+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 9778
Total Topics: 240
Most Online Today: 6
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: Today at 12:39:02 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

No one believes these predictions anymore

Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s complexity and explanatory power.


References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 15, 2018, 02:52:39 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

There is no better alternative

One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of course any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science, not on any alternative explanations.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 14, 2018, 12:52:13 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

These falsifications will be remedied in the future

As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according to the currently available data. No one knows what future data may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution is ultimately circular.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 13, 2018, 02:50:31 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Those quoted believe in evolution

Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 11, 2018, 06:14:38 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled

This objection falls under the category of naïve falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled. (Lakatos; Chalmers)


References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 10, 2018, 11:40:44 am »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Falsificationism is flawed

It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here. Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that evolution is not science or that evolution is false.

False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and fundamental failures of their theory.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2018, 03:07:36 pm »

Some excellent proofs against Darwinism are presented here.

2,205,539 views 🧐

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2018, 02:54:57 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections


Ad hominem and denial

Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also, evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such criticisms with supporting details.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:27:30 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions

A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically, however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more complex and has less explanatory power.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 07, 2018, 12:49:10 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

False predictions often have led to productive research

Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That productive research may have arisen from some of these predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2018, 01:12:42 pm »

What false predictions tell us about evolution

Ever since Darwin evolutionists have been certain of their theory. They hold that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists arrive at this conclusion from a wide range of powerful arguments based on contrastive reasoning where evolutionary theory is compared to alternative hypotheses derived from the concept of independent creation. (Hunter 2014) Evolutionists have found these alternative hypotheses to be false, leaving evolutionary ideas as the only remaining possibility. This process of elimination, which traces back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is based on comparing scientific evidence with expectations derived from independent creation. Therefore the motivation, justification and truth claims for evolutionary theory entail metaphysical beliefs about independent creation.
 
This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law. In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously. From a strictly scientific perspective, this is a high claim. It is perhaps not surprising that, setting the contrasting reasoning aside and focusing exclusively on the science, evolution’s fundamental predictions fail badly. The above sections reviewed several fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory, once held with great conviction, that have all been found to be false, much to the surprise of practitioners.
 
Philosophers have debated the role and importance of predictions in the historical sciences, and how they are related to explanatory capacity. (Cleland 2011; Cleland 2013; Turner) The predictions described above do have strong implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena. For most of these predictions, the falsification has been followed by one or more proposed theory modifications to accommodate the new data. These modifications are often vague and they cause the theory to lose its parsimony. Perhaps most importantly they refute evolution’s common cause argument and remove its so-called “smoking gun.” The evolutionist’s claim has been that in biology we find a wide range of observations that seem unlikely or bewildering, but that in a stroke evolution parsimoniously explains and makes sense of them. Evolution brings a consilience to the data.
 
The above predictions illustrate that there is no such consilience. Evolution’s predictions, and associated explanations, do not make sense of the observations. Consider, for example, the pentadactyl structure prediction discussed above. In Darwin’s day the five-digit pentadactyl structure was observed in a wide variety of species. Why should the same type of structure be used for such a wide variety of tasks? Evolution’s common descent provided a single, simple explanation. The pentadactyl structure arose from a single common ancestor. The associated prediction is that the pentadactyl structure should continue to appear in species according to a common descent pattern. The failure of the pentadactyl structure to form this pattern does not merely represent a false prediction. This common cause argument had been celebrated for more than a century as a compelling proof text. It appears consistently in the literature and is one of evolution’s “smoking guns.” The falsification of this prediction means the loss of this compelling argument. And it means the introduction of non parsimonious explanations, calling for the pentadactyl structure to repeatedly evolve and disappear in various lineages, as the data require.
 
Yet contrastive reasoning, evolutionists argue, prove that evolution is a fact. This illustrates the tremendous importance of the role of contrastive reasoning. If all we had was the science there would be no basis for believing the species have spontaneously arisen, much less that such an idea is a fact. But evolution is not a typical scientific theory. In spite of the consistent failure of fundamental scientific predictions, there remains no doubt amongst evolutionists that evolution is a fact. Its high standing is underwritten by extremely powerful contrastive proofs which render its scientific puzzles less crucial. Those puzzles are interpreted as research questions, not challenges to the fact of evolution. That fact, for evolutionists, has already been established by the philosophy and theology that support evolution’s contrastive reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective, evolution is not a good theory.
 
References
 
Cleland, Carol. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 62:551–582.
 
Cleland, Carol. 2013. “Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:1-9.
 
Hunter, C. 2014. “Darwin’s Principle: The Use of Contrastive Reasoning in the Confirmation of Evolution.” J International Society History of Philosophy of Science 4:106-149.

Turner, Derek. 2013. “Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:11-18.


https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/what-false-predictions-tell-us-about-evolution
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:40:58 pm »

I knew a priest that once told me God could do it any way He wanted to. I agree but  that is dodging the main issue of the FACT that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER provided proof that species (as in Darwin's book title) Originated from natural selection; it is, instead, a still to be proven theory that a single celled creature of some sort, AFTER it popped into existence, "evolved" by random mutations to produce multicellular creatures of incredible complexity that OTHER totally different multicellular life forms (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.) interact with at precisely the same time to provide a natural a set of symbiotic relationships biosphere give and take (e.g. bees could not exist without flowering plants that produce pollen. Said plants could not perpetuate the species without pollinators like the bees).

It is really a hell of a stretch for me to attribute that biochemical dance to random mutations. In fact, it's ludicrous.

To add insult to irrational pseudo science, they claim that, YEAH, that first single celled creature had nonliving amino acids randomly assemble themselves to produce several thousand lipids, proteins and energy processing functions in a reproducible mitotic fashion with EXACT duplicative DNA generation after generation, including various DNA self healing biochemistry that FIGHTS mutation to preserve the species without harm.

Think about that.

HOW, exactly, is something that was assembled by RANDOM amino acid, lipid and carbohydrate chemicals (the first single celled organism) going to pattern said life form to RESIST mutations (change in DNA sequence)?

If the process of "evolution" is basically a reversal of entropy where things get MORE complex, not less, WHY does every single living thing have, intrinsic to its cellular reproduction mechanism, all kinds of biochemical fail safes to AVOID change? It's not logical that RANDOMNESS produces a biological machine that FIGHTS randomness. It's one hell of a flight of fancy devoid of even a shred of logic.

Take the amoeba, for example. How come they are still around after "billions" of years? Some "evolved" and some didn't? ???  Or do they just pop out of mud puddles every 15.8 million years to take up the slack from the ones that "evolved". ::)

What about Escherichia Coli, affectionately know as a fecal coliform  ;D. We intelligently REDESIGNED IT to make insulin but for billions of years it never randomly came up with that skill on its own. And while we are at it, E. coli, although IT can (and does - that's one test they perform on water to see if it is potable - fecal coliform count) live outside our gut, WE CANNOT live without a large number of several species of gut bacteria. We simply cannot get our vitamins, minerals and energy without them and we die of malabsorption.
 
Evolutionists claim that, OF COURSE, the bacteria came first and we came much later. That runs straight into my earlier question (How come some of them "evolved" and some didn't?). We just made use of the dumb ones to get our metabolism going, right? 

First causes and the basic allegedly "irrefutable premises" that form the foundation of Evolutionary Theory DO NOT EXIST in nature.

And I haven't even touched on the fact that the amoeba has a symphony of organelles that must all be present (and work together in a certain, very precise way) or it does not function. That's the elephant in the "random mutations" room.

Evolutionists claim that, given enough time, anything can happen. That's where the statistical myth that a hundred monkeys on typewriters could write Shakespeare by chance came from.

It's not true. Here's why.

EVERY TIME the monkeys hit a key, the EXACT SAME PROBABILITY of hitting that key exists. So, let's say that, after a million years and some very durable monkeys tapping away, a sequence of letters and spaces (100 of them - one for each monkey) produces a line in a Shakespearean play. According to evolutionists, a million years or so later you will get the second line and so on.

That is TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC malarkey. >:(

Between the first line and the second line, all the intervening events MUST be considered valid sequential events. So what we actually got was one line, followed by endless goobly gock, followed by another line. That is called FACTORIAL in probability and statistics,

Factorial math destroys the random positive mutation hypothesis of natural selection. WHY? Because for every potential "evolutionary advantage" (random positive mutation) that pops up, 98 times as many negative destructive mutations attempt to fight their way in to destroy the DNA. So, getting back to the monkeys, if it took one million years to type the first line of Shakespeare, in order to type the SECOND line RIGHT AFTER the FIRST line (we are going AGAINST ENTROPY HERE), you need 98 times as many more years (first period factorial of the second period). So now we are at 99 million years for two lines. To get the first three lines in consecutive fashion, you need 98 times the 99 million years. That comes to nine billion, 700 million years!

ONLY if positive mutations were the 98 to 2 rule (or better) in nature would Evolutionary Theory be plausible. But what we observe (see gamma radiation experiments on life forms) is destructive mutations out the wazoo until the DNA self repair mechanisms are overcome.

Negative mutations being 98 to 2 in a universe where entropy (disorder) is always tearing away at ORDER is logical and expected. That's our universe. Things are always unraveling, not self assembling.

What looks like a reversal of entropy, the ORDERED growth from plant seed to mature plant, is not a defeat or reversal of entropy. WHY? Because of the intricate set of instructions in the seed's DNA that directs the growth in a deliberate, complex and repetitious manner generation after generation. Plant DNA is lengthy and complex.

It can, however, be argued that a plant's DNA is less complex than an amoeba's (amoeba's have more DNA than WE DO!) but scientists believe it just has a lot of repetitive sequences as backup systems. By the way, all that DNA in such a "primitive" life form is another huge "evolutionary" question mark (God has a great sense of humor! ).

At any rate, plants, because of their many different vascular systems, functions and sizes, are certainly more complex than an amoeba.


Amoeba simplified anatomy

The odds of a hundred thousand or so monkeys on typewriters coding up the DNA sequence of an amoeba ALL AT ONCE (because ALL the cell systems organelles have to work TOGETHER right from the start) involve more time than we have, even if this universe is 14.5 billion years old.

I don't know HOW God did it, but there is NO scientific basis for the fairy tale of wishful thinking called the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:40:07 pm »

If you want some great laughs about the pretzel logic that evolutionary "scientists" use to explain a particularly difficult issue (for evolutionists) about cell anatomy and physiology, Google "origin of mitochondria".

There is NO WAY a cell can function without it. Yet, the ridiculous claim is made that cells DID exist without it and, one fine evolutionary day, this BACTERIUM EVOLVED into a cell organelle called a mitochondria by sneaking into a cell! When it got there, it started doing what a mitochondria does (provide energy for absolutely every one of the thousands to millions of biochemical reactions in the cell in order to oxygenate, ingest nutrients, manufacture proteins, enable cell division, fight off invaders and get rid of waste. What does the mitochondria get in return? A code change in the DNA so that a new Mitochondria is produced with a new cell.

So how did the cell function without the mitochondria? It didn't. They know it but they don't want to talk about it.

WHY? Because mitochondrial ATP (the energy molecule) synthesis for all cell activities has, as of 2013 ;D, been proven to be far more complex and pervasive in the cell than previously known.

