a single human lifetime -- or even much shorter time frames).

To say "the evidence for evolution is not there" is not so much right or wrong as it is an incomplete -- or vague -- statement, as there are not one but many theories of biological evolution. Which one is the one you think lacks evidence? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

 



Surly said,
Quote
He's considering the beatification of Romero. Leave Frank alone.

I have a nice TRUE story I'm working on about Romero. No, I never met him. But I am related to someone who studied him EXTENSIVELY.  :icon_mrgreen:

The story might get you a lot of beady bubbles so I will attempt to wordpress it. No guarantees, though. I'm kinda busy right now.  ;D

I'm having to deal with accusations of "vague" statements and "incomplete definitions" by people  who are silent as death about just about every comment I make here (Hi JRM!) except when they want to pop in and do a little "friendly" sniping.

JRM,

Before I address your statement about evolution and the "various competing definitions", I wish to point out your comment on Ka's valid observation.

Your hairsplitting on Ka's clear statement is known as verbal dancing. Ka was clear.

Although Ka was not talking about complexity per se, that's what SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory) refers to when defining evolution. COMPLEX life emerging from LESS COMPLEX life is evolution.

Here's a great example of a VAGUE statement:
Quote
"there are not one but many theories of biological evolution. "

As I have, and continue to state in my debate with Eddie (that UB has weighed in on as well with his EXTENSIVE knowledge of anthropology and human fossils), science does not DO "vague".

When we are talking about the ORIGIN of species (I. e. NEW speciation), we are talking about EVOLUTION. Different mechanisms and definitions within that field of study have branched out.

Evolution has been applied to planets, mud, conversations, stars and so on. THAT is NOT what we are talking about when we are talking about the ORIGIN of species.

If you REALLY want to talk about what is VAGUE in the above thread, it's the incredibly convenient dial a definition of "religion" that so many people have. But that is another subject. I respect your views on your belief system even though I don't agree with them. Same with WHD.

Ashvin has been quite clear and consistent in stating logically, dispassionately and without rancor, why his views are well founded. He has made it clear what a CHRISTIAN actually is, regardless of those rebrobates out there that hijacked the moniker for predatory profit and mayhem. I have not seen anyone here but Surly admit that. That too, is another subject.

I don't mind if you wish to challenge my views on evolution. I don't mind because I myself never challenged  Standard Evolution Theory (SET) until, as a 40 year old, I went back to college and actually STUDIED biology intensively. THEN I realized it was an exercise in conjecture, nothing more.

I did not question SET because of Sunday School or Christian beliefs; I questioned it because when I studied Biology 101 and 102, Botany, Genetics, Zoology, Parasitology and Microbiology I discovered THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for Evolution.

Scoff all you want. Let's talk natural selection, cell machinery and the fossil "record". And while we are at it, let's talk about the geological column.

Did you know that the geological column used to date fossils (Carbon 14 and tree rings are USELESS for dating ANYTHING older than several thousand years!) has "issues"? No, you didn't.

It's a construct. It's a pieced together thought exercise. They have a bit here and a bit there. There is NO PLACE ON EARTH that you can just go from humans to dinosaurs, PERIOD. I can prove that. However, I will not even attempt to do so if you scoff at that statement. If you do not respect my integrity, there is not point, PAL!

But let us say that I am being too harsh, strident, hysterical (and so on) and you do agree to ponder the evidence I present objectively.

Consider these facts:

1) Modern duck skeletons have been found in exactly the same place as Dinosaur skeletons are. What do you suppose that does to the current "scientific" BELIEF that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

2) ALL species skeletons (and human artifacts) found in the "wrong" strata (BELOW creatures that we supposedly evolved from) are NEVER published (but they ARE documented -and I can prove that too!). The consensus "scientific" view is that some fissure opened from an earthquake and dropped the artifact or the "out of place" skeleton into the aged strata. The fact that NO EVIDENCE of erosion, rock banding or any other well studied geological process having occurred to SAVE a good evolution story can be found is "irrelevant".    They'll figure it out someday, they claim.   ::)

3) Transitional fossils proving the ORIGIN of new species (speciation through evolution) )are not in the fossil record. The claim that human (and other) species like cartilaginous fish are not preserved n the fossil record because they are fragile flies in the face of "1)" above (to put mildly!).

4) Rock dating techniques for multi-million year fossil dating (those fossils CANNOT BE DATED so the rock they are in is what is dated) produce multi-million year ages from lava samples produced by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. PLEASE don't call bull**** on this. I have SEVERAL articles full of hemming and hawing by the scientific community trying to dance around that, but still admitting that "erroneous dates" ;D  can be produced (as in the CONSISTENT case of new lava rocks - see Hawaii lava rocks in the ocean formed within the last 100 years).

5) Rock dating ALWAYS produces SEVERAL different dates that vary by millions of years. Now you would expect that the published dates would be an average or a mean. 

But no, this is what they do, JRM. This is SOP (standard operating procedure) in rock dating. Research is done in the scientific literature of other fossils in this type of rock strata (see CONSENSUS VIEW and how to avoid ruining a "scientific" career  ). Then, the date is chosen from the rock dating data that is AT LEAST as old as that stated in the literature.  But that's not the BEST PART. LOL! ANY date OLDER than the literature instantly becomes the "new" age!

That new date then goes into the "scientific" literature for future rinse and repeats. The other SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMNIED DATES ARE DISCARDED despite the fact that no instrument error or contamination is documented as the cause. The other dates ARE NOT put in the record of observation, as SHOULD be done when REAL SCIENCE is being done! Hypothesis, Observation, evidence and reproducibility DO NOT APPLY.

BIAS for longer and longer dates DOES, WHY? Because EVOLUTION REQUIRES millions of years.

How can so many scientists be wrong?
Quote

Michael Crichton on consensus science

Editor: This is a good response to someone who says, “But all those scientists can’t be wrong!” Crichton was referring to science in general, not specifically evolution, but what he says is apt for evolution. Dr Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer. He wrote some well-known science fiction novels such as The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park, and the long-running TV medical drama ER.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

That's we are supposed to believe goes on in the study of fossils. But exactly what he states as NOT SCIENCE is what is taking place. That's why I am so incensed about it.


And now "millions of years" is NOT ENOUGH for Evolution! A 14 billion year old universe CANNOT, according to the REAL science of probability and statistics, get the simplest life form (that requires a minimum of 250 complex proteins ordered in a specific way and ALL AT ONCE) to occur randomly.

This "evolution" rabbit hole is DEEP, pal.

Natural Selection has been PROVEN, by modern molecular biology research, to whittle away DNA, not add new information in order to INCREASE complexity and promote the ORIGIN of a species from a more simple one (i.e. evolution).


Natural selection explains the SURVIVAL of the Fittest, quite well. But it DOES NOT explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest AT ALL.


NON-RANDOM events produced Sentience as well as COMPLEX biological life forms. SET FAILS to explain either (see: Chaplin in the Lion cage ).
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2015, 04:43:51 pm »
RE,
Your assumption that human life BEGAN MILLIONS of YEARS AGO lacks even a shred of scientific evidence. How can you so blithely come out with such assumptions?   ???  Spare me the "any moron knows we evolved to be humans millions of years ago" consensus scientific world view. I'm painfully aware of it. It's not science (evidence) based. It's half baked conjecture. Try arguing the merits instead of pulling the "everybody knows" business on me, godfader.   

Darwin is on MY SIDE of this anti-evolution argument!   

 If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution!  :o
2 minute video on the probability of single celled life occuring randomly
http://viewrz.com/video/single-celled-life-probability
4 minute video on cell complexity
http://viewrz.com/video/cell-complexity

For ANYBODY here that thinks SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory) does NOT need to be SEVERELY revised, to put it mildly, here's a brief review of the scientific method as summarized CORRECTLY by Eddie, a scientist in his own right:

Quote
Observation, hypothesis, proof.

All else is bullshitting around the campfire.

THAT is how it works. After the EVIDENCE (proof) is INSUFFICIENT to confirm the original hypothesis, or CONTRADICTS the original hypothesis, THEN a scientist MUST revise or DISCARD the hypothesis!