The mitochondria was thought to occupy a fixed location but it turns out it is very active moving around the cell in a very factory like and efficient manner. This gives more ammunition to the creationist argument that cells are irreducibly complex with too many exquisitely precise functions working in a complex dance of organelles to have been "pieced together" gradually by invading RNA or DNA plasmids (short sequences like the one we put into E. Coli to force it to make insulin) that broke through the cell wall.

The mitochondrial example itself is game, set, match for Evolutionary Theory simply because it proves the even a single cell could not have been formed randomly.

But evolutionists will continue to lie in their Procrustean bed because, as they love to say, "The alternative (God did it!) is unthinkable."  ;)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:39:05 pm »

A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the Evolutionists 

Why? Because they have found a non-fossilized blood meal in a mosquito gut that is in strata allegedly 46 million years old.

So what? This is Jurassic Park like exciting stuff, right?

NOPE! The scientists KNOW that IF that mosquito, which clearly has organic compounds (i.e. carbon 12 to carbon 14 ratio in its tissues) has ANY carbon 14 in it, it HAS TO BE LESS THAN 30,000 years old!  :o

And that is why the article says absolutely NOTHING about Carbon dating and throws out that huge 46 million year old age with no explanation of the dating methodology. They are setting the stage for IGNORING Carbon tests because "obviously" LOL! if the mosquito is in 46 million year old strata, it MUST have lost all its Carbon 14. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I'll be watching what develops on this and report back here. Here's the "scientific" article asking the wrong questions as to how something could be preserved for such a long time. The question about the possibility of the 46 million year dating of the strata being WAY OFF is NOT ASKED. They are SCIENTISTS, after all, not a bunch of superstitious, rigid fools that refuse to question the data if new evidence demands it... ;D

Here's my FAVORITE bit OF pseudo Scientific clever half truth pushing BS in the article,
Quote
The paper is “powerful” evidence that certain molecules in blood persist longer than scientists might expect... 

Fossilized Mosquito Blood Meal

Researchers have discovered a 46-million-year-old female mosquito containing the remnants of the insect’s final blood meal.

By Abby Olena | October 14, 2013

Researchers from the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, DC, have discovered the first ever fossilized blood meal, according to a paper published today (October 14) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Large and labile molecules like DNA cannot be detected in fossils this old with current technology, but the 46-million-year-old mosquito holds clues about when blood-feeding behavior originated in insects and about the survival of other biomolecules like heme, which the researchers identified in the fossil.

“[The paper] shows that details of a blood sucking mosquito can be nicely preserved in a medium other than amber,”  ;D paleontologist George Poinar of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this research, wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. “The paper also establishes that blood-filled mosquitoes were already active at that time, suggesting that they were around much earlier” than previously realized, he added.

The paper is “powerful” :P  evidence that certain molecules in blood persist longer than scientists might expect, said Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University who was also not involved in the work.

The chances of finding a fossilized mosquito with evidence of a recent blood meal are infinitesimal.
 Paleobiologist Dale Greenwalt and his wife vacation in Glacier National Park each summer. When Greenwalt began volunteering for the NMNH’s paleobiology department several years ago, he learned about a site in Montana called the Kishenehn Formation, near the Flathead River on the western border of the park, that he said “may be one of the best sites for fossilized insects in the world.” For reasons that are still unclear  ;D, this site contains fossils of unrivaled quality, revealing ancient insects in great detail, including well-preserved scales, hairs, and structure-based color. Greenwalt collects roughly a thousand pieces of shale there every summer and adds them to the fossil collection at the NMNH. He then spends his winters in the NMNH’s lab cataloging and analyzing the fossils.

“When I’m going through all these fossils, there are some of them that are obviously of scientific value,” Greenwalt said. The mosquito’s darkened and enlarged abdomen and the morphology of the mosquito’s mouthparts immediately stood out to Greenwalt. “No one has ever found the fossil of a blood engorged mosquito,” he said.

The NMNH researchers measured the elemental content of the mosquito and found that its abdomen contained much more iron than its thorax and than the thorax and abdomen of a fossilized male mosquito from the same site—indicating it contained blood. The researchers also analyzed the fossil using mass spectrometry to show that the female mosquito abdomen, and not any of their controls, contained heme. “Everyone was jumping up and down, and we were all very excited,” said Greenwalt.

Schweitzer said the evidence of heme in the fossil was convincing, but added that looking for specific magnetic properties of heme-derived iron could further confirm the findings, as could the use of heme specific antibodies to verify heme’s presence in the abdomen. “I think this is a great first step,” she said, “but more can always be done.”

Going forward, Greenwalt hopes to investigate how this mosquito, other insects in the Kishenehn Formation, and the heme are so well preserved. The scientists are also intrigued by what the mosquito fed on. “We have no idea who the host was for the mosquito,” said Greenwalt. He added that living members of the same genus as the fossilized mosquito feed on birds and said that “we can conjecture that this was bird blood, but we have no way of proving it.”

D. Greenwalt et al., “Hemoglobin-derived porphyrins preserved in a Middle Eocene blood-engorged mosquito,” PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1310885110, 2013.

Agelbert NOTE: IF a FOSSIL has heme blood group blood, it is NOT a FOSSIL. In a FOSSIL, all the organic matter has been replaced by petrified rock of some type. That means this mosquito (it's amazing how those dad burned mosquitoes just refuse to evolve, isn't it?) has organic matter in it.

In a Heme group, the iron (Fe) is surrounded by a lot of CARBON ATOMS (C). There is also hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present. This mosquito has CARBON. There WILL be Carbon 12 and there had BETTER NOT BE any Carbon 14 or the bug is less than 100,000 years old. Then what are they going to do? Don't worry, evolutionsts will think of some other straw to grasp!


http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37874/title/Fossilized-Mosquito-Blood-Meal/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:36:50 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:35:35 pm »

But Dawkins cannot accept that the most obvious reason for said "planting" is creation.


                                                     
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 10:34:40 pm »



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 evens begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists. A bit like needing to throw a six to start a game of ludo.

A recent article by Jonathan Sarfati  Ph.D., F.M. explains;

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science discusses the fossil record in several places. Creationists and evolutionists, with their different assumptions, predict different things about the fossil record. If living things had really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms, with halfway structures. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed.

The transitional fossils problem

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:


Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today?

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2


The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3

And:

I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4


As Sunderland points out:

It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms to explain that assumed fact.5


The gaps are huge

Teaching about Evolution avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers.  

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs. However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’6 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional.   It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.7

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:


The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.8


There is little to overturn that today.9

Excuses

Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few ‘examples.’ An article in Refuting Evolution contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are misleading at best.’10

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of Refuting Evolution. Teaching about Evolution also makes the following excuse on page 57:

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. 
 
Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. 


Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.11

It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils.

In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. (see topic: Evidence for a Global Flood )

Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous quote:

However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.


But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds):

Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.


Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes.


Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:


Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.13

Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.14


The function of possible intermediates

The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.

Soft part changes

Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg would have required many different innovations, including:

The shell.


The two new membranes—the amnion and allantois.


Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo).


Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.


Yolk for food.


A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens.15


Another example is the mammals—they have many soft-part differences from reptiles, for example:

Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.


Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.


Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.


Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.


Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.


The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.16


Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood.’ This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system.19


by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 3
1.C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413. 
2.C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to backtrack somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that creationists would utilize this truth. 
3.S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint by Gould about creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. This complaint is unjustified. Creationists make it very clear that he is a staunch evolutionist the whole point is that he is a ‘hostile witness.’ 
4.S.J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History 93(2):14–23, Feb. 1984. 
5.L. Sunderland, ref. 2, p. 47–48. 
6.Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992. 
7.Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known Sea Turtle, Nature 392(6678):705–708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651, same issue. 
8.
9.G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 105–106. 
10.A useful book on the fossil record is D.T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say NO! (El Cahon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995). 
11.Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine. Available from , 18 February 1999. 
12.M. Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190. 
13.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157, 178–180; see also W. Roush, ‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March 1985, p. 40. 
14.T.S. Kemp, The Reptiles that Became Mammals, New Scientist 92:583, 4 March 1982. 
15.C. Patterson, Morphological Characters and Homology; in K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction, Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Cambridge, The Systematics Association Special Volume 21 (Academic Press, 1982), 21–74. 
16.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 218–219. 
17.D. Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, 2nd edition, (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis et Universalis, 1995), p. 223–232. 
18.T.S. Kemp, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 309–310.

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2018, 02:19:51 pm »

Quote
AG: Once again, you make this categorical statement about "how evolution proceeds" as if I had not heard that mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout my college experience.

All good explanations start at the beginning, so everyone (not just you) understands what we are talking about.  Why "ad nauseam"?  - When you were at college, did the repetition of the explanation  of Darwinian evolution really make you sick?  Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.  The Roman Catholic Church rejects ID as unscientific.  Why call it a "mantra" as if it had mystical Hindu powers?  You accuse me of making "ad hominem false accusations", without quoting any , because there are none.


You love to twist words, don't you? I used the word "mantra" in regard to your penchant for unnecessarily repetitious statements. Mysticism is the last thing I would accuse you of.  ;D

It is true that all good explanations start at the beginning. That beginning, however, must not be laced with arrogant posturing as you ad neauseum are so fond of doing in your snide filled sophistic modus operandi. True, I am guilty of answering your grossly inaccurate assumptions about evolution with sarcasm. But, I only resorted to doing that when you showed an inability to deal with this issue politely and respectfully when you resorted to ad hominum sneering and mocking.

There are many scientists who argue, point by point, why the Standard Theory of Evolution is not backed by science (see below). This flies in the face of this erroneous assumption by you:
Quote
Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, ...


I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would actually take to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of these other points:

Quote
*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

Mind you, a bacterium is a prokariotic organism, far simply than the eukaryotes (eukaryote: any organism having as its fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes, and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis, characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green algae, and other primitive microorganisms).

There just was not enough time in our 14 billion year old universe (or a universe multiples of billions of years older, for that matter - but we will leave it at around 14 billion years for now because that is the current scientific consensus  ;)) for such complexity to have "evolved". But, it's here, isn't it?

In the face of the above the Bartel and Szostak experiment was formulated to dance around the probabilty math that undermined evolution theory. The Bartel and Szostak experiment is proof of nothing but some creative speculation from gel electrophoresis results showing an increased catalytic activity of lifeless RNA nucleotides. The probabilty math hurdle (i.e. amount of time required) for the "evolution" of the life complexity we observe in nature to have occurred by random processes is insurmountable.

You refuse to address the blatant flasehoods pushed in the conclusions of that experment. So do not talk to me about "good explanations" starting at the beginning. YOU are the one who does not want to start at the BEGINNING. Your ad nauseum repetition of evolutionist mantra is NOT for the purpose of "explanation", as was done in college, but for the ad hominem purpose of giving the readers here the impression that I am ignorant of all that mantra. 👎

Where and How life began on Earth according to Evolutionists (see below):
Quote
Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.

 


Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

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

“There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

Download the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

Add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list


RECENT POSTS:

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University


Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.

Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection?

Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

Agelbert NOTE: This engineer's comment that I found surfing the internet pretty much summarises the truth about our reality. In the here and now, we cannot create even the simpliest of life forms, yet the evolutionists ass-u-me that there is no Creator.

Quote
John T (February 8, 2018 11:08 AM)

There may be much research attempting to prove evolution is the mechanism by which life appeared and progressed. The very foundations on which biological evolution stand, however, rest on sand which is quickly washing away.

No evidence exists to show how life spontaneously arose and as more is learned, the immense complexity of life, even in its simplest forms, demonstrates insurmountable obstacles to the beginnings of life without the work of a master engineer.

As an engineer, I understand that even the simplest of designs will never function without much thought and planning. How could it possibly be that life, so immensely complex that it is not completely understood by our most learned scholars, could have used random mutations to go from molecules to the variety we see. To believe this is foolishness! If all the world’s resources would put into creating life right now from molecules, it could not be done!

Now add in the ideas of consciousness, intellect and love... it is a wonderful creation we live in!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 04, 2018, 10:24:23 pm »

AG you are right that I am going to answer your epic post with a short quip.  You can't expect anything else.

Evolution proceeds by a series of random mutations, FOLLOWED BY SELECTION OF THE FITTEST.  So there is total agreement that just random mutation will not do.  It is not clear from any of your accounts of experiments by mathematicians, that THIS version of evolution is what was being tested.  You have an unfortunate habit of describing something, and then in the next paragraph trashing the idea, which makes it very difficult to know what YOU believe.

All scientists should be prepared to have their experiments be judged by other scientists.  But human nature means that reputations may be destroyed in the process, so professors tend to stick to their guns no matter what.  Even Newton was guilty of this.  So Scientific development doesn't always go as smoothly as it should.

When the Christians were beaten by the Darwinists, resulting in no need to have God in the universe at all, the Christians tried to pick holes in Darwinism, many of which Darwin had himself worried about, being a Christian.  Then Creationism was invented to consolidate all that criticism.  It's sole objective was to get God back into the picture, not to explain anything better.


Once again, you make this categorical statement about "how evolution proceeds" as if I had not heard that mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout my college experience. ::)

It is clear that you did not read most of my post. It is clear that you have reading comprehension problems with the part you did read. As usual, you make ad hominem false accusations about me. That is, when you aren't accusing me of being stupid or ignorant, of course.

As to the other blah blah blah about what scientist reputations and so on, see my first sentence. Man, your eternal attempts to position yourself on the podium lecturing the "dumb student" about what he "can expect  from your highness" are absolutely nauseating! Get  a life!

I disagree with everything you just said, especially the ridiculous notion that creationism was "invented" to pick holes in Darwinism. True to atheist form, you have that exactly backwards. Darwinism was what was INVENTED out of bubbly "primordial" Campbell's SOUP 😈 by people like you for the sole purpose of FOOLING people into thinking God is not "in the picture".

Palloy's FAVORITE SOUP!

It was molecular biology, probability mathematics and DNA research that PICKED THE MASSIVE HOLES in Standard Evolution Theory, Einstein. That was all in the post you cannot challenge except with disparaging ad hominum about "what I can expect". Have a nice day, atheist.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 04, 2018, 07:33:24 pm »

I watched the video, I had seen something like it before anyway, and I don't remember anything like that being discussed.  Adaptation to change, with the existing DNA, is not evolution.  The intelligence was always potentially there. So there was no "development of intelligence".  Since all octopuses were found to have this intelligence, there would be no relatively successful smart octopuses to have a new generation of smarter octopuses.

I  think the answer is that no environment has turned up which makes smartness more successful, so evolution hasn't had anything to work with.


Well, you have a bad memory.

Quote
Adaptation to change, with the existing DNA, is not evolution.

Yeah, that's what I said. Is there an echo in here?

Quote
The intelligence was always potentially there. So there was no "development of intelligence".

Yes there was  ;D. Octopuses living in groups are learning from older octopuses. The experiments proved tey ARE getting smarter. But, I can understand your Neo-Darwinian standard for "smarter" REQUIRES new DNA passed on to a subsequent generation for that to be the "real deal", so to speak. You refuse to accept the SAME DNA package can produce smarter octpopuses. So, you come up with the following Syllogistic statement to defend your "evolution is the only solution" Procrustean Bed.

Quote
Since all octopuses were found to have this intelligence, there would be no relatively successful smart octopuses to have a new generation of smarter octopuses.

A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced. In Edgar Allan Poe's influential crime story "The Purloined Letter" (1844), the private detective Dupin uses the metaphor of a Procrustean bed to describe the Parisian police's overly rigid method of looking for clues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Again, you missed the entire point of the observations in the video. Octopuses are typically loners. The octopuses observed are NOW living in grooups, something they never have been previously observed to do. This enables the young octopuses to learn from the older, more experienced ones, something that has hitherto not been possible because a female octopus dies as soon as her brood can swim. Thus they have ALWAYS relied totally on instinct to hunt and hide.

NOW, things are changing. NOW the young octopuses, which are GENETICALLY IDENTICAL to the previous ones that did not live in groups, are showing EVIDENCE of increased intelligence in prey seeking ability.

Tell me, Palloy, why do you have such difficulty grasping non-evolutionary adaptation concepts?

Quote
Palloy: ... evolution hasn't had anything to work with


Poor Mr. "Evolution". Your god hasn't had "anything to work with". How amazingly presumptive, as well as reductionist, of you to ASS-U-ME that the only possible explanation for a new "evolutionary" ;)  advantage a species obtains, such as added intelligence,  is "evolution".

Sir, you are STUCK in a neo-Darwinian mental straight jacket that refuses to accept that a pre-existing functional bit of DNA coding can be activated by new environmental stresses.  👎 👎 👎

As usual, you are parroting the "evolution solution" mantra that will not accept a new advantage is real unless said advantage has been proven to be passed onto the offspring in the form of a mutation. It is simply impossible for you to accept that a new advantage DOES NOT have to be "passed on", because it was latently THERE and ALREADY being passed on, in the original DNA package.

Your tired "the ones who don't have it die off and the ones who have it dominate" does not apply here simply because the less social octopuses that don't learn from the more experienced octopuses are genetically identical to the ones that DO learn and dominate.

I remember when my Zoology Prof calmly stated that a crocodile having two penises was an "evolutionary advantage". That was the best joke I had heard in a long time. But, you probably cannot figure out why I think that is so funny, can you?  :D

Hasn't it always been understood that a particular genotype doesn't alway give an identical phenotype to the parent in the offspring?

I'm not as into this argument as you are, but I'm far from having a purely deterministic (Darwinian?) outlook.

I put a question mark there because I'm not sure you have Darwin quite right. In any case, his scientific work is ancient history now. He lived and died in the century-before-last.

I don't think scientists today completely fail to understand that seemingly dormant genes can be triggered by a change in environment. Isn't that a fairly hot topic these days?

Science moves forward based on continuous questioning of our knowledge base, which we understand to be less than perfect.  By designing experiments and making observations and looking at data, we continually correct our prior mistakes. That's what makes it science and not dogma.

I lose you in these "proofs" of yours, because I don't see a real dichotomy between science and what some people regard as Mystery, or God.

Sorry. Don't get mad, I'm sincerely trying to understand you better.

Don't know about the two pe nis thing. Wouldn't having a pe nis and a vag ina be a better evolutionary advantage? :)


Your post is rational and respectful.  Thank you.

I'll try to answer without being disrespectful.

No, it has not always been understood, at least in the context of one having an "evolutionary" advantage over the other, that a particular genotype doesn't alway give an identical phenotype to the parent in the offspring,

I was not trying to lose Palloy or you. Please watch the whole video and you will, perhaps, see my logic clearly.

They are all fervent evolutionist scientists doing the experiments so you will have no trouble accepting their proofs without quotes. They even go into the "evolutionary" tree to trace back when we allegedly "diverged" from those "dumb" mullosks.

Eddie, I understand that science is a learning process. That's not what my beef with the "evolution is the solution" argument is. My beef is that the cloistered rigidity of so much we are taught in scool is tantamount to a religion.

You don't see it that way. That's cool. I do. I do not agree with you or Palloy that the typical atheist scientist is objective about the possibility that non-mutated, nonchanging genetic material can, under a certain environmental stress, code up an "evolutionary" advantage. Yeah, I know all about the other scientists in Darwin's day that thought the environment was what gave form and function to life forms. Darwin won that particular argument. That is NOT what I am talking about.

Evolutionists have a "Life arose randomly" prejudice that hampers their objectivity.

My prejudice is that God did it. So, Palloy, the atheist, takes every opportunity to hurl scorn and ridicule at any evidence of intelligent design because he, like you, thinks I am "not being objective" (to put it mildly).

I understand. No, I'm not mad, just frustrated that it requires so many words to explain the NONEVOLUTIONARY progress (i.e. ADVANTAGE) that these unusually objective evolution believing scientists have learned about.

So, let's let it all hang out here, shall we? The REAL issue is whether God DID IT or not, from atoms to Crocodile pen ises (the joke for me about the double  pe nis crocodile was the ridiculous emphasis on reproductive potential in the evolutionary world view - If ya want REPRODUCTION, look at the reason they came up with the natural logarithm - bacterial reproduction rates - or look at the nematodes! - Seeing an "evolutionary" advantage in an added pe nis is world class "evolution is the solution" straw grasping, as well as incredibly reductionist!). THAT is where Darwin was REALLY coming from when he invented the whole "evolution" thing (i.e. there AIN'T NO CREATOR).

You claim it was just "objective observation and learning". That certainly was involved, but the conclusions lacked evidence then, and still do now, but were passed off as "ironclad scientific logic", which they certainly ARE NOT. You do NOT want to go there.

Listen to me, Eddie, Palloy took a pot shot at me about the "religious" folks who were bent out of shape because Darwin said we are related to other primates. Yeah, that's true. They were angry about it.

But they were not the "objective scientist types" who promptly began to kill Australian natives and Africans and send their bones and skulls to museums for "evolutionary study" as a DIRECT RESULT of Darwin's assumptions about "inferior races".

That type of HEINOUS historical "water under the bridge" is not part of the evolutionist true believer's world view of what "science" is all about, is it? No sir, they don't want to talk about those unfortunate "eggs" that had to be broken to make the present advanced scientific "omelet". But at a certain level, though they never will admit it, they ACTUALLY STILL think that murderous crap was "justified".

All that was "for the good of science" and part of the "learning process", right? HELL NO!

YET, these paragons of "objectivity" like Palloy are lightning fast to remind all God fearing individuals of how "backward" and "stunted" we are.

So PLEASE try to remember the gross lack of objectivity in the development of the Darwinian MESS that the NAZI's and the eugenics bastards in Europe and in the USA used to murder or sterilize people for "science" when you think of "scientists". THAT is a part of the evolution believer's baggage PERMANENTLY.

Also, you CANNOT pretend that is not STILL happening at some level and that Evolution Theory BOOSTED RACISM to "scientifically acceptable" "inferior race" murder and mayhem specimen collecting levels.

You also know that DARWINIAN based IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE hasn't gone away, even if it is somewhat more muted now due do the discoveries in molecular biology.

Eddie, if the scientific community was as "objective" as you and Palloy claim it is, there would not be a single person that went to high school in the developed countries of the world that still believed that various human races exist. ONE human species, yeah, human races NO.