If you insist on clinging to a good story sans evidence, you are not doing science, you are doing consensus groupthink. Have a nice day.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2015, 09:53:55 pm »
The boy who’s proud to be a killer

Will Cornick murders teacher in front of classmates in Leeds, England


by Warren Nunn

Published: 22 January 2015

The horrendous stabbing murder1 of an English high school teacher and the comments the perpetrator made afterwards are a potent reminder of the possible effects of evolutionary thinking on impressionable minds.

Some of the sickening comments the teenage student made after the killing included:

“I wasn’t in shock, I was happy. I had a sense of pride. I still do.

“I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival.

“It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.

“I know the victim’s family will be upset but I don’t care. In my eyes, everything I’ve done is fine and dandy.”1

He had previously said of the teacher on Facebook that “she deserves more than death, more than pain and more than anything that we can understand”.1

Full article here:
http://creation.com/will-cornick-murders-teacher


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #70 on: January 24, 2015, 06:59:50 pm »
I have been away. I see the old arguments continue.

I humbly suggest that we get back to the fossil record. I am quite willing to show reams of evidence for all concerned on how natural selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process unable to explain INCREASES in complexity.

I am also quite willing to discuss the probability of obtaining the most simple of organisms (About 250 complex proteins in a precise sequence) through random mutations in a 12 to 14 billion year old universe.   

At the end of that logical chain is the giant bone of contention, Intelligent Design. I think it is futile to discuss ID without getting into the evidence, or lack of it, for SET. It's a waste of time and produces shouting matches.  


But let's be clear that there are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. The scientific data Darwin expected did not materialize.

Once everybody here accepts that the fact that there are no transitional fossils, we can discuss the implications of that.

Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote a book called "Darwin's Doubt".  Here's a two minute video by him that states (this book is PEER REVIEWED) in two minutes the issue of the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian Explosion. I present it so we can PUT TO REST any claim that the fossil record supports SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory).

In fact, the fossil record does not even support Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionary Theory (PEET) by Gould (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Gould wrote a long paper before his death admitting that there was no evidence for PEET because that hypothesis required even more information and organization than SET. That defeated the whole purpose of PEET - he originally postulated it to explain evolution with LESS information, not more. ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQbqpima-c&x-yt-cl=84503534&feature=player_embedded



No transitional Fossils  ???


In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system even begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists.


In the last several decades, the fossils in the Cambrian Explosion have been found to be highly complex. I think Darwin would be willing to question his own theory based on the latest scientific findings. But it doesn't really matter what Darwin would say, does it? What matters is whether the scientific community is willing to weigh the evidence AGAINST SET dispassionately or will they irrationally and unscientifically cling to their pet theory?

Well, the clingers are clinging like crazy. I have some info from a scientist that demonstrates the Darwinist belief system rejects hard scientific evidence even though the test was done 17 times by a credentialed researcher!  But I'll get to that after we all agree that the fossil record does NOT support SET.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #71 on: January 24, 2015, 07:02:01 pm »
Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4011.msg65072#msg65072
There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

There are many evolutionary models, but you're right that they all RELY on RANDOM mutations and natural selection to work. I have not been talking about "gaps in the evidence", if by that you mean the fossil record. AG has that topic well covered and your only response was something like, "if we didn't have the fossil record, we could still use modern science to 'discover' Darwinian evolution".

That's why I have been talking about microbial genomics (a topic which you brought up as evidence supporting SET or GUT or whatever you want to call it), and the fact that modern science has NOT been able to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells with genomic studies. I also mentioned the statistical (IM)probability that random genetic mutations would lead to new speciation over time, something we have not observed, directly or indirectly, a single example of in higher order species.

So far you are not produced ANY scientific evidence which supports SET, only loose analogies and thought experiments. The genomic similarities between species is obviously, by itself, not any evidence of a common ancestor. Rather it is easily explained in terms of a designer who uses common templates in his creative process.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2015, 07:05:13 pm »
JoeMc says
Quote
"Hey, you know what all these genomes are telling us? They're telling us that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and the reason there are different species, is because they evolved through natural selection."

You see the theory of evolution is so tight, you can run it in reverse. You can look at every part of what today's species have inherited and it still holds true
.

Uh. no, Joe. That's NOT what the incredibly complex mechanisms within the cells of ALL life forms discovered in the last two decades have provided NO BRAINER evidence for.

"Run it in REVERSE"!!? Is that a joke? DNA isn't a pack of random nucleotide bases that piggy backed on some crystals to become single celled life forms. That postulate is so improbable it is laughable. And even if you could get single celled life forms to spontaneously self organize (impossible in a 12 to 14 year old universe), there is that minor issue of what DNA actually does BEYOND providing a structure for protein replication.

I am talking about encoding that PREVENTS speciation. It's there. EVERY CELL IN EVERY EARTHLING HAS IT. It's a watch dog. Did you not learn about it in your ecology courses? HOW does a code for life that, according to SET, came into being RANDOMLY encode to AVOID randomness, JoeM?

That's what species do, you know. Our genetic engineers have one hell of a time when they "intelligently" (depending on your point of view  ;D) modify the design of complex life forms. Unlike a bacterium that you can switch out and replace plasmids in to get them to pump out this or that protein, complex animals like sheep and fish have mechanisms that do one of two things in general:

1) DNA code causes the organism to reject new genetic material, NOT as an IMMUNE RESPONSE, but because the cells (in an, as yet, unexplained "this is not me" mechanism) trigger organism death.

2) The GMOed organism becomes sterile ( "This is not me so I do not wish to pass this on" mechanism). Sometimes sterility does not occur. BUT, the new material does not make it to the next generation. So when you read about how Monsanto cleverly makes GMOs self destruct, realize that THEY did not come up with that. That is the NORM when you jack around with species DNA. Typically of corporations, they claim they invented it. LOL!

That said, GMOers have had some (VERY) limited success at getting complex life forms to incorporate new genetic information. But there is no way in hell that anybody can call THAT evidence of how "tight" SET is. The evidence proves that ONLY by GMOing life forms (i.e. "Intelligent" Homo SAP Design   ) can you CROSS THE SPECIES BARRIER encoded in the DNA.

Your assumption that because we all have DNA, synthesize proteins, have form following function analogous "peripherals" like limbs, bone structure, nervous systems, cartilage and so on explains nothing about HOW all these separate and distinct species BECAME separate and distinct from the speciation of single celled life. Correlation is not causation here because life, speciation and replication comes from the DNA code, not from the observed hundreds of thousands of species that are the PRODUCT of a VERY species specific, non-random code sequence that fights tooth and nail to prevent any modifications in it.

The Correlation that POINTS to CAUSATION is in the species barrier mechanism that PREVENTS increasing complexity and discards genetic information from lack of use. This is evidence for entropic DEVOLUTION, not EVOLUTION.


It is clear that you have never actually read some of the hard scientific literature about the gargantuan number of possibilities present, even if you have 250 complex proteins AVAILABLE RANDOMLY in the CORRECT sequence (impossible in 14 billion years), to CODE the DNA so it will ERROR CORRECT (prevent change) in defense of the life form template.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #73 on: January 24, 2015, 07:09:18 pm »
Reposted from thread at doomstead diner http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4011.msg65174.html#msg65174

I've been reading the four pages of posts. I will ignore the snark.

I believe the discussion of entropy merits some clarification.

ENTROPY EVIDENCED in LIFE FORM THERMODYNAMICS:

JRM asked,
Quote
Do you understand in essence what thermodynamic entropy has to do -- generally -- with order and complexity in various living and non-living complex systems?

Is this something that can be explained to people with basically no "higher math" skills or knowledge? To a scientific layman? 

The Trophic pyramid is the best explanation for entropy in the thermodynamics of living organisms. It applies 24/7 to all life forms on this planet.

Every trophic level has about one tenth the biomass of the one it feeds on below it. WHY? Because 90% of the ENERGY the life forms need to live and reproduce is LOST due to entropy when the one biomass is consumed by another. And, of course, every life form dies. That is further evidence of entropy in the thermodynamics of life forms.

NO ONE can say this entropy is not happening. NO ONE can say there is any evidence that it will happen "in reverse" some day, despite what cosmologists postulate about oscillating universes. And what happens in the non-living universe of matter is off topic here anyway.