Here's what I wrote to Palloy recently. Get a good evolutionary laugh out of it if you please, but I firmly believe I am being far more objective than Palloy or anybody else out there who eschews intelligent design in the face of the irrefutable evidence that we live in a nonrandom universe.

The post began with a post by Agent Graves. I responded with my experience and Palloy jumped in there to do his part to mock my mental analytical faculties in order to relegate my experience (quite similar to one that Agent Graves observed) to a mere "coincidence". So, I responded with a rather large post full of "God did it" scientific evidence. I wrote it more for other readers than for Palloy. I know he probably grew quickly bored and didn't bother to finish reading it. Have you noticed how abbreviated he has become? He's down to short snipes now. He won't even quote the stuff I write except as out of context as possible. Whatever. Enjoy or ignore, your choice.  😎


Alas for me, I need to know how it works as well, but this is just a discussion and exchange of ideas, not argument I hope.

To Agelbert, I will describe two people to show what I believe in both grace and personal will, maybe even karma, without prayer or anything being miraculous.

About a month ago, I was stopped at a red light at a pedestrian crossing on a busy main road at 3.45pm. There was only one person crossing, an Indian schoolboy about 12 years old. He was slouched against the pole. I had been stopped for a while, about 5-10 seconds, when BANG!!! the car beside me had been hit from behind so hard it jumped right across the intersection. It was a very small and light car, an early 90s model ford, driven by immigrant collecting childten from school, but less than a ton.

The car that hit it must have not even slowed or braked, but stopped dead, a larger, modern car driven by a white middle age woman who was in a daze. I guess thats the physics of the impact.

But the amazing thing is that the boy had not crossed the road. I am sure I had been stopped long enough that the green walk signal should have been on. I was on the left lane and the car beside me that got hit was in the right lane, the length of time i was stopped being at least 5 seconds, the boy should have been in front of the car beside me at that moment.  Thats what I call Grace.

My anecdote to do with Will involves a motorcycle cop Ive known a long time. On about July last year at about 5am he also ran straight into the back of another vehicle without even braking, but this time the weight advantage was with the stopped Toyota pickup, not the police bike. I think unless you have constant regular work shift at that time, its very hard to be alert. Do a 12 hr shift at that time when your body clock is screaming for shutdown and here is what can happen. Head first, not good.

When I heard of the injuries, coma, brain damage, lost eye, half a head made of metal and leg still in a brace for now, I thought he was better off dead. Yet he has been positive and humerous throughout, now with a great trick of taking out the glass eye.

The numerous surgeons involved said he will not ride motorbikes again, his reply 'bullshit'. After I dont know how many tests of function and like a 17 year had to sit learners drivers test in a car. Now working towards motorcycle when the brace comes off. He refuses to take a desk job, but goes to the station and sits on the parked police bikes. I have no doubt now he WILL do it again, when i thought he was going to only drive a wheelchair with constant migraine, so i count it miraculous. No religion invoked at all, only Will. Karma? I don't know, except that he's spent a long time on suspension. Mean guy? No, opposite.  The outpouring of support from literally hundreds of people saying what a humbling inspiration this is, is testament to that.


I agree with you that the kid was saved by God's grace.

About the other fellow, I hear ya. People who just give up die pretty quick. It's good that he has not given up. The will does play a part in human interactions. I agree that is important.

But, I've had too much strange stuff happen to me when my will was working exactly backwards to credit the will above a certain level of cause and effect routine interaction.

The experience was coming back from a movie and stopped at a light (I previously wrote about it here about 5 years ago). There wasn't a car in sight. It was dark, quiet, and the light turned green. I'm not colorblind. I was young and a certified commercial pilot.

I just sat there, thinking nothing in particular. No, I wasn't thinking about the movie. I was pretty much in neutral, watching he green light and the surrounding street intersection darkness. Nobody was talking at the time. I had ZERO distractions. A few seconds went by and my brother in the back seat with his wife, who's will was working normally ;D, (my wife was in the front seat) said, "It isn't going to get any greener". I said, right, and immediately took my foot off the brake and moved it to the accelerator as a car without headlights streaked a few feet from the front of my car in the road I was about to cross at over 70 mph. Had I moved, we would have all been dead. We were in a 1966 White Toyota Corolla just like the one below:


I crept accross the intersection and drove home uneventfully.

We were all deathly quiet the rest of the way home. That car would not have protected us and we all knew it. It's hard to chit chat when your heart is in your throat. 😨

The strength of will was my enemy there. You can call it anything you want that saved four people's arses that night, but I call it God's grace. Mind you, I was an atheist at the time. The kid you observed got his will short circuited temporarily exactly the way mine was.

God or one of His messengers (angel means messenger) does this kind of thing routinely. Materialists have trouble handling it. As an atheist, I just could not figure it out. Eventually, I did.

It is impossible to understand these types of experiences from a mechanistic reductionist perspective which so limits the atheist when confronted with cause and effect anomalies that result in the saving of lives. As Palloy and some others here will probably do from reading this anecdote, I made up lots of excuses and tried to relegate the experience to a "coincidence". That was bullshit. It was no coincidence, but I won't get into a hair splitting back and forth with him or anybody else here who thinks I'm telling tall tales. If they think I'm full of baloney horse hockey, that's their problem, not mine.

The human strength of Will isn't always a plus. Sometimes it is extremely counterproductive.



Palloy ASS-U-MEs the universe is a random coincidence

Quote
AG: It is impossible to understand these types of experiences from a mechanistic reductionist perspective which so limits the atheist

So you make something up about God's Divine Intervention instead, and then later trot that out as a real life example of Divine Intervention, thus "proving it". I won't try and explain to you that it was a coincidence, because you are already invested in the idea it was no coincidence, without any evidence.  Something nearly happened, but didn't. Imagine how frequently that happens on the roads. It's a wonder we are all still alive.


You forget to put the eye roll at the end of your last typical example of Palloy style sophistry and gratuitous mocking. ;)

True to form, you cannot entertain the mere possibility that my experience was not a coincidence, so you resort to mocking my ability, at that time, as an atheist, to objectively analyze the event.

Perhaps I do not have as high an IQ as you, sir. But, it is rather presumptuous of you to to ASS-U-ME that each and every event in the 3D universe is merely a probability function. Yeah, right, it's all about randomness, isn't it, Palloy? I don't think so.

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but not to the point of irrational straw grasping. Yes, you WANT to think that is what I did. I maintain that you are the one who MUST do that to defend your flawed world view.

I was there once but I will never convince you of that, so let us move on to the flawed basis of your belief that there is no creator God, therefore the universe is a random vortex of particles bumping into each other and mutating to randomly produce life from amino acid precursors on up to the evolutionary apex of intelligence and complexity in the form of Palloys.

Leaving all the spiritual intervention stuff, since you consider all that "silly superstition of crutch seeking weak minds", let me remind you that your "it's all random" view of the universe has been scientifically proven to be false.

You see, Mr. Mathematician, there are quite a few credentialed, non-Christian mathematicians that would take issue with you, starting from your assumptions about random math and going straight to whether evolution is possible or not in a random universe.

This material is excerpted from the book, HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, History of Evolutionary Theory.

The biggest group of people who do not believe in evolution is probably mathematicians, and not Christians

Evolution

Most people assume that a dialectic exists between the paradigm of evolution and deep time on one side, and religion on the other.  That is basically wrong.  The dialectic is between evolution(ism) and other branches of science, particularly mathematics and probability theory. In the mid 1960s when computers capable of analyzing the math and probabilities involved in evolution became available a series of symposia were held at the Wistar center at the University of Pennsylvania and a non-meeting of the minds ensued involving evolutionary biologists on one side and mathematicians on the other, and both sides left with the feeling that the other was in some sort of denial.

WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

With the dawn of large main-frame computers came the data needed to disprove evolution. Wistar buried evolutionary theory. Yet the evolutionists won't admit it.

Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the evidence found in nature. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution

The Philadelphia Meeting: Evolution destroyed by mathematical facts at Wistar

The Alpbach Meeting: More evidence against evolution

The New York Meeting: The situation became even worse

The Cambridge Meeting: The finishing touch


THE PHILADELPHIA MEETING


It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place.   

The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

The conference was chaired by * Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.

A milestone meeting
was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."— *Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

* C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!  :o  ;D

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by * Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

Yeah, Palloy, rather than addressing any of the irrefutable points made above, you will claim the link goes to a creation web site so "all the info is suspect". You will pretend these RED ASTERISKS * don't mean it says they mean. You will do this without a shred of evidence and without making any attempt to verify the names and credentials and quotes of the various mathmaticians mentioned. You will do this because you cannot handle the possibliity that we live in an intelligently designed universe.


Let's assume, for the moment, that all the above is ALSO not worth arguing about.

HOW do you explain THIS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that we live in a NON-RANDOM reality?:

Agelbert NOTE:The concept of a RANDOM UNIVERSE is being taken apart step by step, along with the BELIEF that the law of conservation of energy applies to all matter AND that phi symmetry ordered subatomic particles cannot enter this universe ex nihilo. Non random creation = Intelligent Designer did/does it 24/7.  ;D

Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world

Quote
Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (HZB, Germany), in cooperation with colleagues from Oxford and Bristol Universities, as well as the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter. They have measured the signatures of a symmetry showing the same attributes as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.  Read more at: http://phys.org/news182095224.html#jCp


Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'

Mar 24, 2015

Quote
An experiment devised in Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html#ajTabs

When Newton said the following, he was NOT giving "lip service to the Church in order to avoid trouble", he was being a SCIENTIST that KNOWS the difference between PHYSICS MATH and FAITH.

Yeah, Palloy, you will discard everything above as evidence of a non-random universe simply because your world view is a BELIEF SYSTEM, not an evidence based system, as the studies above prove.

There is an experiment called The Bartel and Szostak experiment which is basically a straw grasping attempt, devoid of any real biological facts about of life processes, to claim that "the odds are NOT stacked against an origin of life by natural processes.". These Palloys came to the "inescapable conclusion" that "genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property. "

Did you catch that? The word they used was, "INESCAPABLE". That was in addition to "AMAZING". That sounds real "scientific", doesn't it. Well, it does to the Palloys of this world, but any molecular biologist should laugh this experiment to scorn.

The Bartel and Szostak experiment is an embarrasing application of a tiny experiment to come to some hyperbolic conclusion labelled as "inescapable". This is NOT, in any way, the proper application of the scientific method to address the issue of randomness or not in the universe in general, and the biosphere in particular.

You are real good at dancing around the flaws in your world view, but the experiment that evolutionsts/atheists like you try to use as evidence actually makes a COMPLETE MOCKERY of your shamefully evidence free, baseless, and groundless Creator rejecting assumption that we live in a random universe.

The Bartel and Szostak experiment "inescapable" conclusion is an example of a syllogism. Definition "1" below is then used with some very limited definition "2" to come up with the clever use of definition "3".

Quote


Syllogism

syl·lo·gism [ sil- uh-jiz- uhm]

NOUN

1.Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

2. deductive reasoning.

3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.

Most people have probably stopped reading this by now. Palloy is probably preparing a short quip from his rather large arsenal of gratuitous mocking snipes to undermine this post.  ::)

For those who are still here, let me explain the flaws in the Bartel and Szostak experiment.