The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

And entropy flies in the face of the increasing complexity of life forms postulated by SET. Yeah, there is a LOT of complexity out there in life forms. Science DOES NOT have an answer to that one, despite what JoeMc claims.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31318
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #74 on: January 24, 2015, 07:16:19 pm »
Let's be clear. I do believe Darwin was a serious scientist attempting to explain the Origin of Species. If you want to call that GUT because the word "Evolution" has been applied UNSCIENTIFCALLY (i.e. sans natural selection in precise combination with random mutations) to several disciplines from cosmology to protein synthesis, that's fine with me. But when we are discussing SCIENCE, specificity is the key to understanding.  Broad, general terms appealing to consensus "authority" do not cut it. So please keep your GUT out of the discussion and keep specific issues in it.

The following points describe briefly how I think this through. I will not engage in a verbal dancing, goal post moving, contest with you if you refuse to discuss these points, period. I do not DO fallacious argumentative techniques.  8) 

1. When evidence is NOT available, the exact same logic used by Darwin (subsequently used by DR. Stephen Meyer to argue against SET) of using the "best explanation inferred by the observed evidence" to postulate SET is what I base my conclusion that natural selection and random mutations (two separate and distinct mechanisms  that need to work TOGETHER for SET to be scientifically valid) DO NOT explain the Origin of the species.

2. AFTER we get past the ORIGIN of the species in general and the ORIGIN of single celled life in particular, natural selection and random mutations continue to be insufficient to produce a MORE complex organism.

3. Although frequently trotted out as "transitional" fossil examples over the past 60 years or so, the scientific journals have consistently discarded each and every alleged "new" group "transitional" fossils as new scientific inquiry and research on these fossils reveals they are nothing of the kind. In short, alleged "transitional" fossils have a peer reviewed shelf life of approximately 10 to 15 years before another group of "transitional" fossils is trotted out.

4. ALL the organs in Homo sapiens hitherto labeled "vestigial" (according to SET) have been proven to not be vestigial at all. I have studied this thoroughly.

5.  The speculation about SET evidence in embryo formation and the "use it or lose it" adaptation mechanism earthlings have only proves the SUBTRACTIVE nature of natural selection.

6. Selective breeding of of animals by Homo SAPS is evidence of HUMAN UNnatural selection.  And in ALL cases, the mechanism has been SUBTRACTIVE of genetic information, just as natural selection is.

7. Homo SAP GMOing  of E. coli to make it produce insulin and/or what Monsanto does to plant genomes is an OBSERVED example of Intelligent Design by humans (depending on your point of view.   ). At any rate, neither natural selection or random mutation mechanisms are in evidence so GMO changes CANNOT be defined as Evolution according to SET or GUT.
 


Let us begin with item "1." above. Dr. Stephen Meyer claims the Cambrian Explosion is scientific proof of the lack of transitional fossils. If you want to trot out some "transitional" fossils found subsequent to the Cambrian rock strata layer, then you are not serious. WHY? Because the Cambrian layer has COMPLEX life forms. You cannot "get there from here", as they say in Vermont.


The scientific community accepts the fact that their is no SET explanation for the Cambrian Explosion lack of transitional fossils. Why don't you? In fact, that is why Gould came up with PEET (Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution Theory) in 1972! That didn't work out either, as Gould himself admitted before his death.  8)

So that leaves us with the "do not pass go, do not collect $200" Cambrian Quagmire for SET.

To finish framing the argument for SET (Standard Evolution Theory or GUT - Grand Unified Theory of evolution) true believers you so you know I do appreciate  ;D the possibility that you believe it is laughable, magical thinking "creationist superstition" to even broach the possibility that SET or GUT is not scientifically valid, please take five minutes of your time to watch Dr. Stephen Meyer answer the charge that Intelligent Design (the competing theory) is NOT SCIENCE:

http://viewrz.com/video/demarcation-argument (five minute video)    

Ashvin and Ka, both scholars and philosophers that can argue the fur off a grizzly bear, will probably enjoy his answer.      I leave it to them to get into the details of the Demarcation Argument (often used to restrict definitions in order to defend consensus view).

The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Comic Relief by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 05:11:00 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 05:09:45 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 03:57:10 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 02:25:56 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 12:39:48 am

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 10:39:41 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 07:12:53 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 03:24:18 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 05, 2019, 09:59:49 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
December 05, 2019, 08:03:04 pm