First, the Bartel and Szostak 1993 experiment and the observations ONLY, not the (unscientific, evidence free, wishful thinking, jumped to) conclusions:

ALLEGED GOAL of the Bartel and Szostak 1993 experiment: To see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties.

Quote
Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences.

At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules.

But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically.

In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function.

After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.

Sounds great, don't it, sports fans and happy atheist evolutionists everywhere?

As stated by the scientists, the GOAL was NOT to obtain evidence for natural selection of life precursor molecules (e.g. amino acids - they come BEFORE the RNA nucleotides) to the point that said molecules (which certainly are NOT life forms that can go extinct) would increase in life promoting complexity. No sir, their stated GOAL was "To see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties."

Quote
These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. 

Those "specific properties" they were performing the experiment to possibly observe involved catalytic activity. Yes, enzymes in life forms ARE catalysts, but an increase in catalytic activity happens routinely in all sorts of mixed substrates in the physical world, completely unrelated to life or natural selection.

But even before that they NONRANDOMLY synthesized a bunch of RNA nucleotides of a specific size. Yes the sequence within those 300 nucleotides was random, but the original LENGTH was NOT. The chance they mention in passing is, as you will see, unrelated to the catalytic activity change that they parade as evidence of "natural selection". Hey Einsteins, the INSTANT YOU nonrandom LENGTH synthesized all those RNA nucleotides, randomness in regard to LENGTH, went out the window!

But let us forgive these scientists for using every opportunity to syllogistically throw that word "chance" at us. Let's look at the rather creative conclusions they garnered form their observations:

Quote
In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals.

Sorry friends, but the above statement is composed of an amazing series the most egregious and illogical, straw grasping leaps of faith I have read about in a long time. The key to reaction rates (catalytic activity) in RNA nucleotides, in living systems, does involve the sequence somewhat. BUT, the overwhelming factor is the LENGTH. WHY? Because each segment must position itself to create a copy, then move out of the way for the next segment to do its thing. It is expected that a chemical mix of short 300 nucleotide randomly sequenced (Of course, it would have cost them an arm and a leg to produce trillions of identically sequenced 300 nucleotide long RNA molecules to start off - they went the cheap route. Trying to use the random sequences within the 300 nucleotide synthesized length thing as some "evolutionary" evidence is disingenuous. 👎) would randomly interact to produce various lengths. When there is no life to force RNA nucleotides to be of a certain length and of a particluar sequence for making a specific protein, that's what chemicals do.

To begin with RNA molecules are NOT "species" in the Darwinian definition, where a "species" is some form of self reproducing LIFE FORM. Secondly, the "species" of molecules that emerged randomly from a nonrandom synthesized amount (placed there by the intelligent designing scientists), evidence increased catalytic activity, not a "beneficially" mutated life form. WHY? Because the reaction rate of enzymes in living beings MUST be slow for some processes and fast for others. The fact that electrophoresis revealed a chance increase in catalytic activity (faster reactions) can in no way be a basis for claiming said RNA nucleotides had "evolved".

For example, neurotoxins from certain spiders can so speed up our enzyme catalytic activity that we visibly start vibrating. The victim dies if that HIGH RATE of catalytic activity is not arrested. The same life threatening activity, but more muted, can be observed in poisons that arrest enzymatic (slow down bio-chemical reactions) activity so much that we die.

Increased catalytic activity in a series of batches of RNA nucleotides (due to random length changes mostly, not random sequence changes) is NOT evidence of Evolution or Natural Selection.

Another blatantly flawed rationale of these scientists was to believe that RNA nucleotide sequences are "analagous to genes". That is such a breathtakingly ignorant statement that my eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read it.

A gene is a MASSIVELY complex biological structure within a chromosone. It is an integral part of the chromosone. It is alive. It is self testing and repairing. It resists change. It has myriad mechanisms to ensure the gene is reproduced exactly in the offspring of the host life form. Claiming RNA nucleotide sequences are "analagous to genes" is like claiming a brick is analogous to the Empire State Building.

Yeah, they interact with some VERY SPECIFIC RNA LONG, LONG nucleotides, not those short segments used in the Bartel and Szostak experiment. But, even when they interact, they will NOT allow ANY biochemical reaction speed but the one the gene is pre-programmed for.

The assumption that increased catalatyc activity is tantamount to a beneficial mutation (i.e. natural selction evolution) is a ridiculously ignorant assertion.  👎

Quote
The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.

They were on a roll by this time. Now the different runs were being called "generations". The "information" (you know, the INFORMATION PUT THERE by the intelligent designing scientists who synthesized the first batch of RNA nucleotides ;D ). of course (there is no life process going on here. There is no gene policing the production of the nucleotides. All that is going on is Brownian movement and Diffusion favoring weightier molecules), changed randomly.👨‍🔬 Big deal.

The Syllogistic Roll now really picks up speed  . They had "species" that were "evolving" and, of course, "dominating" (i.e. the Palloys), while others were "going extinct" (i.e. the Agelberts) too! 

Quote
The results were amazing. After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve.

We finally get the gel electrophoresis truth molehill that they creatively formed a natural selection evolutionary mountain out of.

Quote
Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel.

At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.

Those "new bands" were nothing but Browning movement and Diffusion causing a NONRANDOM 300 nucleotide length group of synthesized RNA to revert to a normal distribution, with some longer and some shorter, as always happens in nonliving chemical substrates.

"Dominate"? "Extinct"?

In the light of all the above, please read again and ponder what these credentialed wonders of the scientific community (i.e. these wishful thinking, happy evolution talk pushing, irrational ivory tower atheist bullshit artists) concluded:

Quote
The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property. 

Here's the link for you to go and read it like your bible, Palloy. I'm sure you will find some way to justify these fairy tale carnival barkers for evolution. That's what atheists 😈 do. 👎👎👎

YOU are the one so invested in your world view that you refuse to even ponder the possiblity that all your life you have been fooled by the egocentric fantasy that there is no God that you have to answer to. You are even more sad than you are wrong. Have a nice day.

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Quote
Palloy: The universe is a random vortex of particles bumping into each other and mutating to randomly produce life from amino acid precursors on up to the evolutionary apex of intelligence and complexity in the form of Palloys. There is no creator God.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2018, 07:24:28 pm »

Alas for me, I need to know how it works as well, but this is just a discussion and exchange of ideas, not argument I hope.

To Agelbert, I will describe two people to show what I believe in both grace and personal will, maybe even karma, without prayer or anything being miraculous.

About a month ago, I was stopped at a red light at a pedestrian crossing on a busy main road at 3.45pm. There was only one person crossing, an Indian schoolboy about 12 years old. He was slouched against the pole. I had been stopped for a while, about 5-10 seconds, when BANG!!! the car beside me had been hit from behind so hard it jumped right across the intersection. It was a very small and light car, an early 90s model ford, driven by immigrant collecting childten from school, but less than a ton.

The car that hit it must have not even slowed or braked, but stopped dead, a larger, modern car driven by a white middle age woman who was in a daze. I guess thats the physics of the impact.

But the amazing thing is that the boy had not crossed the road. I am sure I had been stopped long enough that the green walk signal should have been on. I was on the left lane and the car beside me that got hit was in the right lane, the length of time i was stopped being at least 5 seconds, the boy should have been in front of the car beside me at that moment.  Thats what I call Grace.

My anecdote to do with Will involves a motorcycle cop Ive known a long time. On about July last year at about 5am he also ran straight into the back of another vehicle without even braking, but this time the weight advantage was with the stopped Toyota pickup, not the police bike. I think unless you have constant regular work shift at that time, its very hard to be alert. Do a 12 hr shift at that time when your body clock is screaming for shutdown and here is what can happen. Head first, not good.

When I heard of the injuries, coma, brain damage, lost eye, half a head made of metal and leg still in a brace for now, I thought he was better off dead. Yet he has been positive and humerous throughout, now with a great trick of taking out the glass eye.

The numerous surgeons involved said he will not ride motorbikes again, his reply 'bullshit'. After I dont know how many tests of function and like a 17 year had to sit learners drivers test in a car. Now working towards motorcycle when the brace comes off. He refuses to take a desk job, but goes to the station and sits on the parked police bikes. I have no doubt now he WILL do it again, when i thought he was going to only drive a wheelchair with constant migraine, so i count it miraculous. No religion invoked at all, only Will. Karma? I don't know, except that he's spent a long time on suspension. Mean guy? No, opposite.  The outpouring of support from literally hundreds of people saying what a humbling inspiration this is, is testament to that.


I agree with you that the kid was saved by God's grace.

About the other fellow, I hear ya. People who just give up die pretty quick. It's good that he has not given up. The will does play a part in human interactions. I agree that is important.

But, I've had too much strange stuff happen to me when my will was working exactly backwards to credit the will above a certain level of cause and effect routine interaction.

The experience was coming back from a movie and stopped at a light (I previously wrote about it here about 5 years ago). There wasn't a car in sight. It was dark, quiet, and the light turned green. I'm not colorblind. I was young and a certified commercial pilot.

I just sat there, thinking nothing in particular. No, I wasn't thinking about the movie. I was pretty much in neutral, watching he green light and the surrounding street intersection darkness. Nobody was talking at the time. I had ZERO distractions. A few seconds went by and my brother in the back seat with his wife, who's will was working normally ;D, (my wife was in the front seat) said, "It isn't going to get any greener". I said, right, and immediately took my foot off the brake and moved it to the accelerator as a car without headlights streaked a few feet from the front of my car in the road I was about to cross at over 70 mph. Had I moved, we would have all been dead. We were in a 1966 White Toyota Corolla just like the one below:


I crept accross the intersection and drove home uneventfully.

We were all deathly quiet the rest of the way home. That car would not have protected us and we all knew it. It's hard to chit chat when your heart is in your throat. 😨

The strength of will was my enemy there. You can call it anything you want that saved four people's arses that night, but I call it God's grace. Mind you, I was an atheist at the time. The kid you observed got his will short circuited temporarily exactly the way mine was.

God or one of His messengers (angel means messenger) does this kind of thing routinely. Materialists have trouble handling it. As an atheist, I just could not figure it out. Eventually, I did.

It is impossible to understand these types of experiences from a mechanistic reductionist perspective which so limits the atheist when confronted with cause and effect anomalies that result in the saving of lives. As Palloy and some others here will probably do from reading this anecdote, I made up lots of excuses and tried to relegate the experience to a "coincidence". That was bullshit. It was no coincidence, but I won't get into a hair splitting back and forth with him or anybody else here who thinks I'm telling tall tales. If they think I'm full of baloney horse hockey, that's their problem, not mine.

The human strength of Will isn't always a plus. Sometimes it is extremely counterproductive.



Palloy ASS-U-MEs the universe is a random coincidence

Quote
AG: It is impossible to understand these types of experiences from a mechanistic reductionist perspective which so limits the atheist

So you make something up about God's Divine Intervention instead, and then later trot that out as a real life example of Divine Intervention, thus "proving it". I won't try and explain to you that it was a coincidence, because you are already invested in the idea it was no coincidence, without any evidence.  Something nearly happened, but didn't. Imagine how frequently that happens on the roads. It's a wonder we are all still alive.


You forget to put the eye roll at the end of your last typical example of Palloy style sophistry and gratuitous mocking. ;)

True to form, you cannot entertain the mere possibility that my experience was not a coincidence, so you resort to mocking my ability, at that time, as an atheist, to objectively analyze the event.

Perhaps I do not have as high an IQ as you, sir. But, it is rather presumptuous of you to to ASS-U-ME that each and every event in the 3D universe is merely a probability function. Yeah, right, it's all about randomness, isn't it, Palloy? I don't think so.

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but not to the point of irrational straw grasping. Yes, you WANT to think that is what I did. I maintain that you are the one who MUST do that to defend your flawed world view.

I was there once but I will never convince you of that, so let us move on to the flawed basis of your belief that there is no creator God, therefore the universe is a random vortex of particles bumping into each other and mutating to randomly produce life from amino acid precursors on up to the evolutionary apex of intelligence and complexity in the form of Palloys.

Leaving all the spiritual intervention stuff, since you consider all that "silly superstition of crutch seeking weak minds", let me remind you that your "it's all random" view of the universe has been scientifically proven to be false.

You see, Mr. Mathematician, there are quite a few credentialed, non-Christian mathematicians that would take issue with you, starting from your assumptions about random math and going straight to whether evolution is possible or not in a random universe.

This material is excerpted from the book, HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, History of Evolutionary Theory.

The biggest group of people who do not believe in evolution is probably mathematicians, and not Christians

Evolution

Most people assume that a dialectic exists between the paradigm of evolution and deep time on one side, and religion on the other.  That is basically wrong.  The dialectic is between evolution(ism) and other branches of science, particularly mathematics and probability theory. In the mid 1960s when computers capable of analyzing the math and probabilities involved in evolution became available a series of symposia were held at the Wistar center at the University of Pennsylvania and a non-meeting of the minds ensued involving evolutionary biologists on one side and mathematicians on the other, and both sides left with the feeling that the other was in some sort of denial.

WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

With the dawn of large main-frame computers came the data needed to disprove evolution. Wistar buried evolutionary theory. Yet the evolutionists won't admit it.

Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the evidence found in nature. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution

The Philadelphia Meeting: Evolution destroyed by mathematical facts at Wistar

The Alpbach Meeting: More evidence against evolution

The New York Meeting: The situation became even worse

The Cambridge Meeting: The finishing touch


THE PHILADELPHIA MEETING


It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place.   

The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

The conference was chaired by * Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.

A milestone meeting
was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."— *Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

* C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!  :o  ;D

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by * Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

Yeah, Palloy, rather than addressing any of the irrefutable points made above, you will claim the link goes to a creation web site so "all the info is suspect". You will pretend these RED ASTERISKS * don't mean it says they mean. You will do this without a shred of evidence and without making any attempt to verify the names and credentials and quotes of the various mathmaticians mentioned. You will do this because you cannot handle the possibliity that we live in an intelligently designed universe.


Let's assume, for the moment, that all the above is ALSO not worth arguing about.

HOW do you explain THIS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that we live in a NON-RANDOM reality?:

Agelbert NOTE:The concept of a RANDOM UNIVERSE is being taken apart step by step, along with the BELIEF that the law of conservation of energy applies to all matter AND that phi symmetry ordered subatomic particles cannot enter this universe ex nihilo. Non random creation = Intelligent Designer did/does it 24/7.  ;D

Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world

Quote
Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (HZB, Germany), in cooperation with colleagues from Oxford and Bristol Universities, as well as the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter. They have measured the signatures of a symmetry showing the same attributes as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.  Read more at: http://phys.org/news182095224.html#jCp


Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'

Mar 24, 2015

Quote
An experiment devised in Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html#ajTabs

When Newton said the following, he was NOT giving "lip service to the Church in order to avoid trouble", he was being a SCIENTIST that KNOWS the difference between PHYSICS MATH and FAITH.

Yeah, Palloy, you will discard everything above as evidence of a non-random universe simply because your world view is a BELIEF SYSTEM, not an evidence based system, as the studies above prove.

There is an experiment called The Bartel and Szostak experiment which is basically a straw grasping attempt, devoid of any real biological facts about of life processes, to claim that "the odds are NOT stacked against an origin of life by natural processes.". These Palloys came to the "inescapable conclusion" that "genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property. "

Did you catch that? The word they used was, "INESCAPABLE". That was in addition to "AMAZING". That sounds real "scientific", doesn't it. Well, it does to the Palloys of this world, but any molecular biologist should laugh this experiment to scorn.

The Bartel and Szostak experiment is an embarrasing application of a tiny experiment to come to some hyperbolic conclusion labelled as "inescapable". This is NOT, in any way, the proper application of the scientific method to address the issue of randomness or not in the universe in general, and the biosphere in particular.

You are real good at dancing around the flaws in your world view, but the experiment that evolutionsts/atheists like you try to use as evidence actually makes a COMPLETE MOCKERY of your shamefully evidence free, baseless, and groundless Creator rejecting assumption that we live in a random universe.

The Bartel and Szostak experiment "inescapable" conclusion is an example of a syllogism. Definition "1" below is then used with some very limited definition "2" to come up with the clever use of definition "3".

Quote


Syllogism

syl·lo·gism [ sil- uh-jiz- uhm]

NOUN

1.Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

2. deductive reasoning.

3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.

Most people have probably stopped reading this by now. Palloy is probably preparing a short quip from his rather large arsenal of gratuitous mocking snipes to undermine this post.  ::)

For those who are still here, let me explain the flaws in the Bartel and Szostak experiment.

First, the Bartel and Szostak 1993 experiment and the observations ONLY, not the (unscientific, evidence free, wishful thinking, jumped to) conclusions:

ALLEGED GOAL of the Bartel and Szostak 1993 experiment: To see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties.

Quote
Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences.

At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules.

But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically.

In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function.

After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.

Sounds great, don't it, sports fans and happy atheist evolutionists everywhere?

As stated by the scientists, the GOAL was NOT to obtain evidence for natural selection of life precursor molecules (e.g. amino acids - they come BEFORE the RNA nucleotides) to the point that said molecules (which certainly are NOT life forms that can go extinct) would increase in life promoting complexity. No sir, their stated GOAL was "To see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties."

Quote
These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. 

Those "specific properties" they were performing the experiment to possibly observe involved catalytic activity. Yes, enzymes in life forms ARE catalysts, but an increase in catalytic activity happens routinely in all sorts of mixed substrates in the physical world, completely unrelated to life or natural selection.

But even before that they NONRANDOMLY synthesized a bunch of RNA nucleotides of a specific size. Yes the sequence within those 300 nucleotides was random, but the original LENGTH was NOT. The chance they mention in passing is, as you will see, unrelated to the catalytic activity change that they parade as evidence of "natural selection". Hey Einsteins, the INSTANT YOU nonrandom LENGTH synthesized all those RNA nucleotides, randomness in regard to LENGTH, went out the window!

But let us forgive these scientists for using every opportunity to syllogistically throw that word "chance" at us. Let's look at the rather creative conclusions they garnered form their observations:

Quote
In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals.

Sorry friends, but the above statement is composed of an amazing series the most egregious and illogical, straw grasping leaps of faith I have read about in a long time. The key to reaction rates (catalytic activity) in RNA nucleotides, in living systems, does involve the sequence somewhat. BUT, the overwhelming factor is the LENGTH. WHY? Because each segment must position itself to create a copy, then move out of the way for the next segment to do its thing. It is expected that a chemical mix of short 300 nucleotide randomly sequenced (Of course, it would have cost them an arm and a leg to produce trillions of identically sequenced 300 nucleotide long RNA molecules to start off - they went the cheap route. Trying to use the random sequences within the 300 nucleotide synthesized length thing as some "evolutionary" evidence is disingenuous. 👎) would randomly interact to produce various lengths. When there is no life to force RNA nucleotides to be of a certain length and of a particluar sequence for making a specific protein, that's what chemicals do.

To begin with RNA molecules are NOT "species" in the Darwinian definition, where a "species" is some form of self reproducing LIFE FORM. Secondly, the "species" of molecules that emerged randomly from a nonrandom synthesized amount (placed there by the intelligent designing scientists), evidence increased catalytic activity, not a "beneficially" mutated life form. WHY? Because the reaction rate of enzymes in living beings MUST be slow for some processes and fast for others. The fact that electrophoresis revealed a chance increase in catalytic activity (faster reactions) can in no way be a basis for claiming said RNA nucleotides had "evolved".

For example, neurotoxins from certain spiders can so speed up our enzyme catalytic activity that we visibly start vibrating. The victim dies if that HIGH RATE of catalytic activity is not arrested. The same life threatening activity, but more muted, can be observed in poisons that arrest enzymatic (slow down bio-chemical reactions) activity so much that we die.

Increased catalytic activity in a series of batches of RNA nucleotides (due to random length changes mostly, not random sequence changes) is NOT evidence of Evolution or Natural Selection.

Another blatantly flawed rationale of these scientists was to believe that RNA nucleotide sequences are "analagous to genes". That is such a breathtakingly ignorant statement that my eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read it.

A gene is a MASSIVELY complex biological structure within a chromosone. It is an integral part of the chromosone. It is alive. It is self testing and repairing. It resists change. It has myriad mechanisms to ensure the gene is reproduced exactly in the offspring of the host life form. Claiming RNA nucleotide sequences are "analagous to genes" is like claiming a brick is analogous to the Empire State Building.

Yeah, they interact with some VERY SPECIFIC RNA LONG, LONG nucleotides, not those short segments used in the Bartel and Szostak experiment. But, even when they interact, they will NOT allow ANY biochemical reaction speed but the one the gene is pre-programmed for.

The assumption that increased catalatyc activity is tantamount to a beneficial mutation (i.e. natural selction evolution) is a ridiculously ignorant assertion.  👎

Quote
The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.

They were on a roll by this time. Now the different runs were being called "generations". The "information" (you know, the INFORMATION PUT THERE by the intelligent designing scientists who synthesized the first batch of RNA nucleotides ;D ). of course (there is no life process going on here. There is no gene policing the production of the nucleotides. All that is going on is Brownian movement and Diffusion favoring weightier molecules), changed randomly.👨‍🔬 Big deal.

The Syllogistic Roll now really picks up speed  . They had "species" that were "evolving" and, of course, "dominating" (i.e. the Palloys), while others were "going extinct" (i.e. the Agelberts) too! 

Quote
The results were amazing. After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve.

We finally get the gel electrophoresis truth molehill that they creatively formed a natural selection evolutionary mountain out of.

Quote
Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel.

At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.

Those "new bands" were nothing but Browning movement and Diffusion causing a NONRANDOM 300 nucleotide length group of synthesized RNA to revert to a normal distribution, with some longer and some shorter, as always happens in nonliving chemical substrates.

"Dominate"? "Extinct"?

In the light of all the above, please read again and ponder what these credentialed wonders of the scientific community (i.e. these wishful thinking, happy evolution talk pushing, irrational ivory tower atheist bullshit artists) concluded:

Quote
The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property. 

Here's the link for you to go and read it like your bible, Palloy. I'm sure you will find some way to justify these fairy tale carnival barkers for evolution. That's what atheists 😈 do. 👎👎👎

YOU are the one so invested in your world view that you refuse to even ponder the possiblity that all your life you have been fooled by the egocentric fantasy that there is no God that you have to answer to. You are even more sad than you are wrong. Have a nice day.

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Quote
Palloy: The universe is a random vortex of particles bumping into each other and mutating to randomly produce life from amino acid precursors on up to the evolutionary apex of intelligence and complexity in the form of Palloys. There is no creator God.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm »

Aversion to Snakes? 


Hey doomers, do you want to hear a lot of academic mumbo jumbo about why we don't like snakes or spiders much?   

I'm glad you are interested.  ;D The short "answer" is because we are a bunch of monkeys. Also, enjoy the "evolution" word strategically placed here and there to "support" the reasoning.  ;)

Quote

Studies have shown that virtually all monkey species show a fear of snakes in the wild, while most monkeys in captivity do not. However, this does not address the issue of predisposition.

Most humans are not born afraid of snakes, but they are much more likely to become afraid of them than they are to become afraid of most other kinds of animals.

The question is, do other primates show a predisposition toward fearing snakes or spiders?

Don't forget to buy this highly evolved book, even if I think the scientist is trying to make a monkey out of ya!

RE must be a wild monkey  
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm »



Intriguing optical illusion proves most humans have ‘curvature blindness’ Intriguing optical illusion proves most humans have ‘curvature blindness’

LAST UPDATED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2017 BY TIBI PUIU

SNIPPET:

Credit: Kohske Takahashi/i-Perception

Look at the picture above. What kind of lines do you see in the middle, grayed-out part: wavy, straight, or both? The truth is all the lines represented in the image are curvy, but if you’re like most people, you should see alternating rows of straight-angled and wavy lines.

Japanese psychologists found that this optical illusion underlies a newly identified cognitive bias in humans. It’s called the “curvature blindness illusion”. Though it’s somewhat unclear how it works, scientists think it’s caused by the brain using different mechanisms to identify curved and angular shapes. These mechanisms may interfere or compete with each other, producing this strange effect.

Interesting Article, except for the obligatory bow to the (imaginary) evolutionary cause and effect hypothesis  ::):

https://www.zmescience.com/science/optical-llusion-curvature-blindness-432/

Interesting Article, except for the obligatory bow to the (imaginary) evolutionary cause and effect hypothesis  ::):

https://www.zmescience.com/science/optical-llusion-curvature-blindness-432/

Yes, the bit about evolution is not interesting at all!  So in a non-evolutionary world, what could be the explanation? Presumably when God created the world and everything, not only was he prepared to wait 13.6 billion years for humans to pop into existence on Planet 3 of a G-type star in the Milky Way galaxy, but he thought this little trick might demonstrate to us how subtly clever he is - a trick so subtle that we didn't notice until 2017. That makes sense!


Listen Einstein, I do believe the article said THIS:

Quote
The brain might have evolved to prefer angles over curves for some reason that escapes us now.

Now, in case you didn't notice the wording in the above bit of totally unscientific speculation, perhaps you should write that quote on your bathroom mirror and read it 10 times a day until you learn to understand the english language.

Anybody with critical thinking skills would understand that the word "MIGHT" in the above quote, along with the phrase "ESCAPES US" means they do not have a CLUE why this curve bias exists.

If you have some inside info from your God Darwin that somehow explains why this curve bias of ours must be an "evolved" trait, please enlighten us rather than blathering about the billions of years the material universe has been around (at last count - that figure has only changed about 100 times in the past century but I'm sure you will swear on a stack Darwin "Origin of the Species" bibles that the last estimate is the "right" one. ).

Palloy, you are walking example Endowment Effect Bias. You incorporated the Theory of Evolution into your world view straight jacket a long time ago. You reject all evidence of a non-material universe (some call it spiritual and some call it para-normal but basically it is the NON-material reality, an oxymoron to you, we all experience that YOU reject).

Hence the Theory of Evolution is something you OWN. Because you OWN it, you feel the compulsion to defend it any time somebody questions it. This is irrational behavior. True, this bias is not always a psychological condition involving a world view. It is often present in the irrational clinging to physical things like a book or some stocks you bought and won't sell even if they are tanking. However, the endowment effect is present in world view flaws as well.

Quote
Endowment Effect

‘This pattern—the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it—is called the endowment effect (Thaler, 1980).’
Thaler (1992) [book]

‘The endowment effect (Thaler 1980), also known as “status quo bias” (Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988), is the phenomenon in which most people would demand a considerably higher price for a product that they own than they would be prepared to pay for it (Weber 1993).’
Goldberg and von Nitzsch (1999, p. 99)

‘The endowment effect is a hypothesis that people value a good more once their property right to it has been established. In other words, people place a higher value on objects they own relative to objects they do not. In one experiment, people demanded a higher price for a coffee mug that had been given to them but put a lower price on one they did not yet own. The endowment effect was described as inconsistent with standard economic theory which asserts that a person's willingness to pay (WTP) for a good should be equal to their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to be deprived of the good. This hypothesis underlies consumer theory and indifference curves.’  Wikipedia (2006)

‘We also have a bias toward keeping the securities we inherit instead of investing them in vehicles that are more appropriate to our needs (the endowment effect).’
Nofsinger (2001, p. 3)
http://endowment-effect.behaviouralfinance.net/

Quote
As it turns out, our decisions and behavior aren't always rational, but are instead heavily influenced by emotions and cognitive blind spots.http://www.businessinsider.com/endowment-effect-why-people-overvalue-things-2016-4 [/size]

You are convinced I am bonkers because I disparage the theory of evolution and firmly believe that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING material and non-material. Maybe you are right. ;D But Fibonacci patterns down to the quantom level and several exquisitely fine tuned for life physical constants argue against your random univers(es) evidence free hypothesis. I believe in ONE Supreme Being that made it all and you believe in an uncountable bunch of universes made by NOBODY out of NOTHING!

I think your “status quo bias” world view is far less rational than mine.

And you still owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong in stating that reality is even worse than the RCP 8.5 Global Warming scenario. RCP 8.5 is too conservative. Admit it!

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 08, 2017, 07:06:20 pm »


Harpa Cristã instrumental em Flauta Andina



Agelbert Observation: Throughout nature, from the microscopic precise non-random symmetry of the ubiquitous Fibonacci ratio to the spectacular variety of color evidencing DESIGNED beauty in bird feathers, not some random assortment of coloring, an honest person cannot but see the non-random hand of the Creator in the creatures populating our biosphere.

Sadly, you will get endless babble from the Darwin worshippers about how such exquisite beauty and variety in bird feathers is the product of random mutations in coloration which "improved" the chance of reproduction and therefore "selected" all that beauty we see...

If that was true, the VAST variety of bird feather coloration in nature, which apparently has absolutely no evolutionary function, would not exist. If coloration was only about mating and getting predators to notice you, then the nature of predator eye function from mammals to reptiles to other birds would have "selected" an extremely narrow type of coloration, not the fantastic variety out there.

But, that fantastic variety of feather coloration out there requires an honest recognition of non-random DESIGN. The atheist Darwin worshipping evolutionary true believers cannot handle honest recognition of design.

Just look at all these amazingly colored birds! LOOK at the WAY those colors are placed on the birds by their genes! The VARIETY, PRECISION of placement, balance, symmetry and BEAUTY CANNOT be attributed simply to some "male bird mating advantages" and/or "attracting predators away from the non-brightly colored female" (there are a LOT of VERY brightly colored female birds the evolutionists do not want to discuss!). Yet the evolutionists will continue to grasp at these ridiculously limited straws.

If you think birds "evolved" such BEAUTY, I have a pair of owl friends who have something to say to you:




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 06:58:08 pm »


Published on Dec 18, 2015

A very well made and informative documentary that I wish had come a long time ago.

Scientists prove that Darwin's theory doesn't hold water. This should be shown at all schools world wide, educating our educators that have lost their way into fantasies and pseudo science.

These days it seems like googling a subject, and throwing big words around, and acting cynical equals intelligence? A world of "google professors" have revealed itself, trolling their way through the life of countless victims.  :(

There seems to be no end to how low the level and/or the stupidity some will stoop to in order tor justify an agenda. 'Never mind the truth. I'm too busy making it as I think it should be', is the end result.  :P

All credits and thanks go to original uploader Vadik Spyder.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 06:34:58 pm »

Forbidden History, Evolution Theory is Wrong

Out of Place Discoveries TV


Published on Feb 3, 2017

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 21, 2017, 09:21:35 pm »



 

The African naked mole-rat can keep its brain alive for more than 5 hours with no oxygen  :o

Last updated on April 21st, 2017  at 2:30 pm by Alexandru Micu

There’s no metabolic tweak that would make them less ugly though.
Image credits Thomas Park / UIC. 

You know what would really ruin your day? A lack of oxygen. 

But that’s only because we’re humans and not the awesome Heterocephalus glaber or African naked mole-rat. Individuals of this species are used to living jam-packed with hundreds of their kin in small, poorly-ventilated burrows — where the oxygen-o-meter often falls below breathable levels. So the hairless critters have evolved to counteract this by copying a part of the plant metabolism. Understanding how their bodies do this could open the way to treatments for patients suffering crises of oxygen deprivation, as in heart attacks and strokes.

Quote
“This is just the latest remarkable discovery about the naked mole-rat a cold-blooded mammal that lives decades longer than other rodents, rarely gets cancer, and doesn’t feel many types of pain,” says Thomas Park, professor of biological sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead author of the study.

The team exposed naked mole-rats to low oxygen conditions in lab settings, and subsequently found high concentrations of fructose in their bloodstream. This compound was shuttled to neurons via molecular fructose pumps which are only used in the intestine walls of all other mammal species. Park’s team reports that when oxygen levels fall, the naked mole-rats’ brain cells begin metabolizing fructose, a process which releases energy without needing any oxygen. Up to now, this metabolic pathway was only documented in plants — so finding it in the moles was a big surprise.

Fructose metabolism allows the moles to live more than five hours through oxygen levels low enough to kill a human in minutes. Since only their brains are kept at full power by the compound, the moles enter a state of suspended animation in which they exhibit drastically reduced movement and a much lower pulse and breathing rate to save up on energy. It’s the only mammal known to use a suspended-animation state to power through oxygen deprivation.

They’re also seemingly immune to pulmonary edemas — the buildup of fluid which clogs the lungs of mammals in low-oxygen environments, such as climbers at high altitude.

“The naked mole-rat has simply rearranged some basic building-blocks of metabolism  to make it super-tolerant to low oxygen conditions,” park adds.

The full paper “Fructose-driven glycolysis supports anoxia resistance in the naked mole-rat” has been published in the journal Science.

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/mole-rat-brain-fructose/

Agelbert NOTE: The claim that the naked mole rate "evolved" this ability to survive without oxygen is an assumption lacking evidence.

Until they PROVE that, at one time, the metabolism of Heterocephalus glaber did NOT have this ability coded into it's DNA as a potential ADAPTATION from the ORIGINAL DNA package, it is irresponsible, as well as scientifically inaccurate, to equate adaptation with evolution.

They also need to prove that Heterocephalus glaber burrow populations were once well ventilated or/and had small populations not requiring this ability.

Scientists would have to document the DNA genome difference when the moles obtained that ability. If there is NO DNA difference, there is NO evolution.

A gene coding sequence that is dormant and gets triggered by environmental conditions is NOT a change in the package and is called  ADAPTATION, not Evolution.

Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process. There is NO evidence that Natural Selection is an additive process.

Rant follows after a simplistic, reductionist video ("allegations of harm by some technology are scientifically invalid bullshit if you personally cannot test the hypothesis") made by an Evolution True Believer that distorts the scientific method AND completely avoids the mention of the Precautionary Principle of Science.


There are many occasions in our lives when a hypothesis cannot be tested. However, the Precautionary Principle of science dictates that a potentially harmful activity, such as vaccination, burning fossil fuels, hormone disrupting chemicals from chemical plant pollutants, ETC. must NOT be allowed to continue.



Also, Evolution is not considered BS, but, so far (and believe me, they have tried FOR OVER 20 YEARS with an ongoing E. Coli experiment to see when they "evolve" WITHOUT SUCCESS), they have not been able to test the hypothesis OR obtain any reproducibility in regard to evolution.

Nevertheless, every single competing theory has been discarded BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY as being "unscientific"...

Have you heard about the scientific community consensus that, because the Fibonacci ratio, and a few more sine qua non conditions required for life in our universe, are totally NON-RANDOM, we therefore must be inhabiting a matrix, rather than a universe created by a Supreme Being (i.e. God). So what happened to Occam's razor THERE, huh?

And spare me the six day creation mockery. The Bible is not a science book!
But Fibonacci down to the QUANTUM LEVEL is evidence of a creator, not a matrix.

Now you can claim we are just a randomly perfect universe in an endless amount of lifeless universes. AGAIN, you discard Occam's Razor and reach for your Atheist endowment bias. And then you claim you don't believe BS. LOL!

Someday, when scientists decide to stop confusing ADAPTATION from a pre-existing DNA package with "evolution", the evolutionists will stop believing in Bullshit. Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process in complex organisms, despite the ability of bacteria to take up plasmids randomly and mutate. The "bacteria mutated to become complex organisms" dog won't hunt in ANY serious use of the Scientific Method, simply because you CANNOT TEST THAT HYPOTHESIS.

The hypothesis that "Natural Selection is a subtractive Process" HAS BEEN TESTED. Why do you evolutionists refuse to accept the Scientific Method RESULTS?

Have a nice day.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/darwin/msg6917/#msg6917
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 21, 2017, 02:35:00 pm »

If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution!  :o


The End of Irreducible Complexity?

 
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.on

October 6, 2009

The titles of two recent science news articles caught my attention, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science” and “Intelligent Design ‘Evidence’ Unproven by Real Science.”1 The evidence in question is a molecular machine. Members of the Intelligent Design Movement and creation scientists have often stated that molecular machines are irreducibly complex and could not be formed by evolution. However, evolutionists now claim the mechanism of “pre-adaptation” is a way that these molecular machines could have evolved.

What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?

Molecular machines are complex structures located inside of cells or on the surface of cells. One popular example is the bacterial flagella. This whip-like structure is composed of many proteins, and its rotation propels bacteria through their environment. The molecular machine of interest in a recent PNAS article is a protein transport machine located in the mitochondria.2 This machine transports proteins across the membrane of mitochondria so they can perform the very important function of making energy.

Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, see Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.

So How Can Evolution Account for Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines?

The inability to find mechanisms that add information to the genome necessary to form parts for the molecular machines and the inability of Darwinian evolution to collect parts for the machines (no direction or goal) have led evolutionists to develop the idea of “pre-adaptation.” Simply stated, “pre-adaptation” is the formation of new parts for a new molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform another function) before the machine is needed by the organism. Some quotes will help clarify.

Study authors Abigail Clements et al. state, “We proposed that simple “core” machines were established in the first eukaryotes by drawing on pre-existing bacterial proteins that had previously provided distinct functions.”3

Sebastian Poggio, co-author of the study, stated, “[The pieces] were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function.”4

Wired Science writer, Brandon Keim, puts it this way: “[T]he necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine . . . were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.” He also states,

“The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest . . . .”5

These quotes conjure up images of Lego building blocks from my childhood days. The same blocks could be put together in many different ways to form different structures. The study authors suggest proteins that perform one function can be altered (via mutation6) and used for a different function. This eliminates the need to add new genetic information and requires only a modification of current information. Clements et al. state, “This model agrees with Jacob’s proposition of evolution as a “tinkerer,” building new machines from salvaged parts.”7

The problem with this concept is why would evolution “keep” parts that are intermediate between their old function and a new function? The parts or proteins are more or less stuck between a rock and a hard place. They likely don’t perform their old function because they have been altered by mutation, and they don’t perform their new function in a molecular machine because not all the parts are present yet.8 Studies have shown that bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in their current environment.

For example, the well known microbial ecologist Richard Lenski has shown that bacteria cultured in a lab setting for several years will lose information for making flagella from their genome.9 Bacteria are being supplied with nutrients and do not need flagella to move to find a food source. Bacteria are model organisms when it comes to economy and efficiency, and those bacteria that lose the information to make flagella are at an advantage over bacteria that are taking energy and nutrients to build structures that are not useful in the current environment. Thus, even if new parts for a new molecular machine could be made via mutation from parts or proteins used for another function, the process of natural selection would eliminate them. The parts or proteins no longer serve their old function, and they cannot serve their new function until all the parts for the machine are present.

In particular, notice the use of verbs in the quotes above, such as drawing on, recruited, came together, and snap together. These are all action verbs that invoke the image of someone or something putting the parts together. Going back to the Lego analogy, an intelligent designer (me!) is required to put the Lego blocks together to form different structures. Just leaving the blocks lying on the floor or shaking them up in their storage container doesn’t result in anything but a big mess of blocks! Although the powers to “tinker” and “snap together” are conferred on mutation and natural selection, they are incapable of designing and building molecular machines.

Conclusion

Pre-adaptation is another “just so” evolutionary story that attempts to avoid the problems of necessary information gain and the goal-less nature of evolution. It fails to answer how parts that are intermediate between their old and new functions would be selected for and accumulated to build a molecular machine.

Michael Gray, cell biologist at Dalhousie University, states, “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”10 It only makes sense if you start with the presupposition that evolution is true and confer powers to mutation and natural selection that the evidence shows they do not have.

Clements et al. write, “There is no question that molecular machines are remarkable devices, with independent modules capable of protein substrate recognition, unfolding, threading, and translocation through membranes.”11

The evidence is clear, as Romans 1:20 states, that the Creator God can be known through His creation. Many people will stand in awe of the complexities of molecular machines and still deny they are the result of God’s handiwork. But that doesn’t change the truth of His Word that He is the Creator of all things.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/end-of-irreducible-complexity

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 11, 2017, 02:39:30 pm »

Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? [/size]

I never argued any such strange idea.  I just argued that the idea predation isn't part of our makeup is a canard, just as it is a canard to say we are always altruistic.  PY can make his own arguments.  Don't conflate my arguments with his please.

RE


Believe me, I don't. You  have been vociferous about the God footprint on the universe (Fibonacci down to quantum level  ) while Palloy poo poos Fibonacci because "it's not a mathematical function". Anything that stands in the way of Palloy's atheistic Darwinian religion is fodder for him to sophisticate his way around.  ;)

I am looking forward to meeting dumbstruck and sheepish Palloy on the other side.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 10, 2017, 07:03:28 pm »

Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.

The point AG is that you have to achieve a balance between the two.  You can't be perfectly altruistic, at the very least for self-preservation you have to kill plants and eat them.

RE

No, really? Uh, RE, the last time I checked, using the verb "BEATS" in the above boast is evidence of a LACK of balance to the point of arrogant and totally unjustified ASSURANCE that conscience free predation (which is what  justifying self-preservation over altruism ALWAYS IS in practice) takes PRECEDENCE over altruism ANY TIME.

Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? 

I don't mean to replace GO in some kind of passive aggressive chain pulling exercise  ;), but you are off your meds and on an "apex predator can anything it wants" trip (AGAIN  :P).

Even Darwin said that ain't so. Now don't get your drawers in a bunch about dis ting, old man. I do agree with you that self-preservation has its place in biosphere math. BUT, as far as species perpetuation and survival is concerned, and PARTICULARLY in regard to APEX PREDATORS, individual ALTRUISM plays a FAR more important role than self-preservation. There is NO survival if those two are EQUAL TIME balanced. ONLY when altruism is the TOP TRAIT (i.e. NEVER a balance between the two    ) is species perpetuation not in jeopardy. 

Of course I know you love a good argument, so I will give you some fodder to get a real good one going here.

SNIPPET from The Paradox of Altruism

Quote
Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism—the act of helping someone else, even if it comes at a steep personal cost—as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. After all, if life was such a cruel “struggle for existence,” then how could a selfless individual ever live long enough to reproduce? Why would natural selection favor a behavior that made us less likely to survive? In “The Descent of Man,” Darwin wrote, “He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature.” And yet, as Darwin knew, altruism is everywhere, a stubborn anomaly of nature. Bats feed hungry brethren; honeybees defend the hive by committing suicide with a sting; birds raise offspring that aren’t their own; humans leap onto subway tracks to save strangers. The sheer ubiquity of such behavior suggests that kindness is not a losing life strategy.

For more than a century after Darwin, altruism remained a paradox. The first glimmers of a solution arrived in a Bloomsbury pub in the early nineteen-fifties. According to legend, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane was several pints into the afternoon when he was asked how far he would go to save the life of another person. Haldane thought for a moment, and then started scribbling numbers on the back of a napkin. “I would jump into a river to save two brothers, but not one,” Haldane said. “Or to save eight cousins but not seven.” His drunken answer summarized a powerful scientific idea. Because individuals share much of their genome with close relatives, a trait will also persist if it leads to the survival of their kin. According to Haldane’s moral arithmetic , sacrificing for a family member is just a different way of promoting our own DNA.
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-paradox-of-altruism/


Yup, All these serious scientists have to be drunk to come up with any kind of semi-logical CFS. ::)

But it's still mostly a wild ass guess, if evolution true believers would be honest about it (which they NEVER are!). These pecker heads can't even figure out how a woodpecker evolved, but they arrogantly claim to be "logical" about some mathematical formula for altruism based on the "danger" of not passing on their glorious gene pool. GIVE ME A BREAK HERE! These F U C K S want to reduce loyalty, love and caring to some set of perceptual cues about the family jewels? ???

 



Consequently, I continue to advocate that any claim to "balance" between self preservation and altruism, where altruism has the subservient position, is the MARK of an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. As I have said here many times to deaf ears, Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS, so I have no problem predicting the logical and well deserved extinction of dumb f u c k ing predators that don't care for their surroundings, relatives or prey species.

+-Recent Topics

Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 02:08:51 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
Today at 02:00:45 pm

Money by AGelbert
Today at 01:08:49 pm

Darwin by AGelbert
Today at 12:39:02 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 12:17:15 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 17, 2018, 09:53:31 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
June 17, 2018, 09:05:25 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 17, 2018, 07:11:19 pm

Magnetic Gears by AGelbert
June 17, 2018, 02:23:30 pm

Dam Hydropower by AGelbert
June 16, 2018, 11:31:32 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial