Renewable Revolution

Open Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 13, 2013, 01:39:11 am


Title: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 13, 2013, 01:39:11 am
If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution!  :o
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png)


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


(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-067.gif)  ;D
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 13, 2013, 04:29:42 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013160639.png)

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.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)
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.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)


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.(http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)


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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2013, 09:27:23 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013204749.png)
But Dawkins cannot accept that the most obvious reason for said "planting" is creation.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210733.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210944.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013211306.png)
                                                           (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif)
(http://robservations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/happy-cat1.jpg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2013, 10:04:32 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205158.png)
Fossil Record problems for the Theory of Evolution


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205633.png)
Fatal flaw in Theory of Evolution envisioned by Darwin  :o

Over 140 years later, it is an established scientific fact that numerous species belonging to the same genera or families DID start all at once but those clinging to the "evolution" straw have "modified" the tenets of natural selection to include an even less likely probability: CO-evolution.

This requires that symbiotic life forms like bees and flower pollen, termites and the bacteria in their gut that enables them to digest cellulose, leaf cutter ants and the fungus they raise to digest the leaves into starches AND the bacterial coat in the fungus farming specialist ants that keep the fungus from getting out of control through very specific antibiotics happen randomly. This is where it gets ridiculous because symbiotic mechanisms (just to name a few of uncountable symbiotic relationships among widely divergent species with no possible evolutionary ancestor) MUST occur within a single life of the target species or the "evolutionary advantage" is of no use.

Why is this a big deal? Because CO-evolution is mathematically impossible from the standard evolutionist view that positive mutations take millions of years to come about. his MUST occur in a few years or whatever a single life cycle of the target species is.

But they won't discard the discredited Theory of Evolution because they will be forced to go the intelligent design route and believe our biosphere was put here by ET scientists doing a science experiment or, horror of horrors, the God of all creation.

Evolutionist in the face of proven Creation -> (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif)


The Theory of Evolution needs a name change. I propose the Theory of the River in Egypt (De Nile). (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-007.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on October 16, 2013, 05:13:41 am
Fascinating thread, AG.

Not a scientist, and not sure what to make of it, but the facts as presented make for a compelling argument.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 16, 2013, 04:06:19 pm
Eddie said,
Quote
The problem we have here, this "fight" between science and religion ( not just over evolution...evolution is just one battle in a broader war)  comes from a failure on the part of some religious people to understand that the great religious books of the past are full of magical explanations for things. Not because the writers wanted to make **** up, but because they just lacked clear knowledge. And since many religious folks feel that whatever version of their Bible or other Holy Book is the literal, infallible, final, Word of God, they can't reconcile new data with the magical explanations of the past.

They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what science is finding out...and since science has progressed very rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, and requires an increasing level of imagination, with the alternative being a rejection of science, because...well, it's easier and cleaner and requires No Thinking.

Well said!  :emthup:

That said, the Procrustean bed many fundies have made for themselves applies to the evolutionary true believing fundamentalists that view any questioning of Darwin's flawed theory as sacrilege worthy of scorn and ridicule. IOW, these "scientists" are rejecting the scientific method when new scientific discoveries in
1. cell machinery,
2. multiple symbiotic relationships in widely divergent species with no "evolutionary: common ancestor,
3. fossil record showing no transitional life forms (unless the definition of "transitional" becomes rather pliant in its magical thinking story telling imagination - speculation without evidence is not science - calling "evidence" an interpretation of fossils as transitional life forms is an opinion, not evidence),
4. sudden appearance of related species genera of the same family in the fossil record
5. dating assumptions in rock strata despite several issues with dating methods (one dating method showing radically different age than others yet the one producing the more "acceptable" (tens to hundreds millions of years older REQUIRED for ACCEPTABLE  natural selection) age being the one given "scientific" credibility, etc.

What I'm saying is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Darwin himself and famous evolutionist scientists like Dawkins admit the following:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png)
Darwin's worry


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013204749.png)
Dawkins on the  Cambrian "sudden planting" of many COMPLETE life forms


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205158.png)
Fossil Record Scientific Reality without Storytelling and Magical Thinking



(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013205633.png)
Fatal flaw in Theory of Evolution envisioned by Darwin


And what is the modern response to all the above by the alleged hard boiled scientists that allegedly are not tied to religious superstition and fairy tails with flights of imaginative fancy about this, that and the other came to be?

They come up with even more improbable scenarios that boggle the mind of any mathematician performing probability and statistics; I.E. "CO-evolution to produce symbiotic mechanisms IN A SINGLE life cycle of a species!" (Millions of years don't apply because, according to evolutionary theory, if an "evolutionary advantage" mutation expresses itself in a species (In Zoology I was taught that having two penises was an evolutionary advantage for the crocodile. I suppose they figured one of them could be used as a fish lure or he still could procreate if another crock ate his in a fight - that sure sounds like opinion and story telling rather that scientific evidence to me. ;) it is necessary for that beneficial mutation to begin to be used or it will be "selected out". Do you see the problem here? The other side of the symbiosis HAS to connect up in an extremely short period of time or one side gets lost.

This is a scientific Procrustean bed they are trying to stuff the Theory of Evolution in by calling on the CO-evolution magical thinking. Why is it magical and unscientific? Because CO-evolution without intelligent design requires several times more time than the universe age. Yes. I know, some will say that then maybe he universe IS 100 billion years or so old. They'll say ANYTHING to avoid giving the "GOD DID IT" hypothesis and scientific credibility whatsoever.

Your statements apply correctly to the Goose (the fundies). This is how they ALSO apply to the Gander (evolution true believers).


In regard the Evolutionists:"they can't reconcile new data with the magical explanations of the past (see Darwin's worries above).

They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what science is finding out...and since science has progressed very rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, (see 1 through 5 above) and requires an increasing level of imagination, (see CO-evolutionary symbiosis and dual crocodile penises) with the alternative being a rejection of science, because...well...

they will be forced to go the intelligent design route and believe our biosphere was put here by ET scientists doing a science experiment or, horror of horrors, the God of all creation.

Evolutionist in the face of proven Creation:(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif)(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif)

I'm a sort of fundy but I agree with you that there is a lot of non-scientific imagination in the Bible that does NOTHING to reduce the veracity of the message from God to us about how to behave if we want to reach our full potential. I basically could care less if God did it through evolution, mud puddles with Darwinian and Einsteinian brain cells thrown in one day when God had nothing better to do or if the ETs God made long before he made us are running a science experiment.  :icon_mrgreen:

But if people who claim to have the scientific method enshrined right up there with the tablets Moses was given are going to tell me they will ONLY support evidence based on the scientific method, they should **** can the Theory of Evolution and be ready to **** can anything else that doesn't "fit" into the Procrustean Bed called the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise, they are as guilty of turf protecting, non-thinking, BULLSHIT as the overly zealous fundies.

I will not EVER accept science fiction as science fact. It's time to move on to something more credible than "the mud puddle PLUS a few billion years equals the biosphere". 


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 07:01:25 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 07:04:03 pm
Radiometric dating gives many surprises.

Basalts from Hualalai in Hawaii, observed to have erupted in 1800–01, gave potassium-argon (K-Ar) ages ranging from 160 million years to 3,300 million years. 1

A lava dome on Mt St Helens in USA, observed to form since the 1980 eruption, gave K-Ar ages between 350,000 and 2,800,000 years. 2

Lava erupted from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, between 1949 and 1975, gave K-Ar ages up to 3,500,000 years. 3


http://creation.com/a-giant-cause (http://creation.com/a-giant-cause)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 08:04:04 pm
"There is no way to determine the age of eggs when examining fossilized
remains. "  :o


Is it Possible to Tell how Old Eggs Are?

The age of an egg is typically unable to be definitively determined, unlike the ago of the majority of other fossilized animal remains. The study and classification of eggs is a science known as oology. If eggs are left with their inner contents untouched, they will usually eventually rot, which may make it more difficult to figure out egg age.

Eggs can be preserved by poking tiny holes into the shells and extracting the insides, and in some cases the eggs will fossilize. Even if fossilized eggs are found, it is difficult for scientists to study their insides closely enough to determine age. CAT scans or soaking the fossils in mild acid may be used to view the insides, but generally age is only hypothesized by comparing eggs to other remains found near them.  

Agelbert Note: Unfortunately the accompanying remains used to date the eggs which can't be dated are "dated" by the hypothesized age of the rock strata (which is another giant bag of multi million year dating variation differences depending on the method used. I will list the various dating methods and their "scientifically accepted" error margins in another post.  :P



More about eggs:

•Collecting wild eggs was first officially made illegal in the United States in 1918, followed by the United Kingdom in 1954, and is generally not permitted throughout the world.

•Bird eggs are more likely to be speckled if they were laid on the ground, as opposed to a nest in a tree.

•Papaya extract is often injected into eggs to dissolve the inner contents, which can take up to three weeks.  ::)
 
http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-possible-to-tell-how-old-eggs-are.htm


(http://www.wallpaperdev.com/stock/wild-cats-apple-mac-hd-comic-pet-very-happy-cat.jpg)
You just never know when you may need some Papaya extract...  ;D




Title: The Dating Game
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 09:38:18 pm
Dating methods 1

Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the change of 14C in the sample is due entirely to radioactive decay. It is also assumed that carbon has been in equilibrium on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.

 Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial 14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as great age.

Thermoluminescence (TL)
dates are obtained from individual grains of common minerals such as quartz. When such grains are heated, they emit light, and this is related to the radiation ‘stored’ in the crystal structure. It is assumed that the radiation was slowly absorbed from the environment, building up from zero at a certain time in the past (perhaps when the grain was last exposed to sunlight). A date is calculated by measuring the light emitted from the mineral grain when it is heated, and measuring the radiation in the environment where the grain was found.

 Unfortunately, there are many unknowns and many assumptions need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water, heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the environment, and many other causes.

Optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates are based on exactly the same principle as TL. But instead of heating the grain, it is exposed to light to make it emit its ‘stored’ radiation. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL.
Electron-spin resonance (ESR) dates are based on the same principles as TL and OSL. However, the ‘stored’ radiation in the sample is measured by exposing it to gamma radiation and measuring the radiation emitted. The measuring technique does not destroy the ‘stored’ radiation (as does TL and OSL), so the measurement can be repeated on the same sample. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL and OSL.

Thorium-uranium (Th/U) dates are based on measuring the isotopes of uranium and thorium in a sample. It is known that uranium-238 decays radioactively to form thorium-230 (through a number of steps, including through uranium-234). The dating calculation assumes that the thorium and uranium in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Furthermore, before a date can be calculated, the initial ratios of 230Th/238U and 234U/238U need to be assumed, and it is also assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or thorium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. However, the bone and soil must have been ‘open’ to allow these elements to enter and accumulate. 

Protactinium-uranium (Pa/U) dates are based on similar principles as Th/U dating, but use uranium-235 and protactinium-231 instead. The isotope 235U decays radioactively to form 231Pa. Again, it is assumed that the isotopes in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Also, the initial ratio of 231Pa/235U has to be assumed, and it is assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or protactinium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. Again, any bone sample containing uranium must have been ‘open’ to allow it to accumulate in the first place. 

Reference
1.Details about dating methods may be obtained from such sources as: Smart, P.L. and Frances, P.D. (Eds.), Quaternary Dating Methods—A User’s Guide, Quaternary Research Association, Technical Guide No. 4, Cambridge, 1991, or Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1986.


The Dating Game

(http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/assets/images/article/journal/9694/lake-mungo-national-park.jpg)
Lake Mungo National Park

In western New South Wales, Australia, part of a semi-arid desert has been set aside as a World Heritage area.1 This may seem curious for such an inhospitable region. But there is a good reason. Evolutionists believe that the site represents an outstanding example of the major stages in man’s evolutionary history.

It all centres on the discovery of human remains in sand dunes surrounding ancient Lake Mungo—now a dry, flat plain, vegetated by scraggly salt-tolerant bushes and grasses.

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6925/images/nature01383-f1.2.jpg)

The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years.3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia.

But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly, the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’ estimate3 and launched Mungo Woman to national and international fame. Jane Balme, of the Centre for Archaeology at the University of Western Australia, put it succinctly, ‘There’s a general perception that there is a competition to get the oldest date and there’s kudos in it.’4

Certainly, there was kudos in this date. At 26,000 years, Mungo Woman was nearly twice as old as the previous oldest date for Aboriginal settlement of Australia, and possibly the earliest human cremation in the world.

Then, in 1974, Bowler and Thorne found a skeleton sprinkled with powdered red ochre in a grave only 450 metres away.5 This one was well preserved and similar to the skeletons of modern Aborigines. Because the new skeleton, Lake Mungo 3, was found in the same sand bed (technically the same stratigraphic horizon), ‘he’ was assigned the same age as Mungo Woman. Thus Mungo Man became famous too—one of the world’s earliest ritual burials (even though the sex of the individual is still in dispute6).

(http://www.toequest.com/gallery/data/511/LakeMungoMan.jpg)
Lake Mungo Man

The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years.5,7 Being older than the carbon-14 dates, Mungo Man acquired a new stature on the world evolution scene. So, the earlier ‘reliable’ carbon-14 ages were abandoned in favour of the thermoluminescence ones.  ;)
 

Then, in 1999, Thorne (not to be outdone) and other scientists from the Australian National University published a new comprehensive study on the age of Mungo Man. They used different samples of bone and sand and different dating methods—electron-spin resonance (ESR), optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL), thorium-uranium (Th/U) and protactinium-uranium (Pa/U). (Don’t worry about the big names. See  Dating methods).

And the results from all the different methods agreed closely. Their conclusion? Mungo Man was 62,000 years old! Bowler and Magee described this 20,000-year stretch as ‘commendable in intent.’8

There was just one small problem. The new date meant that the history of Australian occupation would have to be rewritten and it also affected the ideas of human evolution in other parts of the world. And Australian archaeologists were still embarrassed by the Jinmium rock shelter fiasco, where a claimed age of 116,000 years was later reduced to 5,000 years.9

So, Bowler stubbornly refused to accept the new dates. In his protest to Journal of Human Evolution, he said ‘For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.’8 In other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be.   ???

And that is what we have been saying all along.10 That is why we won’t accept any date that contradicts the eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
Such contradictory dates can’t be right.

In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrong assumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago.11 The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem.

So, who are Mungo Man and Mungo Woman? Like us, they descended from Noah and his family (Genesis 10). After the Flood, and after the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11), their ancestors migrated to Australia. As the populations grew, they spread out over the continent. During the Ice Age, when rainfall was higher, Lake Mungo would have been a lush area to live in, teeming with wildlife.

Quote
Evolution and the first Australians1

Darwin considered the Australian Aborigines as primitive and not much evolved from the ‘anthropoid apes’. He anticipated that the ‘wilder races’ would become extinct because survival of the fittest meant they would be superseded by the evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilised’ races.2 An evolutionary view of human origins underlies the World Heritage listing of the Lake Mungo site. Such a view was not good for the first Australians. Many atrocities were perpetrated on Aboriginal communities because of these evolutionary beliefs.

Incredibly, in the 1800s, it was not uncommon for Aboriginal people to be hunted and shot as specimens for science.3 Their remains were sent to Europe to illustrate evolution displays in museums. Only now are these remains being returned to their communities.4

But the Bible records our true human history. The first Aboriginal settlers to Australia were descended from people as intelligent and inventive as any other culture at that time. Like everyone else, they were descended from Noah, who built and managed the Ark, and from a people who developed an advanced civilization around the Tower of Babel.5

The Aborigines of Australia lost some of their technological know-how—it can happen in a generation if parents do not pass it on to their children. (Perhaps it was because of isolation and the pressure to cope with a worsening climate as the continent dried out after the Ice Age.) They, like other peoples, are made ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26).

References and notes

1.For more information, see One Human Family.

2.Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 188, 1887.

3.Wieland, C., Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors, Creation 14(2):16–18, 1992.

4.Aboriginal remains returned to Coorong tribe, ABC Canberra News, www.abc.net.au/canberra/news/metact-5may2003-2.htm, 5 May 2003.

5.For more information, see: McKeever, S. and Sarfati, J., Was Adam from Australia? The mystery of Mungo Man, 17 January 2001, updated 20 February 2003.

http://creation.com/the-dating-game
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 09:51:00 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nVvGDu9mDuQ#t=424
I jumped you to the meat of the matter. As a Christian I can handle the prior stuff but you might not.  ;D
Also, if you get bored, jump to the 40 minute mark for Carbon 14 science facts.
The bottom line with Carbon 14 is that it is a short term dating method. According to modern science only living things ingest Carbon 14 as a percentage of the Carbon they ingest. When they die, they start losing Carbon 14 at an allegedly fixed rate. Why "allegedly"? Because an assumption is made that the percentage of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been exactly the same. Scientists admit that if it wasn't, the dating would be somewhat off. But even more importantly, ANY TIME you find ANYTHING that has carbon 14 in it, whatever that life form the matter came from, said life form CANNOT be more than about 30,000 years old. Why? Because, according to modern science, anything that dies TODAY will, if the matter is preserved in stone or sediment free from contamination, lose ALL the Carbon 14 in about 30,000 years. Said sample will contain only Carbon 12 (the common form of Carbon).

But it gets even better! They have found coal and ancient wood (both of these types of matter are from former living plants) inside a strata dated, by other methods, as being over 3.5 million years old that CONTAINED CARBON 14!  :o 

Now, unless the Carbon 14 dating is really wacky (and I think it may be hundreds but certainly NOT millions of years off),  the strata IS NOT 3.5 million years old but MUST BE less than 30,000 years old.

This drives evolutionists up a tree because they HAVE TO HAVE those millions of years to justify the so-called positive mutations involved in natural selection. But really, it is TOTALLY unscientific to reject a carbon 14 dated sample (which dates in a much narrower and more precise range than the multi million year methods). It represents scientific proof that coal can form in 30,000 years or less. But yet they refuse to accept it with NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER!

At present, science knows of no way for life forms to ingest Carbon 14 unless they are alive.

That said, towards the end of the above video they discuss a sample of dead plant tissue that dates 3,000 years INTO THE FUTURE! WTF?  ??? It seems that scientists need to go back to the drawing board with the radio-carbon clocks. This sample somehow accumulated too much carbon 14 while alive. Imagine what that means for so many hundreds of thousands of human, animal and plant remains that have been radio carbon 14 dated in the last 100 years or so?  ;D

For what it is worth I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old but I DO believe Homo sapiens hasn't existed on earth for more than 40 or 50 thousand years.

I admit I have no proof.  But the new Carbon 14 data supports my hypothesis, even if it is Faith based. There has NEVER, EVER been found ANY former living matter without some Carbon 14 in it. How does that grab you? Do you realize that is scientific, empirical, radio-carbon 14 test evidence that the biosphere is about 30,000 years old?  You don't? Why not? (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif)

The dinosaur bones are mostly totally petrified (no carbon 14 or carbon 12 to set up a date from the ratio). But I will bet you there IS a dinosaur bone out there with carbon 14 and SOMEBODY has made real sure that scientifically embarrassing fact doesn't get out because it will destroy the Darwinian edifice of natural history Atheists 'R' US bedtime stories.

Are you a scientist or are you a true blue believer of Darwinian mud puddle life evolution? You say it's not about faith? Where's your evidence? Why don't you admit we have been brain washed from the time we were knee high to a grasshopper? Can't you handle it if you have to face the fact that we were created as a package deal around 30,000 years ago as the radio Carbon 14 test data seems to PROVE scientifically?

Will you now go back to the church of evolutionary zealots and have all the credentialed worthies come up with an even more implausible 'short time frame rapid' co-evolution fairy tale? Probably.

People can be quite stubborn when faced with facts that don't fit their world view. The irony of all this is that the evolutionist true believers accuse those of us with REAL EVIDENCE against the Theory of Evolution as being stubborn, irrational and fairy tale believers. Pot, meet the kettle! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)

That honest admission of lack of proof is LACKING from evolutionists even though they have none.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

As a Christian, I CAN operate on faith. but professionals with the respect of the population BECAUSE they are scientists are not allowed to operate on faith. They are NOT allowed to reach any conclusion without empirical evidence gained by the use of the scientific method.

BUT, when you study the Theory of Evolution and its tenets, you find that it is an evidence free narrative purporting to explain how life originated and became complex on this planet. If they will admit they are practicing a form of religion, I'll accept their decision to operate on faith in Darwin's theory. Of course they refuse to do that because they would lose the aura of scientific credibility.

There is no way, despite their incessant claims to the contrary, that  they can claim they have reached their conclusions through the scientific method. I don't care if the just HAVE to have some pet theory to build an institution and a stack of libraries filled with books about this, that and the other with.

They are OBLIGATED as scientists to throw the Theory of Evolution out if because after 140 years of looking high and low for proof of it, they have NO empirical evidence to back the theory up! Their behavior is irrationally religious. They won't admit that what they are REALLY doing is defending the "GOD DID NOT DO IT" atheist turf, not the scientific method, period. (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif)

http://creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-14
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on October 18, 2013, 04:54:17 am
I am all about going wherever the evidence takes you. And I am willing to believe that our measurement tools are as flawed as were celestial maps based on the Ptolemaic world view.

But created 50,000 years ago? No **** way. Too much evidence is in place for an earlier start, including written and fossil records. The mDNA work is pretty compelling too, up to a point.

No matter how we got here, I don't believe homo could have dispersed and left the variability in the fossil record, all aroun d the globe, in such a short time frame.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on October 18, 2013, 05:37:39 am
Let's muddle the matter further--

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Ian Sample, science correspondent
theguardian.com, Thursday 17 October 2013 14.00 EDT

[embed=425,349]http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/oct/17/fossil-skull-human-evolution-homo-erectus-video[/embed]
The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago in central Asia has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.

Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been dated to 1.8m years old.

Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

The latest fossil is the only intact skull ever found of a human ancestor that lived in the early Pleistocene, when our predecessors first walked out of Africa. The skull adds to a haul of bones recovered from Dmanisi that belong to five individuals, most likely an elderly male, two other adult males, a young female and a juvenile of unknown sex.

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382024055212/Five-Homo-erectus-skulls--009.jpg)

The five H erectus skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia. Photograph: Ponce de León, Zollikofe/University of Zurich



The site was a busy watering hole that human ancestors shared with giant extinct cheetahs, sabre-toothed cats and other beasts. The remains of the individuals were found in collapsed dens where carnivores had apparently dragged the carcasses to eat. They are thought to have died within a few hundred years of one another.

"Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this period," said Christoph Zollikofer, a professor at Zurich University's Anthropological Institute, who worked on the remains. "This is the first complete skull of an adult early Homo. They simply did not exist before," he said. Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans.

Other researchers said the fossil was an extraordinary discovery. "The significance is difficult to overstate. It is stunning in its completeness. This is going to be one of the real classics in paleoanthropology," said Tim White, an expert on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley.

But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382023451653/Homo-erectus-skull-found--003.jpg)
The most recently unearthed individual had a long face and big teeth, but the smallest braincase of all five H erectus skulls found at the site. Photograph: Georgian National Museum


The remains at Dmanisi are thought to be early forms of Homo erectus, the first of our relatives to have body proportions like a modern human. The species arose in Africa around 1.8m years ago and may have been the first to harness fire and cook food. The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as Asia soon after arising in Africa.

The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big, chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site. The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground.

The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.

The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.

"Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably just Homo erectus," said Prof Zollikofer. "We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382025135818/Reconstruction-of-Homo-er-009.jpg)
Reconstruction of the early human ancestor Homo erectus from the latest skull found at Dmanisi in Georgia. Illustration: J H Matternes


David Lordkipanidze at the Georgian National Museum, who leads the Dmanisi excavations, said: "If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."

If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.

The fossil is described in the latest issue of Science.

"Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving."

"I think they will be proved right that some of those early African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus species," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "But Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt that all of the 'early Homo' fossils can reasonably be lumped into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that idea properly."

The analysis by Lordkipanidze also casts doubt on claims that a creature called Australopithecus sediba that lived in what is now South Africa around 1.9m years ago was a direct ancestor of modern humans. The species was discovered by Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand. He argued that it was premature to dismiss his finding and criticised the authors for failing to compare their fossils with the remains of A sediba.

"This is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don't think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn't."

"What all this screams out for is more and better specimens. We need skeletons, more complete material, so we can look at them from head to toe," he added. "Any time a scientist says 'we've got this figured out' they are probably wrong. It's not the end of the story."
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on October 18, 2013, 11:53:43 pm
Surly,
I hear you. I have felt exactly the same for most of my life. Only in the last year have I started to dig hard using the scientific method to test the theory of Evolution and I have come up with a fairy tale of great imagination but no proof.

I remember the arguments I had with my biology profs (none of them were atheists, by the way) where I agreed that evolution had taken place but the alleged proofs they were presenting on multi-celled algae and plants, cell formation and mitochondria migration were theories without proof.

I argued that 98% of mutations are harmful and that the DNA code forcefully rejects change, rather than easily accepts even a positive mutation.

I argued that the so-called "junk" DNA that comprises more than 70% of human DNA (practically ALL life forms have "junk" DNA) is THERE to be triggered by an adaptation. No new data is necessary (that was in 1989 - science has scince discovered that the "junk" DNA is not junk at all but a series of codes for genes to be turned on under certain conditions. I was right about that one!).

Each life form is distinct. Claiming we came from this or that just because you can make a bacterium produce insulin by inserting a DNA plasmid into it so it codes for insulin points at a creator, not random chance because WE are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNING a bacterium that has NEVER produced insulin by chance. And Bacteria have had a LOT of TIME, according to evolutionists, to produce everything from antibiotics to sunscreen.  ;D Yet E. Coli bacteria, in all those millions and millions and maybe billions of years hadn't evolved insulin manufacturing ability (an EXTREMLY useful substance in a wide variety of life forms that would have given said bacterium and evolutionary advantage) until we engineered them to!

Many of my profs agreed that God started the ball rolling but he did it through evolution. I said, fine, but what you are showing me is ADAPTATION from a DNA package not  evolution through random mutation. When you can show me some random positive mutation that "evolved" one type of life form to another, then I'll agree we have proof.

Even those finches with all the different beak lengths and shapes that Darwin claimed were examples of evolution were NOT. It has since been proven that ALL the finch "different species" he drew were IN FACT, all of a single species. Their DNA PACKAGE enabled them to ADAPT to different conditions through different beak lengths.

They DID NOT MUTATE. They DID NOT EVOLVE. They could, and still can, procreate one with another, despite the different beak lengths.

So, all that said, let's go to the article you posted.

First, the reconstruction is an artists conception and a cruel joke. They don't have a clue whether this skull had that hair pattern or looked (as is the obvious intent here) as a missing link of some kind. It is NOT POSSIBLE to tell from a skull what a NOSE looks like. Now tell me, does that nose not look like a something between and ape and a negro? Can you say, agenda?

Second, if that skull is in a "2 million year old strata", they are NOT using carbon 14 dating. They are using the old, "it's in this type of rock strata so it MUST be X million years old because ALL of this type of strata has been DETERMINED (INTERPRETATION through the I.E. Rock strata column age hypothesis, not a fixed radio isotope dating method. WHY? Because they get embarrassingly widely varying data by 10s to 100s of millions of years of the SAME strata in different parts of the world) to be to be 2 million years old". IOW it's 2 million years old because THEY SAID SO (see the mungo man article above with a similar dating difficulty controversy).

Now suppose they find some Carbon 14 in that skull? What does that do to their "2 million year old rock strata" assumption.

The entire story is just that. When we can PROVE something is 2 million years old or more, then we can start talking about evolution. They have volcanic rock formed less than 50 years ago that DATES to over 3 million years old! So whether they are making geographic column strata assumptions or doing some type of radioisotope dating, they are guessing at the dates, not providing scientific proof of them.

Here's a great example. NOBODY had checked diamonds ( the hardest form of carbon and the hardest substance known) for Carbon 14 because they were ASSUMED to be milliions to billions of years old. Well, they have found Carbon 14 in diamonds. That means that unbelievable pressures somehow made these diamonds within the last 30,000 years. Crazy, right?

But let's drop the strata and fossils for a second and discuss living evolutionary mechanisms like our human biochemistry. We are supposed to be complex, VERY evolved critters, right? We are supposed to be higher life forms far more evolved than plants, right?

Well, they have now found that a few very primitive creatures like sea squirts and certain plants share with humans the production of biochemicals that have just recently been discovered (over the last 2 decades) to be vital to our immune system, neurotransmittion and pain signaling. These chemicals are called cannabinoids.

What's the big deal? They seem to have "defied" evolution! It doesn't make modern scientific sense for us to produce the same stuff that cannabis and sea squirts do if "evolution" constantly, over millions of years acts on all subsystems of life forms. I mean, evolutionists claim we went from single celled life forms to multicellular myriad life forms that populate the rocks, the land, the sea, the air and even sulphur vents on the bottom of the ocean. We late comers are EVOLVED, right? Are you going to tell me that our immune systems and pain signaling and inflammatory response was FIXED from the start and HASEN'T "evolved"? That's heresy!

But here it is. and they don't know quite what to make of it.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181013223407.jpeg)
Dr Roger Pertwee: Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK

"I am excited about cannabinoids because they reveal that we have these marvelous systems in our bodies," he said "Where do they come from? Why are they there? The endogenous cannabinoid system, with its vast network of receptors and chemical messengers, deals with pain, muscle, motor function, thought, and mood. It's been detected in very primitive organisms, and yet it has survived evolution from very early on and therefore it must be quite an important system for us to have.  It's a wonderful system to study."

The International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS), a group founded in 1991. The ICRS has hundreds of member-researchers studying "cannabinoids," which are marijuana's most interesting ingredients.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1530.html

It simply has not occurred (because it is UNTHINKABLE) that, if we did not evolve but were created and plugged in to the package deal biosphere, his question answers itself. 
Title: A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the Evolutionists
Post by: AGelbert on October 20, 2013, 10:03:46 pm
A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the Evolutionists (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared003.gif)

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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)

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...  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

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 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif) 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.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)
 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.

Here is 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 30,000 years old. Then what are they going to do? Like I said, stay tuned for a giant bag of worms with this
.


(http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/ECK/CH13/figure-13-02b.jpg)



 
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37874/title/Fossilized-Mosquito-Blood-Meal/
Title: Scientists Respond to Agelbert's Query about the "46 million year" Mosquito!
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2013, 02:22:06 am
We have often published on the finding of intact organic matter, especially in dinosaur fossils.

Creationists would not normally have access to the original samples in order to send them off for C14 dating, but like you we would be confident that it would still have C14 in it, and so would be much less than 100,000 years old (FYI, the upper limit of getting a datable specimen is not quite as low as 30,000 years).

Whenever we do have organic specimens that are supposed to be millions of years old, like fossil wood in Triassic sandstone, they should be 'undatable' (infinite radiocarbon age, since no detectable C14) but invariably they return an 'age'.

The age itself will always be in the tens of thousands of years (25kya to 55kya) not the actual age of c. 4.5kya but this is because of the way in which the Flood affected the C14/C12 balance by burying most of the biosphere in a relatively short timeframe.

Agelbert NOTE:  :-[ I was wrong about the max C14 date. I stand corrected to 100,000 years.  ;D
But that's still quite a difference from millions of years! I will report here when my Creation Scientist brothers and sisters get to test some of that blood in the mosquito's gut.

Surly, meanwhile here's an article from a Creationist scientist's POV about those Skulls in Georgia you posted an article on that discusses possible false assumptions about hominid skulls.


New Dmanisi skull threatens to bring the house down  :o

by Peter Line


Photo from Georgian National Museum.
8301-fig1
Figure 1. Cranium D4500 unearthed in Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~546 cc. Along with its mandible (D2600) they together are known as Skull 5.

Published: 29 October 2013 (GMT+10)

Details of a remarkable fifth Dmanisi cranium (D4500), recovered from a site in Dmanisi, Georgia containing the ruins of a medieval fortress, were published in the journal Science on 18 October 2013.1 The cranium was recovered in 2005 and, together with a mandible (D2600) found five years earlier, constitutes a complete adult skull (together referred to as simply Skull 5). All five Dmanisi skulls are dated by evolutionists to around 1.8 million years ago (Ma), and it is said that “the five skulls were found close together physically, and they were all deposited within a few hundred years of each other in what had been a cave, now collapsed.”2

According to geo-archaeologist Reid Ferring, who dated the site, all “five individuals were found in underground dens where carnivores had probably dragged their carcasses”, with the dens later collapsing.3 The cranial capacity of 546 cubic centimeters (cc) for Dmanisi Skull 5 is the smallest of the Dmanisi sample, with cranial capacities of skulls 1 to 4 reported to be between 601 to 730 cc.4

In 2003 it was reported that the D2600 “mandible is far too large to fit comfortably with any of the crania yet discovered.”5 Hence, expecting to unearth a huge cranium to go with the massive D2600 mandible (lower jaw), one of the surprises was the fit of the enormous D2600 mandible with the smallest-brained Dmanisi crania (D4500). The researchers, led by David Lordkipanidze, stated that:

“D4500/D2600 combines a small braincase (546 cubic centimeters) with a large prognathic face and exhibits close morphological affinities with the earliest known Homo fossils from Africa. The Dmanisi sample, which now comprises five crania, provides direct evidence for wide morphological variation within and among early Homo paleodemes. This implies the existence of a single evolving lineage of early Homo, with phylogeographic continuity across continents.”6
The analysis of the Dmanisi skulls showed that:

“The skulls were as variable as African fossils traditionally classified in three different species—H. erectus, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis. If the Dmanisi fossils had been found in separate places in Africa, they could have been called separate species, Ponce de León says. Lumping them all into H. erectus suggests that the early Homo fossils in Africa may also belong to that same, single lineage.”7

A single lineage model would certainly require a major overhaul of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.

What appears to be essentially suggested by the authors of the new study is that Homo erectus (including versions such as Homo ergaster), Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis were all members of the same species, and that this single species evolved for a while as a single lineage, later giving rise to subsequent members of the genus Homo.

Whilst the new skull (Skull 5) got much of the usual publicity and accolades associated with any alleged ‘hominid’ fossil find that can be construed as providing support for the idea of human evolution, the ‘single evolving lineage’ interpretation of the findings by Lordkipanidze et al. did not endear them to everyone, particularly to splitters.

The latter being paleoanthropologists who believe that several distinct co-existing species of hominids gave rise to multiple evolving lineages. In fact, this single lineage idea has been described as “setting off a small ‘bomb’ in the field,” according to co-author Philip Rightmire.

Perhaps worried about the disarray the single lineage idea will bring to the field of human evolution, one of the doyens of paleoanthropology, Bernard Wood, is quoted by Brian Switek as arguing “that it’s unreasonable to ‘bring the whole bloody house down’ by lumping all early human fossils into a single lineage.”8 A single lineage model would certainly require a major overhaul of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.


Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig2
Figure 2. Cast of the large and robust mandible D2600 that fits the newly announced Dmanisi cranium D4500. Together they are known as Skull 5.

Rather than lumping Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis with Homo erectus, I have previously argued that they should instead be lumped in with the australopithecines, possibly as the same species as Australopithecus sediba, and I see no reason to change this assessment because of Skull 5.9

One reason is that one also has to consider the rest of the skeleton (the postcranial remains). Whilst there are no postcranial remains reliably linked to Homo rudolfensis,10 the only set of postcranial remains linked with Homo habilis sensu stricto that are associated with “taxonomically diagnostic cranial elements” is OH 62, and its estimated limb-length proportions are as ape-like as Australopithecus afarensis.11

In fact, one evolutionist has argued that although “living nearly a million and a half years after Lucy, the OH62 animal was more ape-like in form than she.”12

As for the Dmanisi specimens, an earlier study by Lordkipanidze et al. described the Dmanisi postcranial remains as having “derived features” that “include modern-human-like body proportions and lower limb morphology indicative of the capability for long-distance travel.”13 That the “Dmanisi individuals appear to have long legs and short arms based on the fossils that have been found,”14 is very different from the “relatively long arms still adapted for climbing in Homo habilis.”

Also, despite Skull 5 being described as having “had a number of primitive features: a long apelike face, large teeth and a tiny braincase,”15 the “skull’s vertically orientated upper face and the shape of the braincase distinguish it from Australopithecus.” The skull’s braincase has been described as “shaped like a typical H. erectus despite its small size.”16 Paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor argues the methods of analysis used by the team in the new study were not sufficient to infer that fossils from Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis were of the same species, as they did “a very general shape analysis of the cranium which describes the shape of the face and braincase in broad sweeping terms,” and according to Spoor the “problem is that those Homo species are not defined using such a broad overview of what their general cranial shape is.”17

It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution.

According to Melissa Hogenboom, Spoor adds “that the very specific characteristics that had been used to define H.erectus, H.habilis and H.rudolfensis ‘were not captured by the landmarks that they use’.” Spoor is further quoted as saying that the team “did not consider that the thick and protruding brow ridges, the angular back of the braincase and some details of the base of the cranium are derived features for H.erectus, and not present in H.habilis and H.rudolfensis.” Also, in another news article, Spoor “points out that Lodkipanidze’s analysis suggests even the much more ape-like hominins in the genus Australopithecus belong to the H. erectus group. It is not surprising then, that the new analysis misses the more subtle shape differences between Homo species.” Hence, it may well be that the similarities between the new Dmanisi Homo erectus skull and Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis are not as close as is perhaps suggested.

So, how to explain the Dmanisi fossils? As discussed in an upcoming paper dealing with robust humans (Neandertals, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus),18 written before the announcement of this latest find, if the LB1 Homo floresiensis cranium, most recently estimated to be 426 cc,19 belonged to a pathological robust human with cretinism, it raises interesting questions about similar pathology in other small-brained robust humans, such as the Dmanisi Homo erectus specimens. In this context it should be noted that a recent study using geometric morphometric comparative analysis reported that the sole LB1 Homo floresiensis cranium “shows particular affinities in neurocranial shape with the Dmanisi hominins”.20 It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution. According to evolutionary paleoanthropologist and anatomist Charles Oxnard:

Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig3
Figure 3. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen D2282 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~650 cc.

“It is remarkable that so many features similar to those normally present in great apes, in Australopithecus and Paranthropus, and in early Homo (e.g., H. erectus and even to some degree, H. neanderthalensis) but not in modern H. sapiens are generated in humans by growth deficits due to the absence of thyroid hormone.  In other words, many of the pathological features of cretinism mimic the primitive characters of evolution making it easy to mistake pathological features for primitive characters. The differences can be disentangled by understanding the underlying biology of characters.”21

If a ‘modern’ human with cretinism can have many pathological features that mimic the so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution, it is highly likely that a ‘robust’ human with cretinism will have as many, if not even more such features. Cretinism may also explain the large morphological variability in the Dmanisi sample. That is because the bones of cretins are enormously variable, “as would be expected in a pathology with different degrees of affect, and conflation with associated conditions”.22

It is interesting that a lack of chin and a “large jaw compared with the rest of the skull” has been documented in one cretin skull (Dolega),23 as a large jaw (compared with the cranium) is a feature of Dmanisi Skull 5. That the Dmanisi specimens are found in the same locality may not be that unusual. For example, and from an evolutionary perspective, Oxnard suggests that in “seasonally mobile hunter-gatherer groups,” in prior times, cretin children would:

“… be ostracised as adults by the wider community due to their abnormal features and behaviours. Unable to travel easily with a mobile community, especially unable to help build normal temporary dwellings in such a community, adult cretins might well separate and shelter in caves. If there were a reasonable number of them (say, conservatively) 5% of all births, they might indeed shelter together.”24


Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig4
Figure 4. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen D2280 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~775 cc, but latest study appears to indicate cranial capacity has been revised down to 730 cc.

Alternatives to the above scenario are certainly possible, particularly as there is evidence that early people at least on occasion cared for the infirm. Maybe the cretins were cared for as a group by healthier members of the small, isolated group. As the Dmanisi specimens were located close together physically, and appear to have lived at the same time, it is possible that, as cretins sheltered as a group in a cave, they may have met some unsavory fate together, such as being caught in a cave collapse, or some other event. The above scenario is very speculative, and it may well be that the considerable morphological variation, as well as the extremely small brain sizes, evident in the Dmanisi Homo erectus population, were within normal limits of variation for robust humans, although I consider this option less likely.

If iodine deficiency disorders like cretinism are still a problem in some parts of the world today, despite modern medicine and information about iodine deficiency at our disposal, how much more of a problem could it potentially have been for early post-Flood/post-Babel human populations migrating to uncharted regions of the earth, most likely unaware of the problem (or cause of the problem)—and probably having their hands full just surviving day-to-day? Hence, robust human populations settling in any iodine-deficient regions of Africa, Georgia, China, Indonesia, etc. may well have had a high incidence of cretinism. The Dmanisi population were most likely derived from early post-Babel migrations, and given the difficult situations faced by such early settlers, it is not surprising that only simple stone tools are associated with the finds, said by evolutionists to be “manufactured according to much the same primitive Oldowan tradition that hominids in Africa were practicing nearly a million years earlier.”25 However, it may instead indicate that when these early settlers moved on they took their more sophisticated tools and items with them, and/or that they did not stay in the local area for any length of time, or some other explanation. We just do not know enough about these people to fill in all the blanks.


http://creation.com/dmanisi

 

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on October 30, 2013, 07:54:15 pm
Really interesting aricle, AG. And I am no expert, but I have a brown belt in using Occam's razor.

Thus,
Quote
It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution.

Seems like one hell of a reach.

Arguments about C14 deposits and dating of samples, the effect of the flood and earth changes, etc. seem to be to certainly be arguable. to me it's odds-on that  should science surviuve the zero point, we'll learn just how wrong some of our assumptions are. given the history of science, it seems inevitable.

But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a theory shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional science...
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on November 01, 2013, 11:40:06 pm
Quote
But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a theory shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional science...

I must admit I had a similar mental discomfort on the alleged cretinism. The young earth creationists are apparently trying a bit too hard to "fix the facts" around the biblical narrative.

That said, the disdain and dismissal expressed by evolutionary true believer scientists about creation makes me even more uncomfortable simply because they've got zero proof that we came from a mud puddle of amino acids.

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, the 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!   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif) ).

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

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Amoeba_(PSF).svg)
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.

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 NOW (this year, as a matter of fact  ;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." 
(http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg) 

Mitochondria and mosquito gut blood are at the top of my list of bags of worms for evolutionist true believers. I also want to go into some details on skull bone structure and facial reconstruction to show how the "missing link" GAME is played.  ;) I will report on any new findings.

I just scanned an article that seems to be another bag of worms in the making;
they found modern bird fossils with dinosaur fossils.
:o  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
It will be entertaining, to say the least, to see how they try to dance around that one... (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)
Title: Modern Birds found with Dinosaurs
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2013, 01:17:28 am
Modern birds found with dinosaurs

Are museums misleading the public? ???

by Don Batten

(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Modern-birds-dinosaurs.jpg)
Do you think the above represents some laughable and  silly creationist lie? If you DO, the JOKE IS ON YOU! :o

The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds with those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.

Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.

Every time you see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif)(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)
 
In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.

“I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”

With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in Living Fossils).

It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were not displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single fossil of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet.

(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Avocet-Milwaukee.jpg)
An avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum (top) - a rare example of a modern bird (bottom) in such displays.


(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Bird-sign.jpg)
Sign at the American Museum of Natural History, 2011.

Contrary to the sign, Dr Werner discovered that many types of birds have been found with dinosaurs including ducks, loons, flamingos, albatross, owls, penguins, sandpipers, parrots, cormorants, avocets, as well as extinct birds such as Mononykus, Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis. While these extinct birds did have teeth, many other modern types of birds without teeth have been found. By leaving this fact out, the museum display misleads the public.

Dr Werner: “Museums do not show you these modern bird fossils nor do they put modern birds fleshed out with feathers in their dinosaur dioramas. This is wrong. Essentially, every time you see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs, :o  but this is not the case. I have never seen a duck with a dinosaur at a natural history museum, have you? An owl? A parrot?”

“Not only do they not display birds, but the prestigious American Museum of Natural History suggests the opposite in their dinosaur-to-bird placard. This display is extremely misleading and again does not mention modern birds with dinosaurs.” (See sign above) >:(

Are the museum displays just out of date, or are they purposely withholding information? “Two years after the release of Dr Werner’s book, the Carnegie Museum, the Smithsonian Museum and the American Museum of Natural History have still not corrected these discrepancies. >:(

From Dr Werner’s global investigations, this is a worldwide phenomenon with the museums; only one museum gave any hint that modern birds have been found with dinosaurs.

It should be noted that modern birds were not found in all dinosaur layers, only Cretaceous layers (not in Jurassic or Triassic rocks). Evolutionist paleontologist Dr Bill Clemens told Carl that the Cretaceous bird fossils were found when they went looking for modern animals in the Cretaceous layers to provide evidence that the asteroid impact hypothesis was wrong1 (this is the idea that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs ‘at the end of the Cretaceous’). The researchers were trying to establish continuity between the fossils in the rocks above the Cretaceous with those in the Cretaceous; so they were looking for modern creatures. Who knows what they would find if they looked hard in the other layers?

On CMI’s documentary, Darwin—the Voyage that Shook the World, Professor Phil Currie, palaeontologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, spoke about how a researcher’s ‘search image’ can affect what is discovered. “In spite of the fact that you think you have an open mind, very often your perceptions of what things should be, or your search image, or your cultural beliefs in some cases, will actually be working on your mind so that your eyes are open but they are not really open; they are missing something that could take you in an entirely new direction.”

More and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view.

When researchers are looking for dinosaurs they tend to not even notice the remains of other creatures and plants. And when they are found, they tend to be put aside as uninteresting. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif)Finding a new ‘exotic’ dinosaur is much more exciting and publicity-worthy than finding a bird or a mammal that everyone is familiar with. And of course funding agencies are after exciting finds of a lost world, not ‘boring’ fossils of modern creatures that also subtly suggest that animals did not evolve.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)

In spite of all these factors, more and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view. There are so many examples (such as those discussed in Living Fossils), that it amounts to a strong confirmation that animals did not change significantly over time, that God made things to reproduce ‘after their kind’; providing a powerful challenge to the evolutionary story.

Related Articles
Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation

References and notes
There is ample evidence against the impact theory of extinction—see for example creation.com/iridium. Return to text.

http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: ashvin on November 15, 2013, 09:11:43 am
I am pretty skeptical of the criticism of dating methods as well, which is typically used by YECs. Regardless of the validity of such dating methods, we still have independent evidence that the Universe, Earth and life are billions of years old, and that modern humans are at least tens of thousands of years old.

That being said, the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm is a total mess, as evidenced well by AG's posts.

I'd also like to add that this goes beyond a simple scientific discussion of origins, and rather has vast social, political, economic and ethical implications. AG started this thread with a quote from Darwin, so I'd like provide another one (from Descent of Man):

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on November 15, 2013, 02:58:50 pm
Ashvin,
Hear!, Hear!

When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at facial reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic science and archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose of hominids, being composed entirely of cartilage, is never preserved. Consequently, the shape of the nose in those "scientific" pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces of the homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked like are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a missing link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further up) drawn that looks like a cross between a human and an ape. That is not science; that is wishful thinking.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)

There is a lot more about  ape versus human skull features (special muscles apes have are reflected in upper braincase shape) but I need to do more research before I post on it.

Thank you for posting! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/balloons.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on November 16, 2013, 09:23:22 am
Fair enough. But,

Quote
When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at facial reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic science and archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose of hominids, being composed entirely of cartilage, is never preserved. Consequently, the shape of the nose in those "scientific" pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces of the homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked like are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a missing link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further up) drawn that looks like a cross between a human and an ape. That is not science; that is wishful thinking. 

If drawing such a reconstruction were your assignment, how would you proceed?  ??? ???
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on November 16, 2013, 09:14:29 pm
Well, I still need to do more research on how they rebuild the muscles and skin on a cadaver's face with only a skull.

But here is the premise I would begin with: Muscles are anchored with tendons to the bones of mammalian skeletons and appearance follows their function.

Apes, for example, APPEAR to us to be stooped when they are in the normal position. They aren't stooped at all. You are seeing the way their musculature disguises the skeleton architecture. The upper body strength of apes and chimps is much greater than that of small monkeys and humans.

Small monkeys have a much more similar skull (except for the fact that it is tiny) to humans than to apes. If I were looking for an evolutionary cousin, I'd look for the creature with the most similar skull as matter of Occam's Razor. I would not be bound by Darwinian accepted assumptions with no scientific grounding except the Theory of Evolution champions' (not even the theory itself!) assertion that we descended from apes. They created a procrustean bed for evolutionary scientists by forcing archeologists to ALWAYS look for APE-like missing links.

And Surly, in nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!

(http://uq.edu.au/integrative-ecology/images/Predator/notoscriptus-larva.jpg)(http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/images/centipedemillipede/gardncnt.jpg)
Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).

(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/comparison-of-dinosaurs-of-triassic-roy-andersen.jpg)

comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.   (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)  Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif), they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif).

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif) I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png) of new species,...".  

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."    (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.
 


THAT is honest science.


I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN, with some ball park figures and some skulls from MONKEYS, not apes, I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us (monkeys, not chimps or apes) would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.



Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata. I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: ashvin on November 17, 2013, 09:14:07 am
AG, that was a very well-articulated and comprehensive breakdown of the flawed evolutionary paradigm!

I would suggest you submit it for publication at DD and elsewhere if possible.

Another obvious problem with Darwinain evolution is that it cannot explain the origin of mind/consciousness from mindless matter and energy. Likewise, it cannot relate mental similarities with physical similarities between species, even though that relation MUST exist if its materialist premises are to hold up.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: Surly1 on November 18, 2013, 07:02:47 pm
I would say that this--

Quote
Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."     

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

Is the moral equivalent of resolving a cpmplex narrative by writing, "...and then they all got hit by a truck." Takes care of your complex plot issues, but ultimately unsatisfying.

So there are holes in evolutionary theory. So what?

IMO, there really important issues that face us in preserving God's creation have to do with embracing alternative fuels and putting the fossil fuelers out of business, a business that will long outlive either of us.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: jdwheeler42 on November 18, 2013, 07:31:33 pm
Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.
Really?  Carl Sagan recently promoted that?  Well, if that's the really the case, then I'm definitely going to believe it...  ;)

Carl Sagan
Astronomer
Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science popularizer and science communicator in astronomy and natural sciences. Wikipedia
Born: November 9, 1934, Brooklyn, NY
Died: December 20, 1996, Seattle, WA
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: ashvin on November 19, 2013, 08:42:17 am
Quote from: jdwheeler
Really?  Carl Sagan recently promoted that?

The key word you left out is "more", as in much more recently than Darwin's racist analysis. I believe it was in a 1990 paper.

The point is, Darwin's flawed ideas continue to have severe consequences, even in our supposedly post-eugenics societies.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on November 19, 2013, 04:01:37 pm
Great Comments!

Surly, as Ashvin stated, the consequences of a flawed evolutionary paradigm are severly deleterious to rational  and logical thinking in modern society. Your "So what?" question fails to connect the negative consequences of a predatory capitalist, rampant planetary exploition with the Darwinian concept of a mad scramble for resources by amino acids self assembling in a totally random manner resulting in the giant truck that running us over now.  ;D It's MIGHTY convenient for the conscience free psychos that fathered GAME THEORY (a twisted view of interrelationships between sentient beings justifying any and all heinous and barbaric behavior in the quest for who gets the most toys "caloric intake, etc") to have DARWIN around to make everything jes' natural behavior. The evolutionary paradigm DID include cooperation as FAR more important than predation in the perpetuation of a species BUT the psychos quickly underplayed that so their planet trashing could have "scientific" backing.

Think about it, Surly. Darwin--> Wall Street "scientific" fig leaf hijacking-->Freud-->Game Theory, a PARADIGM DESIGNED REPLACE the GOLDEN RULE as the most rational and species perpetuating behavior (the "fittest") is PRECISELY WHAT IS BEHIND the LACK OF GUILT by the 1% for TRASHING THE PLANET! Altruism, cooperation, sustainability, holistic view of every process to see it value in the biosphere from the birth of new life to the decay of dead matter NESESSARY for that future new life is ABSENT from the modern paradigmatic view of SUCCESS. It's SUICIDAL and CRIMINALLY INSANE.

But they won't let it go because, because... THEY KNOW it will lead to GUILT, LIABILITY and an END to the con games denying reality. Love thy Neighbor as Thyself is not optional in the biosphere. THIS is the "WHAT" of the "So what?" question you asked.

Think about it.

Ashvin,
I have to develop this thread a little more before I try to publish some article or series of them that explains the harm this flawed evolutionary paradigm is doing to Homo Sap. I. as you do, am trying to proceed on intellect without any appeal to faith on the reader because most evolution true believers take off running when they smell a theist, never mind a fundy! I have to unpack evolutionary arguments using accepted wisdom in scientific articles written by evolutionists themselves to demonstrate the flawed logic and premises. It's a mine field but I have already hit some pay dirt in four areas of science that is actually pseudo science.

Here's one of them:

Forensic facial reconstruction is used by police departments to try to identify what a person looked like when only the skeletal remains are available.

Watch this video. There is a GIANT LIE in it. However, because the skull is a human skull of a recently deceased person, it works okay for the police.  However, it DOESN'T work AT ALL for the anthropologist digging up hominid skulls and having a facial reconstruction done. But I'm getting ahead of myself. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF1cVAb0J2Q&feature=player_embedded

That was fun, wasn't it?  :P

The LIE is that the skull provides the EVIDENCE for the NOSE SHAPE! This is significant. Notice they DID admit EAR shape is impossible to determine for a skull but DID say that about the NOSE. In fact, they SAID the NOSE CAN be reconstructed from the evidence on the skull. That is FALSE! :o

Here's a recent scientific paper on facial reconstruction. These scientists wrote a 3D program to reconstruct a face on a skull. They used a human cadaver skull. They had the actual face of the deceased person and made a mold of it to use for comparison with whatever their computer program produced. It's a fairly comprehensive document.



(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154257.png)

Here's the money quote:

in fact, facial reconstruction is not easy, because there are many facial variations. particularly according to the nutritional status of the individual and different rates and intensities of aging. Furthemore, the nose, eye, ear, lips, and chin probably cannot be constructed exactly from skull characteristics.
http://www.lirmm.fr/~subsol/JFS.0797.pdf


Think about that. This is a HUMAN SKULL. There is NO DOUBT of it. Now where in the blue blazes do the anthropologists in cooperation with artists and facial reconstruction experts get the NOSE, the LIPS ( EARS ARE covered with hair as a clever pseudo scientific admission that they don't know what the ears look like but WHY THE HAIR? Look at an ape or monkey! You SEE the ears! Why can't these people say "WE DON'T KNOW what the ears looked like."? Why the subterfuge if not to always try to look like they know it all? - ARROGANT, aren't they?) and the CHIN (don't forget all that hair!) of, for example, a Neanderthal skull, HUH???


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154201.jpeg)
I smell an evolutionist agenda RAT!  >:(

As you see, I am in to some deep stuff. It requires a lot of reading and logical thinking. PLUS, it requires the understanding that there are gate keepers defending the evolutionary paradigm that DON'T want knowledge like that above to get out. It wouldn't look good for anthropologists/hominid archeologists and certain imaginative artists they employ.(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)

That article I just quoted is an example of tightly held knowledge. WHY? Go ahead and try to copy and paste from the PDF onto a post or a document and you will get gibberish. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and they are just trying to make sure someone doesn't copy their work...(http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg) 

But, REALLY, you fellows out there that copy and paste often from PDFs, how often do you run into this encrypting? I've run into it before but very seldom.

At any rate, you can see that the public is certainly NOT being told the truth about how much evolutionist wishful thinking is being used in these facial reconstructions.

And PLEASE, feel free to copy and paste ANYTHING I publish here with or without attribution. Just make sure you provide the same scientific references I provide to keep the naysayers at bay,  ;)


Title: 14 Billion Years: Not enough time for Single Celled Life by Random Mutations.
Post by: AGelbert on November 30, 2013, 03:01:17 pm
Expert mathematicians running probability and statistics for self assembling amino acids into all the proteins needed for life in a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM have stated that there hasn't been enough time if the universe is 14 billion years old or so for that to occur randomly.

They claim life is IMPOSSIBLE by random chance mutations in that time frame.

Evolution is great science fiction but it lacks any evidence whatsoever. I don't know how all this happened but so-called "evolution" certainly is not the explanation.

 
Quote
... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."43

Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44

More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45

"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46

"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47

"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48

"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem."49

]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50

Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule."

Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"

Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"

Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51

"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b]

Click below for full article and scholarly references:
The Origin of Life (http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif)



 (http://creation.com/origin-of-life)
True Believer Modern Sophisticated Evolutionists aren't going to take that low down attack on their Faith (whoops, I mean "scientifically proven, proven and super proven"   (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)THEORY - So there you crazy fundies! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)) laying down. High and mighty Evolutionists REACT--->(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)        (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif)        (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/zzz.gif)          (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif)         (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif)          (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)        (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif) BUT AFTER A WHILE, they get more active  ;)   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif) What about the crusades and the inquisition?       What about the price of peaches in Denmark?            What are you, some kind of fundy nut?                 Whadaya mean, you never said anything about God or religion?                 Your probability math HAS to be wrong because DARWIN said so!  (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/fam/fam12.gif) We are EVOLVED, WE are ADVANCED, WE are THE GREATEST!(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif)  And, what's more, WE are GOD! Yippee! Darwin and Freud freed us from silly guilt trips and showed us it's EVOLUTIONARILY ADVANCED to be the APEX PREDATOR and do any damned thing we want so we don't suffer needless neurosis.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif) Besides, the alternative is UNTHINKABLE.    What?!! Of course we respect empirical evidence and the science of probability and statistics! Whadaya take us for, a faith based Fundy? Of course it doesn't matter that there doesn't SEEM to be empirical evidence of evolution! They just haven't published it and you are wrong ,wrong, wrong! How can you have such a rigid mind? You fundies are all alike. You refuse to question your beliefs even if science conclusively proves otherwise...  (http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/wemeantwell-23439-20130307-234.jpg) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)  (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg) 

 Agelbert awaits the futile, circular, self destructive, illogical, and dogmatic rebuttal fusilade.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2544.gif)   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2013, 09:28:53 pm
From a "discussion"  ;D at the Doomstead Diner about Evolution and the claim that cheationists are "magical thinkers".
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=2195.msg39190#msg39190

Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from Texas, I would know now! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png) Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif)

Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and then.  ;D

It goes with territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with college professors and health care professionals for the last 30 years or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and continuous smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.

For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed on the issue of Christians in particular and believers in God in general maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as if you are discussing root canals or some other truth of your experience and profession.

Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening yourself up to debate.

If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.

Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas! You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a **** franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive, objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.

I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my questions about it logically.

I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is like flies on **** for them. They just cannot write without using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for the few years through thousands of generations in closed containers by varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in evolutionary circles because they are in the process of **** canning natural selection in favor of caloric forced gene expression - more fairy tales  ::)).

The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster than the other so that is EVOLUTION!  Give me a **** break here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.

WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it on its own, did it?

Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right (assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get ALL the protein sequences needed for life.

There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.

Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that, are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation, not evolution.

But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that allowed them to become more virulent did not change their species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of its original design. The process by which Streptococcus pneumonia  metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It is STILL  Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!

What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. Ther comes a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.

Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.

If Darwin had seen this short video, he would NEVER have tried to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story telling magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof that it is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the natural wordl" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary thinking, science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight change continuously through very sophisticated editing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded

HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2013, 09:33:23 pm
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.


A similar major flaw in the evolutionary paradigm can be shown by comparing species with very similar mental attributes, but which are, according to evolutionists, not at all related.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore (http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore)
In the recent opinion essay in Nature, biologist Johan Bolhuis and psychologist Clive Wynne accept the premise that species have naturally evolved and, thus, possess shared ancestry. But they contest the Darwinian principle “that species with shared ancestry will have similar cognitive abilities.”5 For example, researchers have noted cognitive similarities between physically disparate species, but not necessarily between physically similar species. Bolhuis and Wynne point out that this “illustrates that cognitive traits cannot be neatly arranged in an evolutionary scale of relatedness.”6

Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates. In the Darwinian models, apes and humans are closely related and share a relatively recent common ancestor. Birds, on the other hand, are only distantly related to primates. Thus, Darwinists predict that of all animals, apes should come closest to manifesting the cognitive capabilities of human beings.

But Bolhuis and Wynne give examples where birds defy this prediction. They cite how “Caledonian crows [though not quite matching ravens in intellectual prowess] outperform monkeys in their ability to retrieve food from a trap tube–from which food can be accessed only at one end.”7 They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that “crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master.”8 Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. (See crows’ cognitive powers in action here.)

High cognitive abilities of certain bird species even sometimes challenge a purely physical explanation for their behavior. Take for example the marsh tit. This bird stores seeds in tree bark or in the ground and is able to retrieve them days later while its “close relative,” the great tit, doesn’t store food at all.9 Biologists presumed the difference would be explained by a larger hippocampus in the brain of the food-storing birds. Alas, the evidence doesn’t support this suggestion.10 Studies also show that food-storers do not perform any better in spatial memory tasks than do the non-food-storers.11

In their paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, three psychology researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), boldly declared Darwin’s idea of the continuity of the mind (from lower species to higher) a mistake.12 They argue “there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.”13 They go on to show that this discontinuity “pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.”14

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2013, 09:46:50 pm
More from the doomstead Diner Thread  ;D

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=2195.0

GO said,
Quote
Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

Likewise how things work and what humans are.

 (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


Might I also suggest to the claim that "creationists are JUST LAZY" by others here that probability and statistics mathematicians are anything BUT lazy.

It is they who accuse you evolutionists of believing in fairy tales and magic. Respond to that instead of hurling abuse at creationists who you try to ridicule by bunching them falsely with the "God created the universe in 6 days and we are only 6,000 years old" NUT BALLS.

You Darwinists are as NUTTY and faith based as the 6 day creationists. You are also as arrogant and stubborn as they are.

Science states that either God did it or ET made this biosphere. Either way, evolution is BUL****! Live with it or die in denial. Your choice.  ;)

Quote
... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."43

Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44

More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45

"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46

"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47

"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48

"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem."49

]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50

Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule."

Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"

Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"

Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51


"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b]




In nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!

(http://uq.edu.au/integrative-ecology/images/Predator/notoscriptus-larva.jpg)(http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/images/centipedemillipede/gardncnt.jpg)
Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).

(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/comparison-of-dinosaurs-of-triassic-roy-andersen.jpg)

comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.   (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)  Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects)


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant))!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif), they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif).

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif) I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png) of new species,...".  

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."    (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.
 


THAT is honest science.


To do HONEST SCIENCE as to our origins, I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.

Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata.

I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)


It isn't "EASY" to believe in Created life versus Evolution; it is LOGICAL and Science BASED. It is also HARD to accept that we owe our existence to a supreme being much smarter than we are. But it is REALLY EASY to pretend we can do whatever the **** we want using a Darwinian Fairy tale to ignore ethical behavior. In Fact, there is NOTHING EASIER or LAZIER than saying life is a crap shoot.  How ****ing convenient for you arrogant ****s.  ;)  Have a nice day.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2013, 11:54:36 pm
Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from Texas, I would know now!  :icon_mrgreen:

Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)


Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and then.  ;D

It goes with the territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with college professors and health care professionals for the last 30 years or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and continuous smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.

For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed in on the issue of Christians in particular and believers in God in general maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as if you are discussing root canals or some other truth of your experience and profession.

Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening yourself up to debate.

If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.

Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas! You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a ****ing franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive, objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.

I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my questions about it logically.

I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is like flies on **** for them. They just cannot write without using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for a few years through thousands of generations in closed containers by varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in evolutionary circles because they are in the process of **** canning natural selection in favor of caloric forced gene expression - more fairy tales  ::)).

The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster than the other so that is EVOLUTION!  Give me a ****ing break here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.

WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it on its own, did it?

Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right (assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get ALL the protein sequences needed for life.

There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.

Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that, are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation, not evolution.

But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that allowed them to become more virulent did not change their species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of its original design. The process by which Streptococcus pneumonia  metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It is STILL  Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!

What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. There comes a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.

Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.

If Darwin had seen the following short video, he would NEVER have tried to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story telling magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof that it is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the natural world" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary thinking, science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight change continuously through very sophisticated editing.


Notice what happens AFTER a protein amino acid sequence is (in a complex, multistage process)  manufactured. At that point these tiny machines called Chaperones grab the sequence to PREVENT it from RANDOMLY folding. Did you get that? Every millisecond of every second of the day, trillions of chaperones inside cells are busy PREVENTING random amino acid folding. These chaperones carry the sequence to the chaperonin. They DO NOT KNOW how this CRUCIAL MACHINE does what it does.

And what does it DO? It FOLDS an amino acid sequence in EXACTLY the right complex 3 dimensional pattern worthy of a sophisticated factory robot and pumps out a protein. IT makes many, many DIFFERENT proteins. Protein folding is the process that was necessary for the first cell. And the arrogant evolutionists, who can't explain NOW the nuts and bolts of the Chaperonin have the brass balls to assume it happened randomly! Talk about MAGICAL THINKING! 

How does it KNOW, when a sequence arrives, that the folding pattern is one of thousands? They DON'T KNOW.

And NO, the key is not in the amino acid sequence. You can have two proteins (enzymes are like that) with exactly the same amino acid sequence but folded differently so they actually have different and extremely specific functions.

The more science learns, the more they realize we don't know BEANS about life yet.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded
HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)

For those who have no training in microbiology, I will provide a series of pictures in the next post to give you an overview of the above video so you can view it again and marvel at this cell machinery in action.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 19, 2013, 12:03:12 am

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232623.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232806.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232944.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233141.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233333.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233505.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233627.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213234206.png)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded
Here's the video again. Enjoy! 
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2013, 09:18:49 pm
Ashvin Debates Bot Blogger:

 
Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?
 



That could be a working hypothesis to explain the scientific data, yes. (but the science here only gets us to an "Intelligent Designer", not necessarily the God of the Bible)



Quote

Quote
Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen: 




Excluding Genesis 1 creation account, all of the Biblical stories coincide with times after the appearance of modern humans...



Quote

Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:
 


Why not? You just came up with a plausible scientific answer above.  :emthup:

Agelbert, now that Ashvin (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif) has done most of the logic and truth   leg work,  makes a few observations and adds a few emoticons too!  :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago)  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?  ::) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)

 



Let's skip the bible because my argument is based on CREATION of the physical universe versus EVOLUTION through Random mutations as a function of a RANDOM universe WITHOUT AN intelligent designer. The later position is, I believe, your position, is it not, Bot Blogger?

The former is my position and the one I wish to argue. I do not wish to mix the stories in the bible with this simply because I do not believe the stories in the bible about human origins are scientifically accurate. Yeah, I believe God CREATED us. No, I don't have a clue how he did it. That is why I accepted, for most of my life, the theory of evolution as God's chosen mechanism UNTIL I actually started studying molecular biology and realized it was bullshit.

You claim that I claim that God "dropped" and "sprinkled" life here and there along a multi billion year time line. You seem to have a problem with using the verb "create". does it give you hives or something?  :icon_mrgreen: I get the fact that you don't accept Creation as a possiblity in this universe. You have make that painfully clear.


Quote
Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen:

I repeat, the biblical stories aren't the issue here. We can discuss HOW Creation took place ONLY if you AGREE that it took place. As long as you don't, your best talking point is to ridicule (rightfully so!) the 6 literal day creationists that BELIEVE (without a shred of proof) that the Earth and the rest of the universe is only 6,000 years old. Nice try.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

I think Carbon-14, as I posted earlier, is the best way to go with the dating. the other dating methods that reach into millions or billions of years must work 100% of the time (They don't. The scientific bias is ALWAYS to cherry pick the method that provides the oldest age - to support the Evolution Hypothesis, of course).

Tell me, dear Bot blogger, what does a scientist DO when he finds a mosquito in geologic column strata of the Triassic period (meaning some of his pals dined on Dino blood) and discovers that the blood (REAL BLOOD - Heme Groups with iron and Carbon - Not fossilized mineralization) in his gut has Carbon-14 in it? He discards it as an anomaly, a mistake, an instrument error, etc. This has happened repeated times. I can provide sources if you want.

So what's the problem? The problem is OTHER radiometric dating techniques revealing a multi-million year strata where that mosquito was found. And modern science (the experts, not me!) state unequivocally that dead things with Carbon-14 in them CANNOT be older than approximately 100,000 years. So the "prudent" scientist tosses out the Carbon-14 data as contamination or instrument error.

That is NOT science. That is Evolutionary Theory BIAS.

I bring all this to your attention because, while I agree that the universe is possibly 14 billion years old, I am not convinced that WE are. The Earth very well may be 4.5 billion years old. SO WHAT? That isn't enough time for the FIRST CELL to come about by random mutation amino acid folding.


Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:
 


MY purpose is to eliminate unworkable theories of our origins. If you feel you must have one to explain our existence apart from an intelligent designer God, go for it. I will listen to you. But you have nothing with evolution UNTIL you get past that first cell.

Which brings me to my final observation. Please EXPLAIN the Chaperones and, more importantly, the Chaperonin amino acid processing, exquisitely precise protein folding mechanism from the RANDOM UNIVERSE point of view which dictates primeval soup self organizing amino acids and protein folding and the evolution of complex, multicellular life and different species through natural selection.

If you can't, because of probability and statistics, go where the data takes you. I'll give you a working hypothesis that excludes a CREATOR:

Monism: We are really just ONE organism. We have ALWAYS been one organism. Time is an illusion. Matter is an illusion. Separateness is an illusion. WE oscillate (Hi Carl Sagan) between alternate universes creating (sorry to use that word old boy.  :icon_mrgreen:) the illusion of a Big Bang where everything starts anew in a time line of ascending complexity of life!

Since there ARE multiple universes and dimensions, probability and statistics mean
nothing at all so ANYTHING is possible, prudent and we don't need no silly creator. No evolution OR creator REQUIRED! So there!  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)

But that hypothesis seems a bit like magical thinking to me. How about YOU? (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg)   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


Title: It seems that NEANDERTHAL APPEARANCE is "Evolving". LOL!
Post by: AGelbert on December 24, 2013, 01:57:22 am
Well this is interesting.  ;)

Here's the Neanderthal facial "reconstruction" we are used to seeing in the press:
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154201.jpeg)



Now look at the Neanderthal facial reconstruction in this recent article.  :o It seems that they have DECIDED this fine fellow had a bigger nose and chin. And they call this "SCIENCE"? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)


Quote



(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/news_large/news-neanderthal-face.jpg)
A reconstruction of a Neanderthal face. Image Credit: CC BY-SA 2.0 Tim Evanson

 
Scientists have come up with a list of the genes that distinguish us from our prehistoric cousins.

 Humans may be the dominant species on the planet today, but thousands of years ago our ancestors shared the Earth with the Neanderthals, a species very similar to modern humans but that would ultimately die out despite being very close to us both physically and intellectually.

In an effort to learn more about what set us apart, scientists have been identifying specific genes that distinguish modern humans from Neanderthals. In particular, researchers have been keen to learn which changes might have been instrumental in enabling our dominance over the planet.

The research was made possible thanks to a project founded in 2006 that aimed to sequence the entire Neanderthal genome. The team managed to do this by extracting DNA from a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal toe bone discovered in the mountains of Siberia.

"We are quite confident that among these genetic changes lie the basis for the interesting differences between modern humans and Neanderthals," said geneticist Janet Kelso.

     

  Source: The Guardian

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/259632/what-makes-us-different-to-neanderthals (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/259632/what-makes-us-different-to-neanderthals)

Well, at least the professional archeologists have come to the same conclusion I did (Neanderthals had a nose and a chin VERY much like Homo Sapiens). In fact, you couldn't tell this fellow above from some of our larger human specimens, now could you? The trick is angling the skull. If you rotate it FORWARD, it looks more human. If you rotate it BACK, it looks less human (assumed more sloping forehead).

Let's be clear. They DO NOT know exactly how their head sat on their neck. Ape heads sit forward of ours. I think they made that SAME assumption about Neanderthals as they do for apes instead of humans and that is why they pushed the MISSING LINK scam with some "appearance" justification.

NOW they are forced to admit these people were pretty intelligent. So low and behold, the face starts to look more like Homo SAP!  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


It's a nut house of facial reconstructions out there right now!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4w0zz5TOPxo/TsgPJuNO6iI/AAAAAAAAAfk/ryG_c9Rs1Io/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-19+at+12.17.51.png)
http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2011/11/nose-to-nose-thine-neanderthal-eye-in.html (http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2011/11/nose-to-nose-thine-neanderthal-eye-in.html)

And it gets BETTER! They have discovered proof that Neanderthals BURIED THEIR DEAD in addition to using stone tools! You know what? I think they are US! Just like domesticated dogs are quite different from wolves, that explains the differences. Not that the evolutionary true believers would accept that, of course. But, but, they were shorter and stockier!! Uh, I guess pygmies aren't HUMAN, right?  ;) There wasn't a lot of travel. Inbreeding DOES that sort of thing. We have lots of proof of that in modern history!

Do you want some more proof that morphology can change radically without evolution? The Spaniards lost some domesticated pigs in what is now the USA in the 16th century that, without breeding with any other animal or changing their DNA, grew tusks and increased in size and ferocity in the wild and became WILD BOARS! Google it if you don't believe it!

As mankind had a more domesticated and less violent existence, he, like the domesticated dogs and goats and pigs, adapted with a softer appearance in less robust skull. If you don't believe that is possible, then WHY do you think the moment and astronaut gets into zero G, his body tries to get rid of his calcium? What would a human baby, with the SAME DNA (no evolution whatsoever) look like that was born and raised in Zero G? RADICALLY DIFFERENT!

The adaptation mechanisms in our DNA package are incredibly underrated by modern science for no other reason than the assumption that we "evolved" from some monstrous and semi-intelligent brute.

Well, if you had to live in ice age conditions and fought bears and mammoths, you might not be exactly a tender hearted fellow with good table manners. In fact, only the meanest, baddest, strongest males would survive. And they probably, as you can see by their skulls, were pretty fierce fellows. How do we KNOW they "died out" because WE "replaced" them? I've seen wrestlers that look more primitive than these Neanderthals! There is, even now that we are all a bunch of softies because of technology, and amazing amount of variation in human skull morphology. So much so, in fact, that some racists archeologists have tried to establish with measurements and angles that Africans are "less evolved" than Caucasians! BULLshit!

You don't believe me? Check this out:

Quote


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241213014507.gif)
Erectus Walks


Amongst Us

The evolution of modern humans
by


Richard D. Fuerle


Spooner Press, NY

Copyright © 2008


ISBN 978-1-60458-121-8


Printed in the United States by Lightning Source

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ (http://erectuswalksamongst.us/)

If you are the least bit racist, you will LOVE the way this guy, a scientist, mind you, twists science to push racism.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)

He DELIBERATELY angles skulls to make Africans look more ape like and Caucasians more "beautiful" (his words! when describing forehead slopes angles and such.). He measures something to do with the protrusion of the teeth below the nose and the width of the jaw to claim Africans are more ape-like than Caucasians by showing some drawings from the ape to an African to a Caucasian jaw. The pictures of skulls of Africans, Asians and Caucasians look normal except the African skull has exaggerated features. I would not be surprised if he altered the picture to make the African skull look more ape like.
 

There are a lot of very SICK racists out there. A lot of them are scientists. Some of them are archeologists like the low life that wrote the above book.  >:(

Just because a SCIENTIST said it, doesn't not mean you should BELIEVE IT!
Title: More Proof that Bacteria ADAPT, they DO NOT EVOLVE
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2014, 05:18:30 pm
(http://srxa.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/multi-drug-resistant-pseudomonas-aeruginosa-horizontal-gallery.jpg)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa looks SIMPLE, doesn't it?  ;)


(http://www.bioscience.org/2002/v7/d/yu/fig1.jpg)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa reality is quite complex.  8)

(http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/92575/350wm/C0028334-Pseudomonas_Aeruginosa_Protein-SPL.jpg)
The above is just ONE example of thousands of extremely complex amino acid folding operation products (a protein) manufactured by the humble Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

In a 14 billion year old universe, their isn't enough TIME to produce this folding complexity randomly. Tough luck, evolutionists!   ??? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)



Genetically Identical Bacteria Can Behave in Radically Different Ways

Posted in  News, Bacteria, Research 

Although a population of bacteria may be genetically identical, individual bacteria within that population can act in radically different ways. This phenomenon is crucial in the bacteria's struggle for survival. The more diversity a population of bacteria has, the more likely it will contain individuals able to take advantage of a new opportunity or overcome a new threat, including the threat posed by an antibiotic.
   

In a recent study, researchers at the University of Washington showed that when a bacterial cell divides into two daughter cells there can be an uneven distribution of cellular organelles. The resulting cells can behave differently from each other, depending on which parts they received in the split.

"This is another way that cells within a population can diversify. Here we've shown it in a bacterium, but it probably is true for all cells, including human cells," says Dr. Samuel Miller, UW professor of microbiology, genome sciences, and medicine and the paper's senior author.

Bridget Kulasekara, who obtained a PhD in the UW Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, was the paper's lead author. Other contributors included: Hemantha Kulasekara, Matthias Christen, and Cassie Kamischke, who work in Miller's lab, and Paul Wiggins, UW assistant professor of physics and bioengineering. The paper appears in the online journal eLife.

In an earlier paper, Miller and his colleagues showed that when bacteria divided, the concentration of an important regulatory molecule, called cyclic diguanosine monophosphate (c-di-GMP). was unevenly distributed between the two progeny. c-di-GMP is a second messenger molecule. That finding was published in the journal Science in 2010.

Second messenger molecules transmit signals from sensors or receptors on the cell's external membrane to targets within the cell, where they can rapidly alter a wide variety of cellular functions, such as metabolism and mobility.

The ability to respond to external stimuli quickly is important for the bacteria's survival. For instance, to stay alive, a bacterium must not hesitate to swim towards nutrients or away from toxins. This directional movement of microorganisms, spurred by the presence of a helpful or harmful substance, is known as chemotaxis.

"The effect of second messengers is almost immediate," says Miller. "They allow bacteria to change their behavior within seconds."


To detect the difference in c-di-GMP levels between cells, the researchers used a technique called Förster resonance energy transfer microscopy, or FRET microscopy. This allowed them to measure nanomolar changes of the concentration of c-di-GMP within individual bacteria as the changes happened second by second.

Different concentrations of c-di-GMP can have a profound influence on a cell's behavior. For example, in the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, cells with high levels of c-di-GMP tend to remain still, adhere to surfaces and form colonies. Those with low levels, on the other hand, tend to actively swim about by using a corkscrew-shaped propeller located at one end of the bacterium.

In the latest study, the Miller and his colleagues worked out the molecular mechanism behind the difference in c-di-GMP concentrations seen between daughter cells.

When Pseudomonas cells divide, they pinch in half to create two daughter cells. Although the cells are genetically identical, only one daughter cell can inherit the bacterium's single propeller. The other cell can synthesize its own propeller, but immediately after division the two cells are quite different.

What Miller and his coworkers report in the eLife paper is that the daughter cell that inherits the propeller also inherits an enzyme that is closely associated with the propeller that degrades c-di-GMP, as well as the organelle involved in directing movement toward or away from stimuli that activates this enzyme.

Together these two organelles work in concert to lower the concentration of c-di-GMP and control swimming.

"What we have shown is that the uneven inheritance of organelles is another way cells have to create diversity and increase the chances of the survival of its species," Miller says.

He added that his team's findings may help explain how bacteria resist antibiotic treatments by always having some cells in their populations be in a slow-growing, resting state. Since antibiotics target fast-growing cells, these resting cells are more likely to survive the treatment. The findings might also help explain how some bacteria are able to adhere to and colonize surfaces such as urinary catheters, intravenous lines and heart valves.


In ongoing research, Miller's team is trying to get a better understanding of the signals that can change second messenger concentrations very quickly and is screening compounds that could interfere with or alter those signals. Such compounds could be used to combat drug resistance, for instance, or inhibit a bacterium's ability to adhere to surfaces and form slime-like colonies, called biofilms, that are highly resistant to antibiotics.

The new paper, as well as the earlier study, which appeared in the journal Science in 2010, are both available free online.

The research was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Grant number: 5U54AI057141-09) the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant number 2007047910) and the National Institutes of Health (Grant number 1R21NS067579-0).

Reference: Kulasekara et al. c-di-GMP heterogeneity is generated by the chemotaxis machinery to regulate flagellar motility. ELife. 2013;2:e01402. Chisten M et al. Asymmetrical Distribution of the Second Messenger c-di-GMP upon Bacterial Cell Division. Science. 2010; 328(5983):1295-1297 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188658

http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2014/01/genetically-identical-bacteria-can-behave-in-radically-different-ways.aspx (http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2014/01/genetically-identical-bacteria-can-behave-in-radically-different-ways.aspx)

Agelbert NOTE: There is zero proof that Pseudomonas aeruginosa (or any other bacteria for that matter) becomes another bacterial species when it adapts to some antibiotic by developing antibiotic resistance (less or more cyclic diguanosine monophosphate in the progeny aiding or inhibiting chemotaxis). No ORIGIN OF SPECIES here, folks! No CHANGE from this bacteria to a NEW kind of bacteria means NO EVOLUTION. Signed, your favorite "fanatic".  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-067.gif)
Title: More Orwellian "logic" from the evolutionist true believers
Post by: AGelbert on January 08, 2014, 09:40:10 pm
Quote
Amber fossil reveals ancient reproduction in flowering plants

 01/02/2014

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A 100-million-year old piece of amber has been discovered which reveals the oldest evidence of sexual reproduction in a flowering plant – a cluster of 18 tiny flowers from the Cretaceous Period – with one of them in the process of making some new seeds for the next generation. ;D

The perfectly-preserved scene, in a plant now extinct, is part of a portrait created in the mid-Cretaceous when flowering plants were changing the face of the Earth forever, adding beauty, biodiversity and food. It appears identical to the reproduction process that “angiosperms,” or flowering plants still use today.

Researchers from Oregon State University and Germany published their findings on the fossils in the Journal of the Botanical Institute of Texas.

The flowers themselves are in remarkable condition, as are many such plants and insects preserved for all time in amber. The flowing tree sap covered the specimens and then began the long process of turning into a fossilized, semi-precious gem. The flower cluster is one of the most complete ever found in amber and appeared at a time when many of the flowering plants were still quite small.

Even more remarkable is the microscopic image of pollen tubes growing out of two grains of pollen and penetrating the flower’s stigma, the receptive part of the female reproductive system. This sets the stage for fertilization of the egg and would begin the process of seed formation – had the reproductive act been completed.

“In Cretaceous flowers we’ve never before seen a fossil that shows the pollen tube actually entering the stigma,” said George Poinar, Jr., a professor emeritus in the Department of Integrative Biology at the OSU College of Science. “This is the beauty of amber fossils. They are preserved so rapidly after entering the resin that structures such as pollen grains and tubes can be detected with a microscope.”

The pollen of these flowers appeared to be sticky, Poinar said, suggesting it was carried by a pollinating insect, and adding further insights into the biodiversity and biology of life in this distant era. At that time much of the plant life was composed of conifers, ferns, mosses, and cycads.  During the Cretaceous, new lineages of mammals and birds were beginning to appear, along with the flowering plants. But dinosaurs still dominated the Earth.

“The evolution  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)of flowering plants caused an enormous change in the biodiversity of life on Earth, especially in the tropics and subtropics,” Poinar said.

“New associations between these small flowering plants and various types of insects and other animal life resulted in the successful distribution and evolution of these plants through most of the world today,” he said. “It’s interesting that the mechanisms for reproduction that are still with us today had already been established some 100 million years ago.”(http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg)       (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


The fossils were discovered from amber mines in the Hukawng Valley of Myanmar, previously known as Burma. The newly-described genus and species of flower was named Micropetasos burmensis.
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/jan/amber-fossil-reveals-ancient-reproduction-flowering-plants

Agelbert NOTE: Yeah, it SURE IS "INTERESTING" ALL RIGHT! It's SO "interesting" that it is absolutely amazing that it doesn't occur to these marvels of erudition that the FACT that the flowering plants show up at the same time as the pollinating insects with no change in the mechanism for 100 million years NEGATES evolutionary theory rather than supports it.

And then there is the further bag of pollen "worms" that IF this pollen has C-14 in it, there is no way in hell that this angiosperm can be older than 100,000 years! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)

Don't expect any C-14 tests from these "100 million year old" true believers. They simply will not go there. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif) These "scientists" actually claim that doing a C-14 test on non-fossilized, flexible tissue from the cretaceous period is NOT SCIENCE!   (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)


You don't believe me? Listen to a world famous Dinosaur fossil hunter Jack Horner being asked to do a C-14 test on flexible dino tissue found in cretaceous period strata:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3rEX4zq_4&feature=player_embedded

Here are some scientific, not creationist, HARD DATA VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVVZ-H4Xk9I&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzb_Pxot7s&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2cvuJ1mYg&feature=player_embedded

What's the take away from all the above?

1) Fossilization is normal in abnormal circumstances like peat bogs and rapid sedimentation which eliminates oxidation of organic matter. Otherwise the organic matter is recycled by the biosphere. Bear in mind that this means the ENTIRE natural history of speciation diversity on planet earth as constructed by evolutionists comes from less than 5% of the life forms that have existed simply because 95% of them successfully were recycled by the biosphere! How these scientists could make such sweeping assumptions about a mere 5% or less of the "geologic column record" data is arrogance personified. And I didn't come up with that bit about fossils being an anomaly, the evolution believing paleontologists of mainstream science did. I agree with them on that.  ;D

2) All cretaceous period fossils are found, like those in Madagascar, in a place that underwent a catastrophic amount of rapid sedimentation which instantly buried the dinosaurs meters below the atmosphere underground.

3) The chemistry of the ground had to be non-porous in order to prevent fossilization(bones turn to rock through mineralization) so organic tissue (containing carbon) could be preserved. This is extremely rare.

4) The fossil record will only show animals that died catastrophically, period. When their is no catastrophe, nature recycles 100% of organic matter.

5) If any of the recovered tissue from plants or animals in the geologic strata has C-14 present, they cannot have died more than 100,000 years ago. Evidence of this would be a "catastrophe" for the present interpretation of the age of the strata in the geological column throughout the planet.

6) If the evidence continues to pile up against the current multimillion year paradigm age of various strata, no change in the scientific consensus will occur until the current crop of scientists dies off and is replaced by new ones. The current crop cannot handle being so abysmally wrong. So it goes.

Here 's some proof for you readers of the sad fact that scientists are as stubborn and resistant to change when proven wrong as any other turf defending human group.

The Death Of President Garfield, 1881

President Garfield died from infection due to lack of antiseptic practices, not from a gun shot wound.

Quote
Surgery without Anesthesia

Garfield's physicians did not serve him well. It seems each of his 16 attendants wanted to literally get their hands into him - to prod and grope his wound in an attempt to find the elusive bullet. Infection invariable set in. Internal sores developed - oozing pus and requiring periodic lancing in order to reduce their size. Medicine had not yet fully accepted the relationship between germs and disease. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)
Operations were routinely performed without benefit of surgical gloves, masks, sterile instruments, or any antiseptics to protect the patient. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)

Of more immediate concern to the patient, operations were performed without any means of deadening the pain.  ??? The patient was left to his or her own devices to cope with the trauma of surgery. >:(

.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gar.htm

That bit of COVER for the Medical Doctors of 1881 (i.e. "Medicine had not yet fully accepted the relationship between germs and disease") is BALONEY!

Pasteur, several decades before, proved that germs cause gangrene and claimed they were responsible for infections. Lister read Pasteur's stuff, tested antiseptic procedures on his patients and, in 1867, a full FOURTEEN YEARS before Garfield was shot, published the results in the Lancent. This medical journal HAD to have been read by any leading doctor in the USA. They just refused to change.  :P Even Lister, before he read Pasteur and performed experiments, did not wash before surgery and routinely performed operations in his street clothes. And if you really want to see how SCIENCE dragged its feet on the empirical evidence that antiseptic procedures saved lives, read about the Hungarian doctor that was killed in a looney bin because he SUCCESSFULLY saved the lives of pregnant women by requiring the doctors that performed autopsies washy their hands and change they robes before going upstairs to deliver babies!

Quote
gnaz Semmelweis
According to Wikipedia*, "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865) was the Hungarian physician who demonstrated that puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") was contagious and that its incidence could be drastically reduced by enforcing appropriate hand-washing behavior by medical care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic conclusion, however, he was ultimately vindicated.

Semmelweis realized that the number of cases of puerperal fever was much larger at one of his wards than at the other. After testing a few hypotheses, he found that the number of cases was drastically reduced if the doctors washed their hands carefully before dealing with a pregnant woman. Risk was especially high if they had been in contact with corpses before they treated the women. The germ theory of disease had not yet been developed at the time. Thus, Semelweiss concluded that some unknown "cadaveric material" caused childbed fever.

He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the reception by the medical community was cold, if not hostile. His observations went against the current scientific opinion of the time, which blamed diseases on an imbalance of the basical "humours" in the body. It was also argued that even if his findings were correct, washing one's hands each time before treating a pregnant woman, as Semmelweis advised, would be too much work.

Nor were doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many deaths. Semmelweis spent 14 years developing his ideas and lobbying for their acceptance, culminating in a book he wrote in 1861. The book received poor reviews, and he responded with polemic.

 In 1865, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an insane asylum where he soon died from blood poisoning.

Only after Dr. Semmelweis's death was the germ theory of disease developed, and he is now recognized as a pioneer of antiseptic policy and prevention of nosocomial disease."
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blantisceptics.htm

Agelbert Note: The head doctor at the hospital was the one that led the effort to have him committed and the guards at the looney bin beat him severely before he dies of "blood poisoning".  >:(


THINK about this stuff, people! The SCIENCE points to antiseptics being great and the doctors refuse to DO IT for nearly half a CENTURY! Don't tell me they did not KNOW about Semmelweis, Pasteur and Lister!  (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)


The geologists and paleontologists clinging to the multimillion year old strata paradigm are being showered with evidence that they MUST accept that, regardless of how many billions of years old this planet is, the age of the fossils in the strata is WAY OFF!  :o It's embarrassing, to put I mildly.

But this new war is NOT about science at all, but about the challenge to the random universe paradigm. Consider the very real possibility that a race of super intelligent ETs seeded this planet and we are just a giant petri dish. The periodic rapid crustal movements (see Hapgood theory supported by Einstein) would cause extinction events from giant several mile high tsunamis that instantly buried a bunch of dinosaurs at one point.

At another point a large asteroid could have smacked the earth and created the pacific ocean basin, expanded the planet, reduced the rotation speed, increased the gravity so creatures couldn't be so large and created the rings of fire with mountain chains around the  earth. Each time, the ETs would step in and do some intelligent design.

Another, more milder crustal movement after the last ice age, might have been responsible for freezing those mammoths in Russia with summer flowering plants in their stomachs.

I'm not happy with that theory but I recognize that, from the present evidence, it is a highly probable scenario. That's even more humiliating than a creator God having done it!

So the scientific community will fight it until a new crop can figure a way to accept the C-14 data without requiring a creator. The oscillating universes theory is the one I think they will use because probability and statistics, like time for this or that to evolve, don't apply. How convenient.  :)

Whatever they come up with, they will NOT be able to dance around the presence of C-14 in dino bones, mosquito gut blood from the alleged cenozoic period (http://cryptozoologynews.blogspot.com/2013/10/rare-blood-engorged-mosquito-fossil.html), coal and even diamonds for much longer.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Humans are REALLY GOOD at RATIONALIZATION! It's not so much about objective reality or science; it's mostly about endowment bias (i.e. PRIDE).   (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/fam/fam12.gif)

Quote

Giant asteroid, mega-tsunami may have triggered Ice Age

By Rachael Bayliss

Cosmos Online

A 2km-wide asteroid that hit Earth 2.5 million years ago may have triggered the Ice Age, according to a team of Australian researchers.
 



Asteroid impact artist's concept
Artist's concept of a catastrophic asteroid impact with the early Earth. Credit: Don Davis / NASA
 
LONDON: A 2km-wide asteroid that hit Earth 2.5 million years ago may have triggered the Ice Age, according to a team of Australian researchers.

The monstrous Eltanin asteroid plunged into the Pacific Ocean 2.5 million years ago and generated a mega-tsunami with waves hundreds of feet high, wreaking devastation across the globe. It is the only identified deep-ocean impact in our planet’s history, and could prove to be as significant as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

While previously little has been known about Eltanin and its subsequent impact on Earth, a team of Australian researchers has painstakingly gathered data from around the world to piece together the puzzle.

Inconceivably large waves

“The Eltanin asteroid seems to have largely been overlooked because it was a deep-ocean impact and so there is no easy-to-access crater to remind scientists about this event,” said James Goff, lead author of the paper published in the Journal of Quaternary Science.

The beginning of the Pleistocene epoch was marked by significant climate change and cooling of the planet, and recent refinement of dates shows that the Eltanin impact coincided with this. Computer models demonstrate that an asteroid collision of this magnitude would have generated a tsunami with inconceivably large waves.

“A deep-ocean impact of this size would have thrown a lot of things into the stratosphere,” said Goff, who is co-director of the Australia-Pacific Tsunami Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

This would create additional problems after the initial destruction of the mega-tsunami – with so much water vapour in the atmosphere, sunlight would have been drastically reduced and the surface temperature would start to plummet, kick-starting an intense period of glaciation.

“All the pieces started to come together”

“If the Eltanin impact was a major driver of climate change … then it may have been one of the key drivers of the Pleistocene Northern Hemisphere glaciations, which in turn had implications for human evolution,” said Goff.

To help solve the mystery, Goff and his colleagues at UNSW collaborated with researchers at the Australian Nuclear and Science Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

The team analysed previous research carried out by institutions worldwide. Focussing on that time period, all the existing evidence of possible Eltanin tsunami sediment deposits in Antarctica, Chile and New Zealand were compiled and studied.

“All the pieces started to come together and, about a billion papers later, the questions have at least been able to be framed in a way that they can be asked in a high impact, peer-reviewed journal,” said Goff.

To develop the theory further, more sites with possible Eltanin tsunami deposits need to be investigated to see more clearly the scale of the event. This will in turn provide more data for the models predicting the extent to which such an impact could alter the climate.

“At the moment [the research] hasn’t altered a thing, but we hope that our colleagues will read the paper and consider the question of the significance of the Eltanin impact to not only their research, but also the work of others – and consider it as a possible explanation,” Goff said.
.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/giant-asteroid-triggered-ice-age/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 12:12:06 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TCtmoyBaI&feature=player_embedded
Nice video.  ;D My only beef with these creationists is not their arguments against evolution, which are rational, science based and logical. It's the deep end stuff where they try to say that the flood written about in Noah was the ONLY world catastrophe and that the Genesis account of a 6 literal day creation is the real deal. They refuse to entertain the possibility that the planet was here billions of years before we were created. They refuse to admit the possibility that God would step in and do some intelligent design after a series of catastrophes like the Permian extinction and the K-T boundary evidence of extinction and a massive flood, to name just two extinction level events. They KNOW that's WAY OUT THERE and they can't prove it but they flat refuse to consider the possibility that the bible is wrong on WHEN God created us even if it is quite right about the fact that all life was intelligently designed by God.

In my view these people are extremists pushing people away from Christ, something the Apostle Paul pointed out thousands of years ago about intolerant, legalistic Jews that claimed you weren't "right with God" unless you crossed all the "T"s and dotted all the "I"s in the MOSAIC LEVITICAL LAW.

When I wrote some of the "luminaries" above in the video and told them the Pharisees believed in a six day creation and the inerrancy of the old testament and it didn't do them any good, they REFUSED to even debate that issue.

They have their own Achilles Heel; it's call Pharisaic Legalism. They worship old testament of the bible, not God.  >:(

 I suppose they are doing some good by challenging the evolutionary fairy tale but going in the other extreme is just wrong. The bible has always been about proper, harmonious behavior among fellow men and nature as EVIDENCE of our belief in a just God.

Any time people in the bible started killing people and things that got in the way of their RELIGION, they screwed up.

A pox on all these stuffed shirts that think humans can follow rules. The "rules" were given to Moses to PROVE humans are incapable of following them, not to be used to finger point at each other.

Legalism leads to judgementalism which leads to war, cruelty and killing. The creationists that think the bible is a scientific document are not doing the Gospel of Jesus Christ any good. I told them so and got banned. So it goes. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png)
Title: Natural Selection is DEvolution, not Evolution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 11:07:31 pm
Kauai’s silent nights (the crickets have gone quiet)


by David Catchpoole

kauai

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2OnU5WQjluE/TKQkRFk7_HI/AAAAAAAAAK0/sfZ_bf6RiVI/s1600/Cricket%2Bchirping.jpg)

Crickets, renowned for their distinctively loud chirping song penetrating the night, feature prominently in Polynesian folklore and traditions. But on the Hawaian island of Kauai, the crickets have fallen silent.

The reason?

The larvae burrow into the cricket and devour it—a week later, the cricket is dead.

In the 1990s, a deadly parasitic fly arrived from North America. This “acoustically orienting” fly tracks down male crickets calling for mates (only male crickets chirp) and deposits its eggs on them.1 The larvae burrow into the cricket and devour it—a week later, the cricket is dead.

The impact of the fly was dramatic, as the cricket population on Kauai plummeted. By 2001, the island was “virtually silent”—a university research team heard only one cricket call.2

In 2003, Kauai was still silent. But researchers were surprised to discover that crickets hadn’t been wiped out.3 They found plenty of crickets in fact.4 But they didn’t chirp.5

On closer examination, “virtually all” of Kauai’s male crickets were found to have wings more like female wings than normal male wings, i.e. “lacking the normal stridulatory apparatus of file and scraper required for sound production”—hence why they couldn’t chirp.4 In normal males, the wings have a prominent toothy vein that is scraped to make sound. But now, in most males the vein was smaller and in a different position. Females don’t have the toothed vein at all.


(http://beacon-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Flatwing_Mutation.jpg)

Not surprisingly, this discovery was heralded by many media organizations and the researchers themselves as ‘evolution’.2,3,6 “This is seeing evolution at work,” (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) lead researcher Marlene Zuk said.5

But the information they themselves provided about the observed facts of the case (as opposed to evolutionary interpretation) was sufficient to show that it is not ‘evolution’ at all, in the chemicals-to-cells-to-crickets sense, which requires an increase in complexity and genetic information. Rather, there has been a loss of information (the ability to chirp) because of degradation of the genome.

The silent males were mutants, with the ‘flatwing’ trait being caused by “a mutation to a single gene located on the crickets’ X chromosome.”2Researchers made it clear that the silence-conferring mutation was “not part of the quantitative genetic background of song itself but, instead, a morphological mutation that eliminates males’ ability to produce this sexual signal.”7

This is not evidence for an evolutionary process said to have produced chirping crickets from chancy chaos, no matter how much time is claimed …

So, despite the ‘fogging’ of the facts by evolutionary-paradigm jargon, the story is quite simple—and anything but evolutionary. A loss-of-information flatwing mutation which would presumably normally be a disadvantage (rendering male crickets unable to call acoustically for a mate) became highly advantageous once the acoustically-navigating parasitic fly came to Kauai.8 This is not evidence for an evolutionary process said to have produced chirping crickets from chancy chaos, no matter how much time is claimed for it to have happened. The Kauai change is in the wrong direction to be evidence of microbes-to-man evolution. Instead, it fits with the biblical description of a created world now in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22).

And other things fit, too. The Hawaiian cricket populations had “extremely low genetic variation” compared to crickets in Australia, with Pacific Islands populations being intermediate.9 This hints at the crickets’ likely island-hopping colonization route to Hawaii (perhaps partially matching that of Polynesian settlers—who seem to have had an affinity with crickets10), with the progressive reduction in gene pool variation consistent with an original higher-level creation, not evolution. A cricket subset of the gene pool, once isolated from its parent population, cannot of itself regain the starting level of genetic information. ‘Evolution’ can’t do it.

Note that there is no doubt here that natural selection is operating, and powerfully. But natural selection is not evolution, as it can only remove individuals (in this case, chirping ones), and thus the genetic information they carry (coding for chirp-capable wings),11 from a population; it cannot provide new genetic information. And it is not the trumpeted ‘rapid evolution’ that is being observed here,12 but the rapid culling of cricket songsters under the deadly selection pressure of being fresh food for fly maggots—natural selection does not need long periods of time to achieve outcomes as dramatic as this—the virtual silencing of a population.13,14

If only more people knew that examples of natural selection such as the Kauai crickets were in no way evidence for evolution but rather evidence for the Creator God of the Bible—now that would be something to chirp about.

http://creation.com/kauai-silent-crickets
Title: Huge study highlights stupendous design in human DNA
Post by: AGelbert on January 20, 2014, 06:32:51 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Hot Dog! I have been claiming since 1986 that there is no "junk" DNA. I HAVE MAINTAINED THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN INCLUDED adaptive DNA coding to respond to environmental pressures WITHOUT "evolving" into another species; i.e. SAME species, new genes turned on and some turned off.  Now it seems science is proving I was right! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png) 

Dazzling DNA

Huge study highlights stupendous design in human DNA


by Don Batten

This is an exciting time to be a creationist! Following pilot studies published in 2007,1 the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has now published some 30 papers of phase two, revealing that most of our DNA is functional and effectively killing the evolutionary idea that nearly all our DNA is ‘junk’.

The research involved over 440 scientists in 32 institutes performing over 1,600 experiments.2 They found that over 80% of the human DNA does something, although the details of what it does mostly remain to be determined. Less than 2% of the DNA codes for proteins; the rest turns out to be like a huge control panel, with millions of switches that turn protein-producing genes on or off.  (http://robservations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/happy-cat1.jpg)And different cells have different switch settings, because they need different parts of the DNA to be active.

Discover magazine’s website reported:3

“And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either,  ;Daccording to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described ‘cat-herder-in-chief’. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney. ‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’”

Evolution needs ‘junk DNA’

Many evolutionists don’t like the findings.  ;D

Even with the most favourable assumptions, evolutionists could not account for more than a tiny amount of the human DNA  :o, so they have long claimed that 97% or more of it is useless leftovers of evolution—‘junk’. In contrast, based on the premise that we were created by a super-intelligent Creator—‘fearfully and wonderfully made’—creationists have long questioned the idea that we have mainly useless DNA. In 1994, founder of Creation magazine Carl Wieland wrote,

“Creationists have long suspected that this ‘junk DNA’ will turn out to have a function.”4


Many evolutionists don’t like the findings. One blogged on Scientific American’s website that he doubted the death of junk DNA and complained about the “public damage” done by ENCODE publicity.5  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif)


Damage to what?  ;) Surely not science? Atheism? Giving three reasons why evolution requires lots of junk DNA, he concluded that the finding of 80% (+) functional must be wrong/misreported. But junk DNA is dead and this blog only shows that evolution should die with it.

“Far from finished”

Scientists have a huge job ahead to work out what specifically all this active DNA does. Much will undoubtedly be very important, other parts less so. It presents an enormous task. Geneticist Rick Myers remarked, “We are far from finished. You might argue that this could go on forever.”6


Related Articles

DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

Astonishing DNA complexity update

Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’

The slow, painful death of junk DNA

Further Reading

What about ‘Vestigial’ (‘junk’) DNA that evolutionists claim is a useless leftover of evolution?

References and notes

1.See, Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity update, July 2007; creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update. Return to text.

2.See overview papers in Nature 489, 6 September 2012. Return to text.

3.Yong, E., ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome, in the ‘Not Exactly Rocket Science’ blog; blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-the-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/ Return to text.

4.Wieland, C., Junk moves up in the world, Journal of Creation 8(2):125, 1994. Return to text.

5.Jogalekar, A., Three reasons why junk DNA makes evolutionary sense; blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2012/09/13/three-reasons-to-like-junk-dna, 13 September, 2012. Return to text.

6.Nature 489, p.48. Return to text.


http://creation.com/dazzling-dna
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2014, 03:57:28 pm
Excellent hard boiled, detailed scientific evidence ONLY article on the anomalies in Homology that refute the Theory of Evolution:

http://creation.com/homology-made-simple
Title: C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts
Post by: AGelbert on February 06, 2014, 08:09:57 pm
Quote
C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
Title: Atheistic DELUSIONS commonly assumed as truth by those ignorant of History
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2014, 08:15:39 pm
“Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif) Enemies”

Agelbert Note: Memes taken apart here (and at the link) are quite common on liberal forums attacking Christianity and VERY MUCH part of RE's mistaken view of history at the DD  >:(  I always new RE's childish tantrums about religion and Christianity being total failures was BS. This book sets the record straight; not that people like RE will listen, however.  :(

Book Review

Anthony Kenny on ‘Atheist Delusions’

Posted on May 13, 2010

This review originally appeared in The TLS, whose website is www.the-tls.co.uk, and is reposted with permission.

In the ongoing suit of Secularism vs God, David Bentley Hart is the most able counsel for the defence in recent years. Though confident in the strength of his case, he does not hesitate to abuse the plaintiff’s attorneys, and he does so in grand style. Richard Dawkins is guilty of “rhetorical recklessness”. Christopher Hitchens’s text “careens drunkenly across the pages” of a book “that raises the wild non sequitur almost to the level of a dialectical method”. Daniel Dennett’s theses are “sustained by classifications that are entirely arbitrary and fortified by arguments that any attentive reader should notice are wholly circular”.

Hart (in his book “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies”) has the gifts of a good advocate. He writes with clarity and force, and he drives his points home again and again. He exposes his opponents’ errors of fact or logic with ruthless precision. He is generous in making concessions on his own side, provided they leave intact his overarching claims. Above all, he has ensured that his brief is modest and manageable.

Thus, no attempt is made to plead in defence of religion as such. “Religion in the abstract”, Hart says, “does not actually exist, and almost no one (apart from politicians) would profess any allegiance to it”. This is a sound and fundamental point. The creeds of the major religions are mutually contradictory, so that the one thing we know for certain about religion is that if any religion is true then most religions are false. Hart’s client is not religion in general—it is traditional Christianity. It is this, he claims, that has been misunderstood and slandered by its cultured despisers.

Again, Hart concentrates on issues of history rather than philosophy. True, he claims that Dawkins’s philosophical arguments are ones that “a college freshman midway through his first logic course could dismantle in a trice”. However, the claim that Dawkins is philosophically illiterate is based on an ontology that would be rejected by many a seasoned professor of philosophy. Hart’s own strengths lie elsewhere, so he is wise to concentrate on narrative and invective.

The aim of the first half of the book is to demolish “the mythology of a secularist age”. Secularists invite us to believe the following story. (RE's MISTAKEN View of History Pushed NONSTOP at the DD) In the medieval ages of faith, culture stagnated, science languished, wars of religion were routinely waged, witches were burned by inquisitors, and Western humanity was enslaved to superstition. The literary remains of antiquity had been consigned to the flames, and the achievements of Greek science lay forgotten until Islam restored them to the West. The age of faith was succeeded by an age of reason and enlightenment, which gave us the riches of scientific achievement and political liberty, and a new and revolutionary sense of human dignity. The modern separation of Church and State has put an end to the blood-steeped intolerance of religion. Western humanity has at last left its nonage and attained to its majority in science, politics and ethics. (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)“This is”, Hart says, “a simple and enchanting tale ... its sole defect is that it happens to be false in every identifiable detail.” (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif) Six chapters demolish detailed elements of this secularist myth. Chapter Four refutes the allegations that the ancient library of Alexandria was destroyed by Christians and that the pagan philosopher Hypatia was murdered out of hatred for women and learning. Chapter Five shows that far from burning Classical texts, Christian monastic librarians preserved them from decay. Chapter Six argues that Greek science had become sterile long before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The only innovative physicist of late antiquity, we are told, was the Christian John Philoponus. During the four and a half centuries of its scientific pre-eminence, Islam made “no more progress than a moderately clever undergraduate today could assimilate in less than a single academic year”. Paying tribute to the Oxford calculators of the fourteenth century, Hart illustrates the continuity between medieval and Renaissance science. Pope Urban VIII’s condemnation of Galileo, he claims, was not an index of inherent ecclesiastical hostility to science, but a clash of arrogant personalities.

The seventh and eighth chapters defend Christianity from the charges of intolerance and cruelty. The persecution of witches, Hart points out, was an early modern rather than a medieval phenomenon, and the inquisitors of the time did their best to suppress witchhunts.


To see long excerpts from “Atheist Delusions,” click here. (at link)


The rise of modern science and the obsession with sorcery “were two closely allied manifestations of the development of a new post-Christian sense of human mastery over the world”. In exculpation of the use of torture and the burning of heretics, it can be said that the Church was merely following a fashion which was originated by the State. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)
During the so-called Dark Ages, the only penalty for misbelief was excommunication, whereas in the heyday of the Holy Roman Empire heresy became a capital crime. “Violence”, Hart says, “increased in proportion to the degree of sovereignty claimed by the state, and whenever the medieval church surrendered moral authority to secular power, injustice and cruelty flourished.”


Addressing the responsibility of the Church for warfare, Hart briskly gets the Crusades out of the way. Admitting that they were “holy wars”—the only ones in Christian history, he maintains—he dismisses them as “the last gaudy flourish of Western barbarian culture, embellished by the winsome ceremonies of chivalry”.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif) The European wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are treated at greater length. Here, we learn, “no prince of the time waged war against another simply on account of his faith”. In its bloodiest days the Thirty Years War was not a war of religion, but a struggle between two Catholic houses, the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. Hart is at his most convincing when he argues that for the sheer scale of its violence, the modern period trumps any of the ages of Christian faith. “The Thirty Years War, with its appalling toll of civilian casualties, was a scandal to the consciences of the nations of Europe; but midway through the twentieth century ... even liberal democracies did not scruple to bomb open cities from the air, or to use incendiary or nuclear devices to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians.”

In the second part of the book, Hart seeks to replace the secularist myth with a positive account of what he calls “the Christian revolution”—“perhaps the only true revolution in the history of the West”. Many of the values prized by modern secularists are inheritances from the early days of Christianity.

Pre-Christian cults involved human sacrifice, self-castration and self-mutilation.(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png) PreChristian society despised the poor and weak and tolerated infanticide; it enjoyed gladiatorial combat, and it was built on slavery.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)

Only Christianity fostered the concept of a dignity intrinsic to every human soul. Only the Church built hospitals and almshouses, and taught that charity was the highest virtue. (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif)

More at link:

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/anthony_kenny_on_atheist_delusions_20100514

Agelbert NOTE:THIS IS WHERE HE TEARS TO BITS THE ATHEIST'S RELIGION! (Many worshippers at the DD, by the way, with RE as the high priest).


"There is also, however, a negative side to my argument.  It is what I suppose I should call my rejection of modernity — or, rather, my rejection of the ideology of "the modern" and my rejection, especially, of the myth of "the Enlightenment."  By modernity, I should explain, I certainly do not mean modern medicine or air travel or space exploration or any of the genuinely useful or estimable aspects of life today;  I do not even mean modern philosophical method or social ideology or political thought.  Rather, I mean the modern age's grand narrative of itself: its story of the triumph of critical reason over "irrational" faith, of the progress of social morality toward greater justice and freedom, of the "tolerance" of the secular state, and of the unquestioned ethical primacy of either individualism or collectivism (as the case may be).  Indeed, I want in part to argue that what many of us are still in the habit of calling the "Age of Reason" was in many significant ways the beginning of the eclipse of reason's authority as a cultural value;  that the modern age is notable in large measure for the triumph of inflexible and unthinking dogmatism in every sphere of human endeavor (including the sciences) and for a flight from rationality to any number of soothing fundamentalisms, religious and secular;  that the Enlightenment ideology of modernity as such does not even deserve any particular credit for the advance of modern science;  that the modern secular state's capacity for barbarism exceeds any of the evils for which Christendom might justly be indicted, not solely by virtue of the superior technology at its disposal, but by its very nature;  that among the chief accomplishments of modern culture have been a massive retreat to superstition and the gestation of especially pitiless forms of nihilism;  and that, by comparison to the Christian revolution it succeeded, modernity is little more than an aftereffect, or even a counterrevolution — a reactionary flight back toward a comfortable, but dehumanizing, mental and moral servitude to elemental nature."
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)  >:(

Agelbert NOTE: YEP; Modernity claims that IF YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST so you are a fool to believe in God or Christianity or tie yourself in "neurotic" knots by attempting to live a moral life. After all, Freud "proved" that freeing yourself from moral behavior and any moral restrainst is good for your mental health, right? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0471.htm
Title: What about bad things done by the Church?
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2014, 07:37:47 pm
What about bad things  :P done by the Church?  >:(

by Jonathan Sarfati

Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely, evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently with evolution.

This article mainly addresses point 2. In the past, we have frequently supported this point by showing that Christianity has been the most powerful force for good in history.1

This includes motivating charity, education, abolition of slavery,2 and science.3 The evidence is so strong that even some high-profile atheists have conceded that biblical Christianity drove the Salvation Army’s charity and one even proclaimed, “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.” 4 Similarly, T.H. Huxley (1825–1895), the famous agnostic known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, advocated teaching the Bible to children for its great morality, and insisted on this for his own children.5

The vital difference

About the only response that anti-Christians can give is that the history of the church has not always been good. The most important issue in reply is this:
Atrocities in the name of Christ are inconsistent with real Christianity, which is revealed in the Bible; atrocities in the name of atheism are consistent with it.


Note that we are NOT claiming that all atheists are always ‘evil’ or can never do good things, but that atheism provides no basis for judging right from wrong.

Evolutionist Jaron Lanier showed the problem, saying, “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”

In reply, the leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins affirmed, “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”6

So here we have a leading atheist admitting that evolution provides no basis for morality. Instead, he and his fellow atheists have needed to borrow from Christian concepts of sanctity of life and charity. Similarly, the Jewish libertarian columnist Jeff Jacoby gave a lucid summary of the argument:

“Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral expectations of the society in which they were raised?

“In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization. …

“For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead—as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned—that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak—or that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.

“It may seem obvious to us today that human life is precious and that the weakest among us deserve special protection. Would we think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should be killed. …


“Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil.”
7

Therefore, the corrective for faulty application of Christianity is not atheism but correct (biblical) application of Christianity.

Given the reasoning above, it should be no surprise that the atrocities committed in the name of Christ are not only an aberration, but pale compared to the monstrous atrocities committed by atheists for atheistic reasons. Some specific well-known cases in each category will now be addressed.

Christian atrocities?


Inquisition

The Inquisition is certainly a black spot; biblical Christianity, from a human standpoint, tells people to come freely to Christ, not be forced to profess Christ because of threats. But the Inquisition also must be put into perspective, both compared with the numbers and the culture of the time. Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834): historians such as Henry Kamen estimate between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy,8 out of Spain’s 6–10 million total population. So at most 0.05% of Spain’s population was killed. While this is nevertheless deplorable, it means that the Inquisition’s rate of executing people was lower than that of the state of Texas today, while atheist Stalin often killed that many before breakfast (so to speak). Furthermore, Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts—indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely so they would be transferred to the Inquisition courts.

Salem witch trials

This was a travesty of paranoia and mass hysteria in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. However, they killed fewer than 25 people, far short of the “perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions” that the late antitheist Carl Sagan (1934–1996) claimed. Further, they were stopped when Christians protested at the travesty of justice in the unfair trials and how they violated all biblical standards of evidence.9 Even a trial proponent, the Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639–1723), opposed the ‘spectral evidence’, i.e. from dreams and visions, instead of the biblically required plurality of eyewitnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1). He also made the statement that has now become a vital part of Western justice, “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that One Innocent Person should be Condemned.”10

Crusades


While many people attack Christianity for the Crusades, an increasing number of historians regard them as a belated response to four centuries of Islamic aggression that had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.11

The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula (now Spain and Portugal) well before the Crusades. They would have almost certainly conquered Europe were it not for the King of the Franks, Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne. In the Battle of Tours (ad 732), Martel’s infantry army stood firm against Muslim cavalry, and repulsed their repeated charges while inflicting enormous casualties. The Muslim leader Abd-er Rahman was killed. Afterwards, the remains of the shattered army retreated back across the Pyrenées, and never returned.

Also, just think about the historic centers of Christianity, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of North Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, some 800 years after its founding, they turned Hagia Sophia (‘Holy Wisdom’), the world’s biggest Christian church at the time, and the center of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.

In this, they were following the example of Muhammad himself. Evangelist Lowell Lundstrom (1939–2012) observed, “During Muhammad’s ten years in Medina, he planned 65 military campaigns and raids, and he personally led 27 of them.”12 In Sura 66:9, the Koran affirms, “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” Historian Sir Steven Runciman notes, “Unlike Christianity, which preached a peace that it never achieved, Islam unashamedly came with the sword.”13

Even Richard Dawkins recently admitted:

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”14

So, in a similar note to the main teaching of this article, while atrocities committed in the name of Christ, such as during the Crusades, were inconsistent with the teachings of Christ (such as “Do not murder”), the atrocities committed by Muslims are consistent with Muhammad’s teachings and actions.15

Religious wars?

It’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu–Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponnesian War, Assyrian wars …

Christian terrorists?

When Islamic or atheistic atrocities are announced, the secular media almost invariably resort to moral equivalence with claimed Christian terrorists. Let’s address a few of them.

Regarding the IRA (Irish Republican Army), Rev. Dr Mark Durie, a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, points out the truth:

“The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA’s ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic. IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.”16

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber who killed 168 people and wounded over 680, has often been called a “Christian terrorist”. But he was an agnostic to the end. In fact, his final pre-execution public statement was William Ernest Henley’s strongly humanist poem Invictus (1875). This starts, “I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul,” and finishes, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”17 Such defiant rejection of his Creator is hardly the mark of any Christian, good or otherwise.

Also, the news media were quick to label the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik as a Christian
. But Breivik specifically denied that he was a religious Christian, caring nothing for God and Christ:


“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”18  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)

He could not be more wrong. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


Hypocrites in the Church

Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.

Jesus reserved some of his strongest criticism for the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But He in no way condemned the righteousness that they stood for in public. Matthew 23:1–3 records:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”

Thus the charge of hypocrisy was not an attack on the morality they preached but on their failure to live up to it. He actually told His followers to be even more righteous than the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).

We are upset by hypocrisy precisely because we recognize that something intrinsically good has been debased and let down by the hypocrite’s failure to meet the very standard he proclaimed. Hence the saying, “Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”

This atheist criticism amounts to preferring that we both say and do the wrong thing rather than say the right thing but do the wrong thing.19

Atheistic atrocities

Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale in comparison to the record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes just last century. This was thoroughly documented by Rudolph Rummel (b. 1932), Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, who coined the term democide, meaning ‘murder of a people by their government’:20 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis (including 6 million Jews, ⅓ of all Jews in Europe), 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields. This is many times more deaths than all ‘religious’ wars put together in all centuries of human history, and this is just for the 20th century!

We have previously documented the evolutionary basis for the Holocaust.21 This included eugenics, which was so Darwinian that non-creationist Denis Sewell documented:

Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale to the record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes just last century: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.


“[In the] years leading up to the First World War, The eugenics movement looked like a Darwin family business. … Darwin’s son Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national Eugenics Society in 1911. In the same year an offshoot of the society was formed in Cambridge. Among its leading members were three more of Charles Darwin’s sons, Horace, Francis and George.”22

Summary

Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely, evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently with evolution.


The term ‘atrocity’ has meaning only under a Judeo-Christian worldview; it has no meaning in an evolutionary philosophy.
Agelbert NOTE: Yep! the only "morality" for an atheist is CALORIC INTAKE EFFICENCY = MORALITY, STARVATION = IMMORARLITY.  As stated in the book "the Brothers Karamazov,". "If God does not exist, then ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED".


(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif) The horrors of atheistic atrocities in the 20th century alone dwarf all the ‘Christian’ atrocities in all centuries combined.


Title: Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we are:
Post by: AGelbert on July 21, 2014, 06:23:47 pm
In regard to Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we are:   ;D

Quote
Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.

Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.

When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Philip Skell (1918–2010), a leading chemist.

(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2014, 12:05:36 am
G.K. Chesterton had the Nazis down on the Darwinian ethic on both counts:

Quote

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws."

The Darwinian core, and fundamentally anti-Christian character, of Nazism

A review of Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry Bergman
 Joshua Press, Ontario, 2012

http://creation.com/bergman-nazism-darwinian-review

Title: If IT feels good, do it!!!!?
Post by: AGelbert on July 28, 2014, 04:11:24 pm
Ashvin said,
Quote
I think it's silly to ignore the connection between these core selfless values and Christian belief. It not only advocates these values, but provides the regenerative framework for incorporating them into all areas of our lives. When I look around the world today, I see no similar framework in any other ideology or movement, religious or secular. Some focus solely on spiritual experience, some on personal discipline, some on political activism, some on the environment, some on the economy, some on human rights, etc., etc., but, as far as I can tell, only Biblical Christianity encompasses all of these and more.
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)

Well said. RE is fond of pointing to the "insufficiency" of the actions of Jesus on the environmental, human caloric intake and justice against bad guys score. Yet RE (and me too for a large part of my life  :() are willing victims of vicious propaganda that he refuses to take action on because of his addiction to smoking.

You cannot have it both ways, RE. Your criticism of Christianity is based on its perversion by human frailty and evil, not on the tenets of Christianity itself.  ;)

Look at this picture WORTH A LOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND "WORDS" (i.e. millions of cancers, severe pollution, biosphere degradation and billions of dollars in DIRTY "profits" from suckers like you and I - Darwin, Freud and Bernays GIFTED  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) that to us, NOT CHRISTIANITY!).
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280714152422.png)

Mr. JRM: Smoking and the rampant use of fossil fuels was/is an ENJOYABLE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, was it not, Mr. JRM (who believes anyone alleging that experience isn't the be all, end all of life is talking "tripe" LOL!)?  (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg) 

ANYONE that thinks EXPERIENCE trumps all is a perfect sucker target for ME FIRST Madison Avenue manipulation that starts with pleasure and ends with poison and tyranny.  The doctrine of self-denial is not a sadistic exercise in stupidity, it is the only proper way for human society to practice sustainability and harmony with other human beings and the biosphere. Raising human EXPERIENCE TO NUMERO UNO is really SUCKER BAIT pseudo spiritual TRIPE!  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)

If IT feels good, do it!!!!?  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)  Nope.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on August 20, 2014, 07:05:40 pm
The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruin—in other words, no evolution!

The genetic changes observed in living things today could not have turned bacteria into basset hounds—ever

http://creation.com/3-rs-of-evolution
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 09, 2014, 11:46:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BaW6-9ov0&feature=player_embedded

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090914233747.png)
The Modus Operandi of Evolutionary Prevaricators in the Service of Darwinian Religion.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2014, 11:28:29 pm
In regard to GAPS in the Theory of Evolution, even Chopra says that the Purpose preceded the Process  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)  instead of the other way around  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)   like the Darwin true believers claim.

I dislike the way Chopra puts molecular machines in quotes as if the AREN'T real machines. They ARE machines and they are FAR MORE EFFICIENT thermodynamically than anything Homo SAP has invented. It is an established scientific mathematical factorial statistical fact that cell machinery has NOT HAD ENOUGH TIME through random mutations to get all these molecular machines to evolve AND work in concert for maintaining and reproducing life. 12 billion years is not enough for the cell machinery. I've brought that here various times with scholarly references and I get studiously ignored.  ;D Good luck getting people here to question evolution or agree there are ANY gaps in that fairy tale.

You know that fruit fly with the TWO PAIRS of wings celebrated as "proof" of evolution? Did you know the extra pair of perfectly formed wings (allegedly a "positive" mutation like those necessary to establish some credibility to the Darwinian claim that natural selection produces SUPERIOR species rather than winnow OUT constantly degrading DNA) HAVE NO FLIGHT MUSCLES? That's right. They don't work. All the energy used to make them was WASTED and they represent an evolutionary DEAD END.
(http://www.harunyahya.com/image/national_academy_of_sciences/fruit_fly.jpg)
Behold, the evolutionary DEAD END paraded as "proof" of "evolution".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)

In molecular biology, that four winged fruit fly is an ICON of EVOLUTION! It's SO PURTY that they paraded it all over the place!   ;)

Quote

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! 16


Quote
Experiments on fruit flies:

 As long as a mutation does not change the morphology—that is, the shape—of an organism, it cannot be the raw material of evolution. One of the living things in which morphological mutations have been most intensively studied is the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). In one of the many mutations Drosophila was subjected to, the two-winged fruit fly developed a second pair of wings. Ever since 1978 this four-winged fruit fly has gained great popularity in textbooks and other evolutionist publications.

However, one point that evolutionist publications hardly ever mention is that the extra wings possess no flight muscles.  ;) These fruit flies are therefore deformed, since these wings represent a serious obstacle to flight.

They also have difficulties in mating.  :emthdown: They are unable to survive in the wild.  :emthdown: In his important book Icons of Evolution, the American biologist Jonathan Wells studies the four-winged fruit fly, together with other classic Darwinist propaganda tools, and explains in great detail why this example does not constitute evidence for evolution.

Quote


The NAS's Errors Regarding Mutations


 The National Academy of Sciences suggests that mutations provide the necessary genetic variation for evolution, and refers to them as follows: "They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment." (Science and Creationism, p. 10). In fact, however, contrary to what the NAS authors claim, mutations do not lead to beneficial characteristics, and all experiments and observations on this subject have confirmed this fact
.

http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/973/The-Errors-The-American-National-Academy-Of-Sciences/chapter/3216/The-nass-errors-regarding-mutations


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 17, 2014, 10:27:06 pm
RE,
Rationalization of genocide as an order from God versus rationalization of genocide as a scientifically beneficial application of the Theory of Evolution (i.e. eugenics) are TOTALLY different RATIONALIZATIONS. Word substitution?

Baloney! That's fallacious logic! Given that BOTH ARE INCORRECT rationalizations as a correct premise, THEN (and ONLY then) you could claim that word substitution applies.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/129fs238648.gif) But, YOU believe that the application of the Theory of Evolution by Eugenics is NOT a rationalization based on an "invented" deity that looks after his favored Homo SAPS. YOU believe that there are Homo SAPS that are more fit than others BECAUSE of the Theory of Evolution, do you not?  ;D

You rightly believe that the NAZIs "perverted" the concept of Eugenics to justify scapegoating the Jews. At THAT POINT you ASSUMED that the "invented" deity followers who were "just following orders" to commit holy genocide are in exactly the same cheap, cruel and merciless "rationalization" boat.  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif) And that IS fallacious logic! (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

WHY? Because, among other amoral "science" based (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) (immoral in my view) aspects of the Theory of Evolution, you probably would have agreed with Alexander Graham Bell  (when it was thought incorrectly that deaf people pass on deafness to their offspring 100% of the time) to sterilize deaf people. :whip:

YOU have no problems at all with the Theory of Evolution. Every "application" of science that involves cruelty to animals to "knock out genetically modified mice" is NOT a rationalization to YOU; it's "justified" scientifically! THAT is what Ashvin and I are trying to get through to you.

You want to draw the line when NAZIs waste Hereros first followed by German half wits, the diseased the unemployed, the low I.Q, the vagrants and then the Jews? WHY? Because HUMANS are DIFFERENT? Not according to the Theory of Evolution!

You want say, well, Homo SAPs have always been wasting each other and using lousy excuses like God or whatever. Fine! Do you, or do you NOT agree that the Theory of Evolution is the CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE of the Hereros, low class, diseased and handicapped Germans and the Jews? Because if you STILL BELIEVE that the Theory of Evolution is a VALID theory, you are claiming it is NOT a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for Genocide.

Your constant mockery of "invented deity" followers is clear. We get it.  ;D Well, my constant mockery of evolutionary theory TRUE BELIEVERS is clear too. I can PROVE the link to human genocides as I have in the past few posts form Darwin on down.    (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

In the light of the FACT that the CHOSEN PEOPLE were NOT exempt from the same standard of judgement (according to the O.T. they were and are NOT UBERMENSCH!), the O.T. God ordered butchery is to be looked at (by those who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD   ;D) PRECISELY as the NATURAL tendency of people to waste those that are in the way, so to speak, not some supernatural vindictive God out to show his sadistic nature. 

The same with the Crusades and the inquisition. For a Christian, they were NOT a "come to Jesus, or else" moment. They WERE a PERVERSION of the Gospel. You have one hell of a difficulty seeing the difference. What do you want, a scientific experiment with this universe as the control group and two other "knock out" GMO universes where

1) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY science based empirical everything with no tendency whatsoever to "invent" deities and the REALLY FUN  ;) universe where

2) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY "invented" deity motivated?

Of course we can only speculate on which one will produce Homo SAP EXTINCTION first (or at all).  :icon_mrgreen: But it seems to me that you really do believe that "1)" is the better alternative.  8)

But thought experiments aside, let's get real here, RE. YOU do NOT believe the Hebrews were "obeying Jehovah God" when they went about the genocidal activity so common to Homo SAP tribal warfare. YOU think their top dogs just used that as an authority fig leaf to get the people to kill the injuns. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)

When you DO start believing that God isn't on vacation, is here now and just didn't wind up the pantheistic clock and set this universe going before He moved on to the next jolly super being voyeuristic sado/masochistic exercise  :evil4:, THEN we can talk about the O.T. God of Vengeance.

And you cannot claim "word substitution" (i.e. equal cheap rationalization for genocide) applies to EUGENICS because you firmly believe that we live in an EVOLUTION BASED RANDOM UNIVERSE. It's a HUGE cop out to claim Evolution Theory and medical science experiments on "lower" life forms is OKAY but it's not okay to do it on Humans. Think about it. Darwin unleashed a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE that fueled the deaths of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

It's NOT okay to experiment on life forms for ANY REASON. Evolutionary theory REQUIRES that we do so to learn how to better DOMINATE all other species for OUR UBERMENSCH BENEFIT in health and increased longevity. It's NOT OPTIONAL for an APEX PREDATOR of HIGH INTELLIGENCE to do that. That includes GENOCIDAL WARFARE on the UNFIT as well.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that is WRONG and is the 'DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200' PATH to our moral decay and species suicide.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png) You don't.

Word substation is fallacious logic. Try again.  ;D
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 18, 2014, 09:38:40 pm
Scientific proof of God (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

Dr. Gerald Schroeder is NOT a Christian Fundy.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)  He is an EMINENT SCIENTIFC AUTHORITY. He can think rings around ANYBODY HERE (you too, RE! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png))!

Atheist PUBLIC reaction ---->  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif)


Atheist PRIVATE reaction ---->  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__smokelots.gif)

Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible , published by Bantam Doubleday; now in seven languages; and THE SCIENCE OF GOD, published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster, and THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD, also published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster. He teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Video by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&feature=player_embedded

Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy

Snippet:

The big bang of animal evolution is quite amazing. Every, it is described quite succinctly in Scientific American, that every phylum that exists today came into being simultaneously.  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)


There are approximately 34 animal phyla; all of those 34 appear in the fossil record, in the strata called the Cambrian explosion. Of which Darwin knew about, it was not dated, he just assumed that the strata in which every body type, in which every body type that exists today, not little people sleeping through lectures, no, but simply here is chordata, that is our first formation in our phylum, it is primitive fish. These are the first insects, the trilobites, and there are mollusks, and all, all together, all the 34 appear out of the blue. 3.8 billion years ago, 3.6, 3.7 approximately, 3.8 billion years ago, water forms, life begins. For 3 billion years, life remains one cell, then out of the blue, the Cambrian explosion produces this menagerie of life, these are drawings of the American Museum of Natural History, they showed in Time magazine. In that life, already our eyes, every phylum that has eyes today appeared in the fossil record for the first time with eyes. Now that is quite amazing. So Darwin assumed that other fossils would be found that would show a difference. What other fossils have been found, it becomes worse and worse constrained for these explosions of life, these punctuated of life. And hence, the Journal of Science which is the leading overall peer review science journal in the United States, had an article in 1995 by Robert Kerr said did Darwin get it all right, did Darwin get it all right, the subtitle was no, Darwin did not get it all right. That species appear in the fossil record with an amazingly un-Darwinian abruptness. What does it mean?

It means we still do not understand what is going on and it is interesting to see how one of the leaders, one of the leaders in this understanding that life became by random reactions, how this person had the fortitude mentally to change his opinion. It is George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, professor of biology, Harvard University, wrote an extraordinary interesting article called “The Origin of Life.” The Origin of Life, 1954, was based on a thesis that in fact life could start by random reactions. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” George Wald. Wald becomes a Nobel Prize winner for discovering the role of Vitamin E, I think it is E, maybe it is A, yeah, beg your pardon, in visual, the functioning of the retina. Here is what he had to say in 1954, however, remember, water, first life, water appears here, and in 1950’s and 60’s, the first fossils were only a half a billion years ago, so there are 3 billion years of blank space in there in which life is thought to have evolved. So he is talking about these 3 billion years for the random reactions. However improbable you regard the invent of the origin of life, or any steps it involves, give it enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once, and for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is in fact the here of the.., you have got to think humorous here, time is in fact the here of the plot, the time with which we have to deal with is nearly 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible in the human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes the possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain, one is only to wait time itself performs the miracle. That is 1954.

Comes another Harvard professor in 1975 and 76, Elsa Barsham discovers that the oldest big fossils that we have, fossils that you can easily see, do indeed date, only to about 600 million years, about a half a billion years ago. But the fossil record Professor Barsham discovered goes back 3.8 billion years or 3.7 billion years.  :o But it is one celled before the Cambrian explosion, there are close to 3 billion years, 3 thousand million years of one celled life, one celled, one celled, one celled, and then out of the blue this explosion of life. And based on that 25 years later after 1954, Scientific American reprinted Wald’s article with a retraction, they retracted the article. Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the few times in his professional life was wrong, can we really examine this man’s thesis and see, can we really perform a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds. This would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance random combinations were the only driving force for life. Since 1979 you will not find it, in peer review journals, the fact that life started by random reactions. You will always find that a catalyst is required, a force is required, something is required in the environment that forces the life to occur.

Wald being intellectually honest and strong of character in 1984, 5 years after the retraction, and 30 years after his article about random reactions producing life, which led research off on a wild goose chase for about 25 years, Wald writes the following. In an article published in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, the quantum phenomena has changed our understanding of the universe and here, listen to his wording, it is exquisite, on his retraction, not of his article, but his previous thesis that the world was totally materialistic. This is a man that said time in fact performs the miracles, notice that leaves something out. It has occurred to me lately, this is Wald direct quote, in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 1984, “It has occurred to me lately and I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities,” this is Wald speaking, “and I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities that the questions of the origin of consciousness in humans, and the origin of life from non living matter, might both be brought to some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, that mind, rather then emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life has in fact existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of the physical reality, that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind stuff, it is mind that has composed the physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that no one creates, creates science and art and technology, these animals, humans, in them the universe begins to know itself.” And Wald stated a bit of his heritage, you might have seen that in kabala was talking about the last 2,000 years.

But quantum physics caught up with it also.
James Jeans the mathematician, there is a wide agreement which in the physical side of the sciences approaches unanimity that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non mechanical reality that the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder in the realm of matter, we are beginning to suspect that we ought to hail mind as the creator and the governor of the realm of matter. Not of course our individual minds but the mind in which the atoms out of which the entire universe has grown exist as thoughts. Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics has placed the universe in a different footing, quantum mechanics is part of, it is not some esoteric theory on the corner in a shelf somewhere. Quantum mechanics allows your digital watch to work, allows your remote control that turn on your TV or opens your car to work, it allows your clock radio to work, it allows, essentially from the time you get up to the time you go to bed, the theories and understanding the quanta have changed electronics in your life. Verna Heisenberg - inherent difficulties in the materialist theories of existence that everything is material, the materialist theories of existence have appeared very clearly in the development of the physics of the 20th century. This difficulty relates to the question as whether the smallest units of matter such as atoms in which we and all objects from bacteria to galaxies are composed or ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as flowers and stones, that you can touch them. Here the quantum theory has created a complete change in the situation. The smallest units of matter are not in fact physical objects, in the ordinary sense of the word, they are ideas.

Erwin Schrodinger winner of the Nobel Prize the year after Heisenberg, both again for quantum mechanics. So in brief, we do not belong to this material role that science constructs for us. We, the awareness of being ourselves are not part of it. We are outside, we are only spectators, the reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to this picture is that our bodies are in the picture, and that is the only way of our minds communicating within. The reality is there is a substrate, that has allowed this phenomenal complexity to exist. That things like DNA, itself is complex, but it is a closed book. The real complexity of life is not in the DNA. The real complexity of life is the reading of the DNA of which course the DNA is self structured to develop a system that can read it. The reading of the DNA, the complexity of life, is overwhelming. The question is from where does it arise. How did light beams manage to do all these things. Let alone to wonder about them. Because that is what is happening with condensed light beams. It sounds corny, we are condensed, or poetic that we are made of stardust. But we are. 5 billion years ago, everything you see around you, including what you see in the mirror when you brush your teeth in the morning was stardust and it just happened to become alive. And that stardust was made up with primitive, initial elements of the universe, the hydrogen and the helium, a few of the elements, and those elements were made of quarks, and those quarks were made of the light of creation. The light of creation shines in everyone. We just have to let it shine forth.


Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy

http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/dr-gerald-schroeder/ (http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/dr-gerald-schroeder/)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 18, 2014, 10:50:24 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180914225557.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2014, 12:37:23 am
Evolution’s oyster twist

(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p095/c09510/Ostrea-Gryphaea.jpg)
The oyster, Ostrea sp. (left), was said to have evolved over millions of years into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.—also known as “the devil’s toenails” (right). But there’s a new ‘twist’ to the story—Gryphaea’s coiling has nothing to do with evolution.

by David Catchpoole

SNIPPET:

Quote
Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. Several generations of science students were taught this as ‘one of the best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record.

However, today it seems that coiling is a built-in programming response to the environment, i.e. mud-sticking oysters grow into a coiled cup-shaped form, while oysters attaching to firmer substrate2 grow to be ‘flat, fan-shaped recliners’.3 So, coiling is an individual growth response to local environment; not a millions-of-years evolutionary twist.  8)


http://creation.com/oyster-twist
Title: LEGO Blocks Amino Acids and Protein Folding Fun
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2014, 11:10:47 pm
(http://varsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Intellectual-Property.jpg)(http://www.nativevillage.org/Archives/2009%20Archives/MAY%20News/V3%20May%202009/world_according_to_monsanto_poster.jpg)

The Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case involved a Canadian farmer who discovered Roundup Ready Canola seed in his farm despite never using it.
Users of this weed controller are forced to enter into an agreement with Monsanto that specifies the repurchase of the new seed every year, along with an annual licensing fee.

Percy Schmeiser was a canola breeder in Canada, but had never used Monsanto’s products. Unfortunately, he discovered that a section of his field was resistant to the herbicide Roundup, the harvest was sold without him knowing. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. The farm maintained that the selling of Roundup ready crop was accidental, and the seed had flown into the harvest from a passing truck. The court found Schmeiser guilty  >:(, as growing GM plants constitutes using patented GMO’s.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)


It's the LAW! Monsanto REARRANGED genetic material so they OWN the patent to the GMO, RIGHT?

They OWN the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY to the GMO they, painstakingly and with deliberate, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, CREATED with their KNOWLEDGE of Molecular biology and genetics.  ;D

These GMOs are NOT the result of RANDOM MUTATIONS. Monsanto created them so they must be credited with the work done to create them (even if the creation wasn't ex nihllo. Whaddaya want, eggs in yer beer!!?  ;D). 



To understand how Monsanto LOGIC ;D works, let's pretend a unique LEGO Block represents every one of the 20 AMINO ACIDS that exist and compose proteins in ALL LIVING THINGS.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914223702.png)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914230448.png)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914225020.png)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdM7zMUzH_Y&feature=player_embedded

Now, please watch an animation of an ACTUAL HEMOGLOBIN Protein being manufactured at link to the video after the description.

Description: Fascinating clip explaining how densely packed information (in the form of DNA) is unpacked, turning said information into actual proteins.

This process of transcription and translation is in all aspects a complete language system, with sender, receiver, messenger, and translation algorithms.


This language convention and the transcendent information it conveys defies evolutionary dogma at every turn.

http://www.savevid.com/video/dna-transcription-amp-translation.html

 (http://www.mediawebapps.com/upload/quotes-20.jpg)


Title: More Darwinian Fantasies from the Evolution True Believers
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2014, 08:03:20 pm
Color vision as we know it resulted from one fortuitous genetic event after another.

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41055/title/The-Rainbow-Connection/


Agelbert NOTE: My, what a LUCKY and FORTUITIOUS Universe we live in!  ;D God? What God? No God here, there or ANYWHERE. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)


(http://www.the-scientist.com/images/Oct2014/pg46.jpg)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-031014195733.jpeg)
 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180725.gif)
Title: Can you tell the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection?
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2014, 10:07:58 pm
Can you tell the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection?

Muddy Waters


Clarifying the confusion about natural selection


by Carl Wieland

‘Natural selection’ is often referred to as ‘survival of the fittest’ or, more recently, ‘reproduction of the fittest’. Many people are confused about it, thinking that evidence for natural selection is automatically evidence for the idea that molecules turned into microbes, which became millipedes, magnolias and managing directors. Most presentations of evolution add to the confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true; natural selection by itself makes no new things.
 
Darwin the plagiarist?

Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873), wrote about it in 1835–7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth.1 An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which don’t have it). Over succeeding generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population. Such an improved chance of reproductive success (i.e. having offspring) might be obtained in several ways:

A greater chance of survival. I.e. the organism is ‘more fit to survive’. This is what ‘survival of the fittest’ means, by the way; it does not necessarily refer to physical fitness as commonly understood. If you are more (or less) likely to survive, you are correspondingly more (or less) likely to have offspring, and thus to pass your genes on. For instance, genes for longer hair will improve an animal’s chances of surviving in a cold climate. Genes for white colouring will improve the camouflage of a bear in a snowy wilderness (camouflage does not just help an animal avoid being caught and eaten; it can also help a predator to sneak up on prey). By thus being more likely to avoid starvation, a lighter-coloured bear is more likely to be around to pass its lighter colouring on to the next generation.

A greater chance of finding a mate. If the females of a fish species habitually prefer mates with longer tails, then male fish with genes for longer tails will have more chance of reproducing, on average, so that their genes (which include those for long tails) have more chance of getting copied. The long-tail genes (and thus the long-tail variety) will therefore become more common in that population.

Any other way of enhancing reproductive success. Consider a plant species, the seeds of which are dispersed by wind. If it has genes which give its seeds a shape that confers on them slightly better aerodynamic ‘lift’ than the seeds of its fellows, then the genes for that particular trait (and thus the trait itself) will be favoured, i.e. ‘selected’ in this ‘natural’ way, hence the term. Conversely, if that plant species happens to be on a small island, seeds which travel far are going to be more likely to be ‘lost at sea’. Hence genes which give less ‘lift’ will be favoured. Presuming that genes for both short-distance and long-distance seed air travel were available, this simple effect would ensure that all the members of an island population of such plants would eventually produce only ‘short-flight’ seeds; genes for ‘long-flight’ seeds would have been eliminated.

Adaptation

In such a way, creatures can become more adapted (better suited) to the environment in which they find themselves. Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on (see diagram above). In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for short roots, so they will be of the ‘long root’ type. They are now better adapted to dry conditions than their forebears were.

Diagram (at link)

Darwin’s belief


This adaptation, really a ‘fine-tuning to the environment’, was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative, and virtually without limits. If ‘new’ varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.

It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.

The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes were present.

Built-in limits to variation

Dogs

In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their information indefinitely.

This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of (in this case, artificial) selection—the principle is exactly the same as natural selection. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses—big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety—the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses—the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization (or ‘adaptation’, in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the ‘environment’), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively ‘thinned out’ or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.

These obvious, logical facts make it clear that natural selection is a far cry from the creative, ‘uphill’, limitless process imagined by Darwin (and many of today’s lay-folk, beguiled by sloppy public education).

Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that they must rely on some other process to create the required new information, because the evolution story demands it. Once upon a time, it says, there was a world of living creatures with no lungs. Then the information for lungs somehow arose, but feathers were nowhere in the world—later these arose too. But the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. It is a process of ‘culling’, of choosing between several things which must first be in existence.

Natural election

Darwin
Charles Darwin, TFE Grafik (at link)


In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin (left) to the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes.  :o A prominent member of the Academy gave the reason as follows:
Quote

‘What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame—the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.’1

However, later on 5 August 1878, Darwin was elected a Corresponding Member in the Botanical Section of the same French Institute.  :o Darwin wrote to Asa Gray as follows:

‘It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea is a Leguminous one.’2

References

1.From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., London,  2:400, footnote, 1911.
2.Ref. 1, p. 401.

How do evolutionists explain new information?   ???

Since natural selection can only cull, today’s evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’3 His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work.4 (See ‘Blindingly obvious?’.)

In summary:

1.Natural selection adds no information, in fact it reduces it.
2.Evolution requires a way to add new information.
3.Mutations (genetic copying mistakes) must be invoked to explain how new information arose in order for natural selection to ‘guide’ the assumed evolutionary process.
4.Mutations studied to date all appear to be losses of information—not surprising for a random process.5
5.It is thus quite illegitimate to use instances in which natural selection is happening (reducing the information in populations) as examples of ‘evolution happening’.
6.Natural selection, operating on the created information in the original gene pools, makes good sense in a fallen world.
It can fine-tune the way in which organisms ‘fit’ their environment, and help stave off extinction in a cursed, dying world. By ‘splitting’ a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to the amount of observed variety within the descendants of an original kind, just as with the many varieties of horse from one type. Even new ‘species’ can come about like that, but no new information. This helps to explain greater diversity today than on board the Ark.

Perhaps if evolution’s ‘true believers’ really had convincing evidence of a creative process, they would not feel obliged to muddy the waters so often by presenting this ‘downhill’ process (natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the ultimate ‘uphill’ climb—molecules-to-man evolution.

We need to tell this increasingly educated world how the facts about biological change connect to the real history of the world from the Bible, to help them understand and believe the Gospel message that is firmly based upon this real history.
 


Photo by David Cook  {at the link)
Shrimp



Blindingly obvious?


A CMI speaker visiting a cave in Australia was told by the guide about a blind shrimp which, in that lightless environment, had ‘evolved the ability not to see’. (!)

Obviously, a mutation (genetic copying mistake) causing blindness in a shrimp living in the light would normally hinder its ability to survive. However, it would not be a handicap where there was no light, and as a side benefit, the shrimp would not be susceptible to eye infections like its still-seeing relatives.

This slight advantage is enough to ensure that, after a few dozens of generations, all the shrimps will carry the defective gene, and thus will all be blind. They have not in fact evolved any abilities, they have lost one.

A loss can be a survival advantage, but it is still a loss. The evolutionary belief demands that massive amounts of new information have arisen over time; showing how information is lost or corrupted can scarcely be said to support this belief. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

http://creation.com/muddy-waters
 
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on November 22, 2014, 12:33:20 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7TVSRGft8&feature=player_embedded
The Naked Emperor
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2014, 07:27:15 pm
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 


FAQ:

1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "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." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

2) When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 800 scientists, both in the United States and around the world. 

3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as  a professor of medicine. Signatories must also agree with the following statement: "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." If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing contact@Dissentfromdarwin.com.

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by doctors who dissent from Darwinism.

4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signatories endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.  Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No.  It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory. 

7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

Dissent List (page ONE of TWENTY TWO):


Quote
“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.”

This was last publicly updated April, 2014.

Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science

FULL Dissent List:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RASgI8UCy0o/UG253WL1bLI/AAAAAAAABV0/sCdXzsDCLdk/s1600/bugs%2Bbunny%2Brides%2Bagain.png)
(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-022.gif)


Title: Vestigial Organs?
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2014, 11:43:59 pm
Vestigial organs

Quote
An idea destructive to medical science and our health

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

By Robert H. Franks

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

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

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

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

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


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


Semi-lunar membrane

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

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

Pineal gland

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

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

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

Ear muscles

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

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

Wisdom teeth

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

Tonsils

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

Thymus

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

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

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

Nipples

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

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

Appendix

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

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

Coccyx

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

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

Conclusion

In view of the history of this subject, it would seem wise not to claim any organs at all as vestigial.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

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


(http://creationtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4156.png)

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

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

Related Media
Vestigial Organs
http://creation.com/do-humans-have-vestigial-organs
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 27, 2014, 01:51:39 am
MORE PROOF that Wall Streeters are EVOLUTIONARY DEAD ENDS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWs6bf7tvI&feature=player_embedded
This is NOT what I was taught about Darwin's Theory in College Biology. But it's nice that they are fighting Wall Street's CELEBRATION of GREED with some HARD SCIENCE!        (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 31, 2014, 08:28:23 pm
Quoted from an Essay on Dogma and the Universe by C.S. Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2015, 08:02:58 pm

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&feature=player_embedded
I won't hold my breath waiting for those so THREATENED by religions in general, and Christian Fundamentalists in particular  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif),  to UNDERSTAND how a much GREATER a threat to science and rationality the DARWINST RELIGION IS. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

Science has stated that 250 COMPLEX proteins are required for the most simple life form to form in the correct order. Mathematicians have stated that it is statistically impossible, in 12-14 billion years, for that many complex proteins to "mutate" into the proper sequence. I've written about that here before. Twelve Billion years is not even ONE PERCENT of the time needed for that to occur. A NON-RANDOM event produced life, PERIOD. The latest hypothesis is that we were "seeded" by intelligent life. Who made them? NOBODY! You see, there are trillions of parallel universes with trillions of variations. SO, in one of THOSE, there was enough TIME for those 250 proteins to get this show on the road. Umpteen billions later, the aliens got huge brains. Then they found our YOUNG universe and seeded it. End of story! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

Homo SAPS are expert
in demonizing any teachings that, no matter how rational, would require acceptance of the mere possibility (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif) that they OWE THEIR EXISTENCE to a superior being (unless it's ET). So it goes.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2015, 08:52:34 pm
Eddie said,
Quote
The term "evolution" has been completely struck from the text books, and has been replaced with euphemisms designed to placate the fundies, like "change over time" and "developmental progression". Did you know that there are 94 synonyms for evolution? And that textbook writers are expected to use them in order to be "more precise"?

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

Your argument against "force feeding" creationism is a form of mockery. Next you will be telling us creationism requires we believe the earth is 6,000 years old and is flat too.   (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I see you weigh in equally against intolerance on both issues, I will accept you are being objective. Yeah, I know, you aren't going to lose any sleep over my opinion. Join the crowd.  ::)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2015, 08:33:50 pm
Eddie provided us this gem of erudition. I consider it a diversion from the real issue. Nevertheless, I will argue the merits:

Quote
THEORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was quite a cheap shot, pal! Shame on you.   (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)

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

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

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

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

You are defending a BELIEF system, not science. You think if that belief system is discredited, SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY will be discredited.  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif) That's why you use every tool in the book to mock and discredit THE EVIDENCE that makes mincemeat out of the Theory BELIEF in Evolution. I accepted that possibility back then. It beat the hell out of magic and incantations.   :icon_mrgreen: It seemed to be CFS.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif)

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

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

I READ science, as you do. I have been doing it steadily for about 30 years. I am sick to death of seeing every damned thing they can't figure out, and other things TOTALLY unrelated as well, to be explained away as evolution this and evolution that. The most outlandish bull**** is presented in science articles AND papers WITHOUT PROOF as "scientific conjecture" with "evolution coulda done dat" attached to it. Subsequently, every tenured groupthinker that knows which side his bread is buttered on says, "AMEN, brother!". (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

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

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

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

7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

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

http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/ (http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2015, 10:36:22 pm
FACTS and QUOTES from: The Origin of the Species (sixth Edition published in 1872)

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

SNIPPET:

b) Hundreds of equivocations

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

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

c) No actual evidence of anything

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

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

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

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

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

Muddy waters: clarifying the confusion about natural section

Natural selection ≠ evolution

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

How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment


  Exploring the God Question: 2, Life and Evolution, Part 1 (Darwinism) (http://creation.com/exploring-evolution-darwinism)

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

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

RIGHT! It's Christianity that pushes justification for offing the useless eaters, hysterics about carrying capacity, justification for wars for oil, game theory, survival of the meanest mother F'ing apex predator by any means needed to destroy the competition and, last but not least, experimentation on living beings, be they humans or not, is A-f u c k ing okay for the "good" of science!  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)
Keep believin', true believers! It's all those whacko Christians that are messing up this planet... Just get rid of ALL of us superstitious whackos and then everything will be just fine in your truly rational, logical. prudent, measured, do the math, f u c k your buddy world.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2015, 03:52:56 pm

Quote
THEORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       

JRM said,
Quote

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

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

 



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

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

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

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

JRM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these facts:

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

2) ALL species skeletons (and human artifacts) found in the "wrong" strata (BELOW creatures that we supposedly evolved from) are NEVER published (but they ARE documented -and I can prove that too!). The consensus "scientific" view is that some fissure opened from an earthquake and dropped the artifact or the "out of place" skeleton into the aged strata. The fact that NO EVIDENCE of erosion, rock banding or any other well studied geological process having occurred to SAVE a good evolution story can be found is "irrelevant".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif)  They'll figure it out someday, they claim.   ::)

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

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

5) Rock dating ALWAYS produces SEVERAL different dates that vary by millions of years. Now you would expect that the published dates would be an average or a mean.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

But no, this is what they do, JRM. This is SOP (standard operating procedure) in rock dating. Research is done in the scientific literature of other fossils in this type of rock strata (see CONSENSUS VIEW and how to avoid ruining a "scientific" career  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif)). Then, the date is chosen from the rock dating data that is AT LEAST as old as that stated in the literature.  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif) But that's not the BEST PART. LOL! ANY date OLDER than the literature instantly becomes the "new" age!

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

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

How can so many scientists be wrong?
Quote

Michael Crichton on consensus science

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

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

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

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

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

That's we are supposed to believe goes on in the study of fossils. But exactly what he states as NOT SCIENCE is what is taking place. That's why I am so incensed about it. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)


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

This "evolution" rabbit hole is DEEP, pal.

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


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


NON-RANDOM events produced Sentience as well as COMPLEX biological life forms. SET FAILS to explain either (see:  Chaplin in the Lion cage (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/pollution/msg2557/#msg2557)).
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 17, 2015, 04:43:51 pm
RE,
Your assumption that human life BEGAN MILLIONS of YEARS AGO lacks even a shred of scientific evidence. How can you so blithely come out with such assumptions?   ???  Spare me the "any moron knows we evolved to be humans millions of years ago" consensus scientific world view. I'm painfully aware of it. It's not science (evidence) based. It's half baked conjecture. Try arguing the merits instead of pulling the "everybody knows" business on me, godfader.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

Darwin is on MY SIDE of this anti-evolution argument!  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)

 
If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution!  :o
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png)
2 minute video on the probability of single celled life occuring randomly
http://viewrz.com/video/single-celled-life-probability (http://viewrz.com/video/single-celled-life-probability)
4 minute video on cell complexity
http://viewrz.com/video/cell-complexity (http://viewrz.com/video/cell-complexity)

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

Quote
Observation, hypothesis, proof.

All else is bullshitting around the campfire.

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

If you insist on clinging to a good story sans evidence, you are not doing science, you are doing consensus groupthink. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2015, 09:53:55 pm
The boy who’s proud to be a killer

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


by Warren Nunn

Published: 22 January 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article here:
http://creation.com/will-cornick-murders-teacher
(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p098/c09872/9872-how-to-3.jpg)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2015, 06:59:50 pm
I have been away. I see the old arguments continue.

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

I am also quite willing to discuss the probability of obtaining the most simple of organisms (About 250 complex proteins in a precise sequence) through random mutations in a 12 to 14 billion year old universe.   (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)

At the end of that logical chain is the giant bone of contention, Intelligent Design. I think it is futile to discuss ID without getting into the evidence, or lack of it, for SET. It's a waste of time and produces shouting matches. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)


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

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

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

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

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

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013160639.png)

No transitional Fossils  ???


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

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png)
In the last several decades, the fossils in the Cambrian Explosion have been found to be highly complex. I think Darwin would be willing to question his own theory based on the latest scientific findings. But it doesn't really matter what Darwin would say, does it? What matters is whether the scientific community is willing to weigh the evidence AGAINST SET dispassionately or will they irrationally and unscientifically cling to their pet theory?

Well, the clingers are clinging like crazy. I have some info from a scientist that demonstrates the Darwinist belief system rejects hard scientific evidence even though the test was done 17 times by a credentialed researcher!  But I'll get to that after we all agree that the fossil record does NOT support SET.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2015, 07:02:01 pm
Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4011.msg65072#msg65072
There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

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

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

So far you are not produced ANY scientific evidence which supports SET, only loose analogies and thought experiments. The genomic similarities between species is obviously, by itself, not any evidence of a common ancestor. Rather it is easily explained in terms of a designer who uses common templates in his creative process.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2015, 07:05:13 pm
JoeMc says
Quote
"Hey, you know what all these genomes are telling us? They're telling us that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and the reason there are different species, is because they evolved through natural selection."

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

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

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

I am talking about encoding that PREVENTS speciation. It's there. EVERY CELL IN EVERY EARTHLING HAS IT. It's a watch dog. Did you not learn about it in your ecology courses? HOW does a code for life that, according to SET, came into being RANDOMLY encode to AVOID randomness, JoeM? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif)

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

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

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

That said, GMOers have had some (VERY) limited success at getting complex life forms to incorporate new genetic information. But there is no way in hell that anybody can call THAT evidence of how "tight" SET is. The evidence proves that ONLY by GMOing life forms (i.e. "Intelligent" Homo SAP Design   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)) can you CROSS THE SPECIES BARRIER encoded in the DNA.

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

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


It is clear that you have never actually read some of the hard scientific literature about the gargantuan number of possibilities present, even if you have 250 complex proteins AVAILABLE RANDOMLY in the CORRECT sequence (impossible in 14 billion years), to CODE the DNA so it will ERROR CORRECT (prevent change) in defense of the life form template.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2015, 07:09:18 pm
Reposted from thread at doomstead diner http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4011.msg65174.html#msg65174

I've been reading the four pages of posts. I will ignore the snark. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif)

I believe the discussion of entropy merits some clarification.

ENTROPY EVIDENCED in LIFE FORM THERMODYNAMICS:

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

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

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

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

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

(http://web2.utc.edu/~fbp972/educ575/wq04MichaelKavur/image002.jpg)
The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

And entropy flies in the face of the increasing complexity of life forms postulated by SET. Yeah, there is a LOT of complexity out there in life forms. Science DOES NOT have an answer to that one, despite what JoeMc claims.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2015, 07:16:19 pm
Let's be clear. I do believe Darwin was a serious scientist attempting to explain the Origin of Species. If you want to call that GUT because the word "Evolution" has been applied UNSCIENTIFCALLY (i.e. sans natural selection in precise combination with random mutations) to several disciplines from cosmology to protein synthesis, that's fine with me. But when we are discussing SCIENCE, specificity is the key to understanding.  Broad, general terms appealing to consensus "authority" do not cut it. So please keep your GUT out of the discussion and keep specific issues in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Homo SAP GMOing  of E. coli to make it produce insulin and/or what Monsanto does to plant genomes is an OBSERVED example of Intelligent Design by humans (depending on your point of view.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)). At any rate, neither natural selection or random mutation mechanisms are in evidence so GMO changes CANNOT be defined as Evolution according to SET or GUT.
 


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


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

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

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

http://viewrz.com/video/demarcation-argument (http://viewrz.com/video/demarcation-argument) (five minute video)   (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 

Ashvin and Ka, both scholars and philosophers that can argue the fur off a grizzly bear, will probably enjoy his answer.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)  I leave it to them to get into the details of the Demarcation Argument (often used to restrict definitions in order to defend consensus view).

The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
Title: We don’t need the Bible to know we have a moral obligation
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2015, 04:46:45 pm
We don’t need the Bible to know we have a moral obligation   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Ashvin, I just read this. It's been over a year since I reviewed that passage. I find it useful as a reminder that we don’t need the Bible to know we have a moral obligation to worship God and give thanks to Him. I provide it for you to use in your arguments with those who love to mock scripture. They don't have a logical leg to stand on but they never stop trying to pretend they are being reasonable and ethical. So it goes.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:18–21, NET; emphases added).


Gandhi, though not a Christian, explained the principles of morality in human behavior by detailing what IMMORALITY in human behavior is. Everyone that has two brain cells to rub together is well aware of how celebrated that immorality is in modern culture. Of course most of them think morality (and immorality) came from natural selection and random mutations. They also think immoral, devious behavior is an evolutionary mark of intelligence because meat eating predators use tricks to fool their prey while those that aren't meat eaters don't. We know better.

Gandhi's Seven Sins:
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle


Agelbert NOTE: The COMMON GROUND on the seven Wall Street principles of Evolutionary Success above is: The ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness.


Anyone who thinks Gandhi became aware of these human failings because he was "highly evolved" is a DELUDED FOOL.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2015, 09:39:09 pm
Ashvin
The problem you have here is that you are dealing with a pack of fine fellows who demarcate everything you say OUT of their "this makes sense" logic circuits before they even frame an answer. Consequently, you get a large helping of snark, chain pulling and mockery.

These fellows in general, and MKing in particular, have a rather "special" definition of what scientific logic and acceptable discourse is. They are so locked into the consensus view that there ain't no creator and we all just evolved from single celled life which popped out of the "RNA World" one day because of a certain type of crystal structure in a certain type of clay (and so on - all without a shred of reproducibility in the lab) because God just cannot exist! So there!

A real world paleontologist peer reviewer that thinks JUST LIKE MKING had a reaction to Scientist Mary Schweitzer's tissue analysis results on T-Rex soft tissue that exemplifies what you are up against when you try to reason with closed minded types. The tissue was processed 17 TIMES with the same incredible results (scientific hard evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin - IMPOSSIBLE in anything over several thousand years old  :o).

When Schwietzer was getting her paper ready for publishing said repeated and accurate scientific evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin (and soft tissue with blood vessels, collagen and the organic molecules that compose them STILL PRESENT and not fossilized), this is the "logic" that the MKing clone arrogantly assumed:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240115200918.png)
And then these logic and truth challenged "scientists" have the BRASS to claim they stick to the scientific method! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) EVERY SINGLE TIME their consensus view is challenged by hard science, they claim the hard science is WRONG!   :emthdown:

That is why MKing is such a joke as a "scientist" and that is why he wastes no time in hurling as much abuse, ridicule and arrogant puffery at anyone who questions his rigid, unscientific views, not just about theism, but a host of other issues as well.

If these fine fellows that worship accept  ;D the "scientific" consensus that life emerged from random mutations and natural selection were green skinned Chlorophyll covered creatures shaped like a giant Paramecium that arrived here from another planet in a flying saucer, they would come to following conclusion when they observed Mount Rushmore:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250115210019.png)


Ashvin, I have often wondered why you waste your time with these mockers. It may be that you are sort of like Ezekiel, who was sent to talk to people about God even though they would not listen so they would be without excuse when this life is over and they try to claim nobody warned them. May God bless your efforts.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2015, 10:28:42 pm
Your assumption that because we all have DNA, synthesize proteins, have form following function analogous "peripherals" like limbs, bone structure, nervous systems, cartilage and so on explains nothing about HOW all these separate and distinct species BECAME separate and distinct from the speciation of single celled life. Correlation is not causation here because life, speciation and replication comes from the DNA code, not from the observed hundreds of thousands of species that are the PRODUCT of a VERY species specific, non-random code sequence that fights tooth and nail to prevent any modifications in it.

The only thing a gene wants to do, is replicate itself. All it wants to do is stay the same. Everything it has ever made - from the first self replicating molecule, to a hair in your armpit - was made so that it can stay the same. It has absolutely zero desire to speciate. All the animals, plants and whatever individuals that carry it, they want to stay the same too.

Trying to maintain homeostasis is one of the main definitions of a living being. And it doesn't just apply to individuals, it applies down the generations. A gene wants to stay the same in the zygote stage, the gamete stage, through the embryonic stage and into the next generation.

This phenomenon is not ignored by the theory of evolution. It is not something that has been overlooked by amateur detectives. You could ask the theory of evolution two questions: how do living beings change? and how do living beings stay the same? The answer is in both cases evolution by natural selection.  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif)(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)


What you have is an individual. It could be a gene, a genome, or a human being - that is three levels of individuation. Then you have everything outside the individual - let's call that everything "nature." Now the individual wants to stay the same, but nature is always changing. Night to day, summer to winter, hot to cold, hospitable to deadly. How does the individual stay the same in this changing environment? It changes! If it doesn't change it doesn't survive. It either has to change itself, or it has to change its environment, but it has to change if it wants to sustain its existence.

What I am saying is not a threat warning agelbert, it's an advice warning. It is completely for the benefit of both of us. Call it a signal - between me and you. It is both honest and true. It is just 4 little words, some pixels on your screen, put there by me to change you. Not only that, but this honest and true signal can replicate itself. it is a meme. It didn't just spring up from nothing, I got it from someone else. That person got it from someone else, they gathered the necessary words together - replicated the meme - and passed it on to me. Now it's my turn to replicate the meme, I gather the words "evolution" "by" "natural" and "selection" and I pass them on:

Evolution by natural selection.

I have done my bit for the meme, so read it; drink it in. It is both honest and true. Now that meme exists on its own, but it also exists in groupings of memes that form unified bodies, such as the teachings of ecology, the teachings of biology and of environmental science. The meme itself exists, because it is in those bodies - and those bodies exist in an environment full of memes in which they survive.

-----------------------

I didn't really join this board to debate the science of life, but what I have to say on doomstead diner is very much informed by the theory of evolution by natural selection, because humans are changing the environment to such an extent, that there will come a time when there is no niche on Earth for the human being to exist in - which is our ultimate doom.

Joseph McCafferty says,
Quote
I didn't really join this board to debate the science of life, ....
You have made that rather clear in every post you have made on this thread. I won't even try to ask you where you get the idea that genes have consciousness (they "want to" what?  ;)). There is a LOT more to genes than replication. Folding and unfolding as well as chaperoning unfolded protein sequences until they arrive at a specific location to be folded just so (SAME sequences folded DIFFERENTLY produce different enzymes and other types of proteins, pal!). There's much. much more to a gene than replication.

But, you are quite comfortable with your world view and not interested in anything that might possibly provide evidence against it.

You demarcate everything I say OUT of your "this makes sense" logic circuits before you even frame an answer. Consequently, you gravitate quickly towards snark, chain pulling and mockery.

You have a rather "special" definition of what scientific logic and acceptable discourse is. You are so locked into the consensus view that we all just evolved from single celled life which popped out of the "RNA World" one day because of a certain type of crystal structure in a certain type of clay (and so on - all without a shred of reproducibility in the lab) because "science" says so! So there! 

A real world paleontologist peer reviewer that thinks JUST LIKE YOU had a reaction to Scientist Mary Schweitzer's tissue analysis results on T-Rex soft tissue that exemplifies what I am up against when I try to reason with closed minded types. The tissue was processed 17 TIMES with the same incredible results (scientific hard evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin - IMPOSSIBLE in anything over several thousand years old  :o).

When Schwietzer was getting her paper ready for publishing said repeated and accurate scientific evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin (and soft tissue with blood vessels, collagen and the organic molecules that compose them STILL PRESENT and not fossilized), this is the "logic" that the Joseph McCafferty clone arrogantly assumed:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240115200918.png)
And then these logic and truth challenged "scientists" have the BRASS to claim they stick to the scientific method! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) EVERY SINGLE TIME their consensus view is challenged by hard science, they claim the hard science is WRONG!   :emthdown:

If these you fellows that worship accept  ;D the "scientific" consensus that life emerged from random mutations and natural selection were green skinned Chlorophyll covered creatures shaped like a giant Paramecium that arrived here from another planet in a flying saucer, you would come to following conclusion when you observed Mount Rushmore:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250115210019.png)

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2015, 09:39:33 pm
Quote
Seriously, T-rex soft tissue?

WHD

Thank you for confirming that your world view of the age of T-Rex is based on beliefs, not science. Don't bother to Google Mary Schweitzer who, by the way, is a scientist that DEFENDS SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory). She was just following the evidence from the hard data, as all true scientists are supposed to do.  :emthup:

Don't bother to study mineralization of bones into fossils. Ignore the empirical evidence that mineralization (where carbon dating becomes impossible because all the organic carbon has been replaced) can take place in less than a century.  ;D

I don't know how old those dino bones are. But what you cannot get through your head is that there is ZERO proof that they are millions of years old. What part of "ZERO PROOF" do you not understand?

Here's what science (not those that claim erroneously, in my view, that the earth was created 6,000 years ago - I agree the ROCKS are billions of years old - the LIFE FORMS are another matter) says about dating technique time measurements:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270115151417.png)

That's what they use, PERIOD. That's what they have, PERIOD. That's the science, PERIOD.

Now then, what happens when they find a mosquito "fossil" in 20 to 40 million year old rock strata and that mosquito has some amazingly preserved blood from a meal just before it was killed? Yes, that actually happened less than two years ago in some grand canyon rock strata. I reported on it here.

Hemoglobin is a quaternary structured protein that denatures quickly unless, according to scientists, it is preserved in amber. This is the one way that it can last a long, long time without become mineralized. The heme group in the hemoglobin molecule has iron AND CARBON in it.

All organic carbon has a proportion of C-14 to C-12 (the more common isotope of carbon). The older the dead life form is, the less C-14 it has in it. By computing the ratio of C-12 to C-14, they get a date. If that mosquito has ANY C-14 left in that blood, it CANNOT be more than 100,000 years or so old. If it has ZERO C-14, then it can be a lot older. So then they try some other dating technique.

The (near to) Grand Canyon mosquito is not preserved in amber but it has intact blood with intact hemoglobin molecules in it. They haven't figured that one out yet.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

So, a scientist MUST set up two competing hypotheses to explain the data:

1. The strata is improperly dated and the mosquito is not 20 to 40 million years old.
OR
2. The strata is properly dated and science is wrong about how long blood can be preserved in rock strata.


Both of the above lead unavoidably to a shake up of the consensus view about dating methods. Bot are a pain in ARSE to established scientific consensus.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif) One questions our knowledge of hematology and the denaturing processes in quaternary structured proteins which is used extensively in forensic analysis of dead humans and animals to determine approximate dates of death.  The other brings into question rock strata dating methodology.

But the Darwinists don't want to go where the science leads them, so they question the data. Mary Shweitzer, a scientist that KNOWS which way the "wind" is blowing for her career  :icon_mrgreen:, has gone on record to state that this is the only recorded evidence of the soft tissue preservation by an, as yet, unexplained process, of a life form that died 65 million years ago.  ;) 

Well, at least she didn't reject the data.  ::)

But you did. Thank you for confirming that when the data does not fit your belief system, you reject the data.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 08, 2015, 03:43:17 pm
SET = Standard Evolution Theory

Devolution = descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.


A Neo-Darwinian SET Apologist tries to have it both ways. A commenter calmly explains that going down is not going up just because both actions evidence change. (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 


Is the human race evolving or devolving?
July 20, 1998

THE MONEY QUOTES:
Quote

From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully.

As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a changing environment.

Another misconception (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif) is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


Agelbert NOTE:
At this point, anyone with a lick of sense would say, AHA! It looks like we are becoming LESS fit, not more so, right? This would argue forcefully that natural selection is a subtractive process, right?  ;D

Oh, but you do not understand the pliability of reality when a Dr. Doubletalk wants to say that DOWN is equal to UP.  ;)

Now our dear Dougherty proceeds to defend his accurate statement, not with the wolves to dogs devolution, for which there is DNA SUBTRACTION evidence for, but with the old "fossil record" trick.  ;)

You know, the one that isn't just incomplete, as in 80% complete, but sporadic to missing for millions of years!

You know, the one that only forms in very special conditions.

You know, the one evidenced to be UNNATURAL preservation of mineralized skeletal structures in a biosphere that, with very few exceptions, ALWAYS recycles 100% of living matter.


Never mind all that HARD SCIENTIFC DATA; "scientific" speculation = "irrefutable" evidence is what Evolutionists are famous for.

The following statements are speculative BECAUSE the fossils for all the mentioned vertebrates are assumed to be the precursors of modern vertebrate species from fish TO reptiles TO mammals.  ::)  Yet, our dear scientist uses this speculation as "proof" of his "down is equal to up" illogic. Of course, MKing, Palloy and several others here  will obediently nod their heads up and down as they read this speculation, accepting it as hard "scientific evidence". LOL!
Quote

For example, the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof.

Evolution, not devolution, selected for those adaptations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-human-race-evolvin/

A polite commenter gives Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo., the Ashvin knockout punch.  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 
Quote
THEMAYAN November 8, 2011, 1:22 AM

Its interesting how fast and loose the term evolution can be used.

Is it really honest to say that any change, even degenerative change is evidence of macro evolution simply because even degeneration can technically be considered change, therefore evolution?  ;D

Shouldn't evolution go from simple to more complex, or at least be able to explain where or how the already complex parent population came to exist in the first place?  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

Lets either extend the neo Darwinian/modern synthesis, or admit its severe limitations as an explanatory mechanism in being able to quantify macro change.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)

The modern synthesis is severely out of date and no longer modern but antiquated.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 08, 2015, 06:52:00 pm
MKing's non-argument to RE
Quote
Science is about evidence. On this topic, they indicate they have it.

The words "UNTESTABLE' and "ARBITRARY", in the article you claim is "Evidence", means the are speculating. Science certainly DOES include speculation. It REQUIRES it in order to make a hypothesis. that's cool.

Your problem is distinguishing between a PROVEN hypothesis and an UNPROVEN one. You are free, as the scientists in your article are, to claim whatever you wish. But claiming "evidence" of speciation without TESTED and UNARBITRARY evidence is speculation.

The only "EVIDENCE' that the scientific method can accept is actual EVIDENCE.

By the way, adaptation is rather different from speciation. Adaptation occurs when the DNA PACKAGE has genes within it that can be TURNED ON (or off) in certain environmental conditions. No 'evolution' is necessary (see long and short legged dogs from human imposed selection for specialized hunting skills).

Speciation, as claimed by your article, is 100% speculative. Partial speciation does not exist. Either you have it, or you don't.

The only present hard scientific claim to new speciation is that of E. Coli being able to perform some biochemistry that E. coli has "rarely" (according to the scientific literature) been able to perform. Because some Staph species does this routinely, the claim that E. Coli is "evolving" into a Staph like bacterium has been postulated. It occurred spontaneously. This is the longest running attempt to observe 'evolution' in modern science (going for several decades of 24/7 E. Coli multi-thousand generation lab observation as of this date).

Unfortunately for the scientists in the E. coli study, it's STILL E. Coli, not Staph. Besides doing the same biochemical trick that a staph species does, it does nothing else different from E. coli and just about everything different from the staph mentioned.

Nevertheless, this SPECULATION is accepted by the scientific community that claims, like you, that they ONLY deal with evidence. Is accepting this speculation as "evidence" of speciation (and/or evolution) part of the scientific method? NOPE!

I guess somebody else told them to drop their "evidence of speciation" claims I read about last summer. It has disappeared. How prudent of them.  :icon_mrgreen: But they are still valiantly claiming they have "evidence" of EVOLUTION.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Quote
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.[2]

The RESULTS CLAIMED:
Quote

Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population

Evolution of increased cell size in all twelve populations

Continued increase in fitness

Sorry, they are STILL E. Coli. Not only that, but evidence of degraded DNA has emerged. It is a credit to these scientists that they admit it. That is good science.

Quote
Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.

Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)

On the other hand, the claimed evolution evidence results HAVE NOT been backed up by genetic evidence showing exactly which NEW plasmid entered into the E. coli genome for all 12 populations to make 'larger cells, aerobic citrate use in one population and the rather nebulous broad claim of "continued increase in fitness" (see wishful thinking).

No ticket, no laundry, MKing. E. coli is the pet bacterium of molecular biologists. The love it more than Drosophila melanagoster (fruit fly! They trained it to make insulin over 30 years ago. They have GMOed the living **** out of it. They KNOW exactly what is in it. they KNOW the sequence of every single gene in it. It's OLD HAT. So WHY don't these brave "do the math" scientists show us the ADDED genetic material that these twelve populations, going for over 60,000 generations now, have used to obtain "evolutionary advantages" (become "fitter"  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/muscular.gif))?

Because there AIN'T NONE. The environment caused some genes ALREADY PRESENT in the populations to code for larger cells as an ADAPTATION. THAT is Occam's razor logic until they show me the NEW genetic material, pal! Anything else is speculation, period.

(http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/images/Ecoli_o157_genome01.jpg)
E. Coli is the most studied bacterium in science.

If you want to call that evolution, you are free to do so. But it is NOT evolution if no new genetic material is incorporated according to SET.

What we see in four of those populations, and I suspect they will eventually see it in all of them, is degraded genetic material due to natural selection. I hope they continue to be honest about the degradation of DNA.  (http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png)


I wish you would be honest about that and the fact that you only use the scientific method when it proves some hypothesis and discard it when it doesn't. ;)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 08, 2015, 07:41:03 pm
How Simple Can Life Be?

Jonathan Sarfati

In Darwin’s day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous generation—that life arose from non-living matter. It was somewhat easier to believe because the cell’s structure was almost unknown. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell was a ‘simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon.’1 (Haeckel was also a notorious fraud—he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the erroneous idea that the embryo’s development recapitulated (re-traced) its alleged evolutionary ancestry)2

But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes
. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.4

Yet even this ‘simple’ organism has far too much information to be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long.5

This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey’s estimate generously presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.6

NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entities—therefore it cannot explain their origin.

[Update 14 February 2006: follow-up research led by Hamilton Smith at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville reveals that the minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes (Nature 439, 246–247 (19 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/439246a; Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103:425–430, 2006]
http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be (http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 08, 2015, 09:22:03 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080315211518.png)


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080315211622.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2015, 05:42:46 pm
Quote
Adaptation and natural selection

In nature creatures have adapted to new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection—evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.

For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.

In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.
(http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/wiki/images/7/79/3831dogs_diagram.gif)

In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate cooling drastically (as in the Ice Age). Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, long-furred variety. Note that:

They are now adapted to their environment.

They are now more specialized than their ancestors on row 1.

This has occurred through natural selection.

There have been no new genes added.


In fact, genes have been lost from the population—i.e., there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.  ;D

Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes—were the climate to become hot, there is no genetic information for short fur, so the dogs would probably overheat.

Another information-losing process occurs in sexually reproducing organisms—remember, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example, consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child’s genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively.4

A large population as a whole is less likely to lose established genes because there are usually many copies of the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good chance that information can be lost by random sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off in small numbers, they are quite likely to be eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial.5

In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.

Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2015, 07:01:38 pm
'Parade of Mutants’—Pedigree Dogs and Artificial Selection

by Lita Cosner
(http://creationrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/9-6-11-CMI-7196dogs.jpg)
Photos from istockphoto

When choosing a pet, many people opt for purebred pedigree dogs. Though they come at a price, it is easier to predict the eventual size, temperament, and needs of a purebred dog breed than for a ‘mutt’. But as a new BBC documentary, “Pedigree Dogs Exposed”,1 shows, the cost of breeding purebred dogs is genetic as well as economic.

All dogs are descendants of a wolf-like ancestor. This ancestor had the genetic diversity that allowed people to breed dogs as different in size as the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. Other traits such as colour, temperament, and exercise needs are just as diverse among the breeds. This great variability is an example of just how much genetic variation is built into the various created animal kinds.2 Other breeds, as will be shown, are the result of downhill mutations.

Genetic specialization

Over many hundreds of years, humans have produced the various breeds by specifically selecting different traits to breed for; there are currently over 200 distinct varieties of dog, but all belong to the same species, and could theoretically breed with each other, though size difference between larger and smaller breeds renders some combinations unlikely.3

The gene pool of the breeds is artificially restricted to the descendants of the originally-registered dogs from the mid-nineteenth century—in some cases, only a handful of dogs.
Over time, breeding only for certain traits allows great predictability in what a dog’s offspring will look like—a Dalmatian mated with a Dalmatian will produce Dalmatian puppies, and so on. When this occurs regularly, the type of dog becomes an official breed. But this predictability comes at a genetic cost. The breeders have drastically reduced the amount of genetic information in the population of dogs—such as for other coat colours and lengths, or different sizes or temperaments. This sort of selection is done on purpose, but there are other traits that are inadvertently selected for as well.

The bigger dog breeds become susceptible to hip dysplasia, others are plagued by heart problems. The King Charles Spaniel is prone to an extremely nasty condition, syringomyelia (SM), in which the skull is too small to house the brain. In the documentary, veterinary neurologist Clare Rusbridge described the condition: “A burning pain, a piston-type headache, abnormal sensations to even light touch, even items of clothing, a collar, for example, can induce discomfort for these animals.” She believes up to one-third of the breed could be affected by this condition.

Overall, there are 500 genetic diseases which are known to occur in dogs. This is fewer than those documented in humans, but in dogs they occur at a much higher rate. The problem is that when the gene pool has been so depleted, it is not possible to avoid breeding diseased dogs, because that would be impoverishing the gene pool even more, and could lead to new diseases and disorders in a breed.
Rusbridge acknowledged this to be true.4

Quote
“Mutts”, or even crossbred dogs, have a much lower chance of having these diseases, because many are genetically recessive—a healthy copy of the gene will override a diseased gene. Because the diseases are also often breed-specific, even breeding two purebred dogs of different breeds will normally produce much healthier offspring than a purebred mating. The mutts will have lower instances of disease as well as being slightly longer-lived on average.

A ‘Perfect’ Animal—Dog Shows

Early dog breeding mimicked natural selection—the dogs that could herd sheep or cattle, or that could defend against intruders, etc., were the ones that were bred to produce the next generation. However, with the advent of dog showing in the middle of the nineteenth century, the focus shifted away from function to aesthetics.

Competitive dog-showing, in its pursuit of perfection, has driven the various breeds to ever more drastic extremes in body proportion and shape. The Dachshund’s legs have become much shorter over the last century, but their long back often gives them spinal problems, and they often suffer epilepsy and eye problems as well. The Bull Terrier’s head has been deformed, as has that of the Pit Bull—the documentary’s computer rendering of how breeders have contorted the skull shapes showed how drastically these breeds have changed in less than a century. Bulldogs have slower relative growth of the nasal bones, and this causes breathing difficulties and the need to be born by Caesarian section.

The German Shepherd shows that these changes are carried out for purely cosmetic reasons. There are actually two varieties of German Shepherd: the working variety, which is often used in police forces and as guard dogs, and the show variety. The former looks very much like the original German Shepherd, but the show variety has a very different shape, with their back ends slouching. Orthopedic surgeon Graham Oliver described the gait of the show dogs as ataxic, lacking full coordination and control. This is the case for most of the show German Shepherds in the dog shows that were covered in the documentary.

Extreme artificial selection

In Britain, an already bad situation has been compounded in many ways by the Kennel Club’s breeding and show dog practices. First, the gene pool of the breeds is artificially restricted to the descendants of the originally-registered dogs from the mid-nineteenth century—in some cases, only a handful of dogs. This means that genetic diversity cannot be re-introduced into a breed, even if this means making the population healthier.  :emthdown:

Second, there is extreme selection for absolute perfection in appearance—breeders seek to produce dogs which adhere to the breed standard as closely as possible. This causes them to remove dogs that fall short of that standard, such as Dalmatians with non-standard markings, albino dogs, or Rhodesian Ridgebacks with no ridge, from the gene pool of the species, either by simply not mating them, or by culling them as puppies. This renders the overall population even more genetically impoverished.  :emthdown:

Third, extreme inbreeding has been the norm—it is common to mate littermates, or to mate a female dog with her “grandfather”, or “mother” to “son”. Evolutionary geneticist Steve Jones criticized the practice: “People are carrying out breeding which would be, first of all, it’s illegal in humans, and second of all, it’s absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals.” Such close interbreeding is done to ‘fix’ certain desirable traits in the line, but it also makes the dogs more disease-prone. The Kennel Club website, www.thekennelclub.org.uk, currently states that “the Kennel Club will not accept an application to register … offspring of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son, and or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstances, for scientifically-proven welfare reasons.” Even so, the average dog is much more inbred than any human is likely to be.  :emthdown:

Because there is no regulation against breeding dogs which are known to carry a genetic disease like syringomyelia, dogs with conditions like this, if they are popular studs, can go on to sire dozens of litters. This spreads the genetic disease throughout the breed.  :emthdown:

The Eugenics connection

The Eugenics movement, founded by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton,5 held that the key to human improvement was in controlling who could reproduce with whom—the idea was to improve the race by eliminating undesirable traits, and in disallowing mixing between ‘races’. While we know today that the eugenicists’ ideas about purity make no scientific sense, the documentary argues that The Kennel Club is one of the few organizations that still operate under the fundamental assumptions of eugenics. Every dog registered with the Kennel Club has an ancestry that goes back to the original registered dogs—no new registrations are allowed, and any litters resulting from breeding with non-registered dogs or breeding between two registered dogs of different breeds cannot be registered.

Because of the eugenicist principles in breeding, puppies that do not conform to the strict requirements of the breed standards are sometimes culled. This is particularly the case with Rhodesian Ridgebacks that lack ridges. While the Kennel Club, both through its spokespeople in the documentary and in the Ethics Code on its site, condemns the practice, the documentary contains statements from breeders saying that they routinely cull puppies without ridges. One even lamented the young veterinarians who refused to cull the healthy puppies! (It should be noted that although the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club code of ethics6 prescribed the culling of ridgeless puppies before the documentary aired, the page has since been modified to prohibit such acts.) The ridge is actually a mild form of spina bifida, so a slightly diseased dog is actually preferred to the healthy animal in this breed.

Genetic impoverishment

All these factors together have made modern breeds very genetically impoverished—in some breeds, only 10% of the genetic variety that was in the breed 40 years ago has been passed down to the current descendants of the breed. For instance, the Pug breed in the UK, although it has 10,000 dogs, has the genetic information equivalent to that of 50 distinct individuals. In 2004, Dr Jeff Sampson wrote:

Quote
“Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have been developed as part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds … Increasingly, inherited diseases are imposing a serious disease burden on many, if not all, breeds of dog.”

The Kennel Club, to its credit, has responded to the issues raised by the documentary. It has banned close inbreeding, along with banning the practice of culling healthy puppies for breed points. They have also revised the breed standards to discourage the extreme exaggeration of features to the point that it affects the dog’s health. It also encourages its accredited breeders to make use of any health tests to screen for genetic diseases.

How artificial selection depletes information.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315182609.jpeg)

In the example above (simplified for illustration), a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (S) carries instructions for large size, the other (s) for small size.

In row 1, we start with medium-sized animals (Ss) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.

In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either large (SS), medium (Ss) or small (ss) size. But let’s suppose that breeders want large dogs. They would select the largest dogs in the next generation to breed. Thus only the big dogs pass on genes to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, large variety. This is artificial selection, but natural selection would work on the same principle, if large dogs would do better in their environment.

Note that:

1. They are now adapted  to their environment, in this case breeders who want big dogs.

2. They are now more specialized  than their ancestors on row 1.

3. This has occurred through artificial selection , and could have occurred through natural selection.

4. There have been no new genes added

5. In fact, genes have been lost from the population—i.e. there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.

6. Not only genes for smallness were lost, but any other genes these small dogs carried. They may have had genes for endurance, strong sense of smell, and other things, but they are lost from the population. Genes on their own are not selected; it’s the whole creature and all the genes they carried.

7. Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes—if small dogs became fashionable, or would perform better in some environment, they could not be bred from this population. They are also genetically impoverished since they lack the good genes that happened to be carried by the small dogs.


Conclusion

The current state of many of the dog breeds shows what happens when selection is taken too far. These dogs, far from being more perfect, ‘evolved’, animals, were described as “a parade of mutants” by one critic in the documentary. Because they are over-specialized, they are more prone to disease and shorter-lived than their ‘mongrel’ relatives. It is clear that both artificial and natural selection work by decreasing the amount of genetic information in a population, which is the exact opposite of what evolution would require.

http://creation.com/mutant-parade-purebred-dogs
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2015, 08:55:51 pm
Palloy,
I'll have to look up "clade".    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)  I'll get back to you.

But really, old chum, this is NOT about being "on to something", what Darwin thought back then or what the church thinks now or then. ALL of that is irrelevant.

What is relevant is:

1. How many complex proteins are REQUIRED for the simplest life form? Molecular biologists have come up with numbers UNRELATED to creationist views. Atheist mathematicians have plugged the numbers in to our 14 billion year agreed age of the universe and come up short for the required time for single celled life. They know a bit more about biochemistry and probability and statistics than you do. And, as you know, in this universe, the laws of thermodynamics have a 24/7 effect on any and all events. ALL those events, if they require an ordered sequence, like complex proteins certainly do, MUST occur according to factorial computations. That's where you do not want to go, Mr. Mathematician. I suggest you review factorial math and random activity. You can give me the finger if you so desire. I don't care. Factorial is IT when you need 256 complex proteins to function ALL AT ONCE in a precisely ordered sequence.

2. You were the one that brought up the dogs. Then you dump a diagram far more complex about dog evolution than the one I posted abut trees and natural selection. You cannot ASSUME evolution just because life exists today. You need a mechanism. That mechanism is allegedly NATURAL SELECTION. That's what we are supposed to be debating, is it not?

Then you come up with all sorts of equations and start discussing alphabet soup patterns with RE. But the tree diagram is too complex for you and you don't want to read all the 'stuff' I "dump", even if it is from American Scientific?

Then you hairsplit with me about the Dire Wolf. I mentioned him because science is in agreement that he DID NOT pass on his genes to the present even though he was an apex predator in his time. As a side issue we can have a good time talking about how "apex predators", according to Darwin himself, DO NOT SURVIVE unless they cooperate in the hunt and in the protection of each other's offspring while some hunt and others show empathy, by caring for the young of others in the group. But you are enamored of that "apex predator" term, are you not? I can understand that. It's been drilled into your head since you were knee high to a grasshopper. I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face about biomass and trophic levels in the biosphere but you will remain fixated on "apex predators" as the be all, end all of evolution. I think even Darwin might have issues with your "apex predator" = MOST SUCCESSFUL views.
[(https://talesfromthelou.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/darwin-quote.jpg)

And you want me to keep it simple? Healer, heal thyself! I am trying to keep it simple.

And no, many species are alive today, NOT, as you claimed, because they are 'successful', but because ANOTHER SPECIES (see humans and dogs) is keeping them from going extinct.

The gray wolf is not as strong as a tiger but tigers are more endangered than grey wolves. WHY? Because wolves COOPERATE and empathize with other members of their clan for the good of the whole group, even at the expense of an individual that DOES NOT breed (not the alpha male or female). Tigers do not do that. Their offspring are in danger every time the tigress goes out to hunt. The more successful of the two species is the grey wolf BECAUSE he has the "strength in numbers" trait of ruminants. A trait, by the way, that Darwin puzzled about. He could not understand how natural selection would preserve cooperation and empathy in a world of tooth hand nail ruthless predation.     (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp)  He, like you, was rather partial to "apex predators", despite his reservations about accepting the Wall Street amorality (i.e."KILL BECAUSE YOU CAN") as a basic tenet of SET successful "apex predator" species perpetuation.

But that's another subject that evolutionists abhor because it makes NO SENSE, from an evolutionary standpoint, to take care of the alpha female's pups when you will never get a chance to breed. Maybe that is where you are going with that "clade" thing. It looks like dancing to me.

3. Is natural selection a DNA SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS or not? See my last two posts on Dog Devolution.  :icon_mrgreen:

If you do not wish to delve seriously into those three issues, you are not serious about debating the validity or invalidity of Standard Evolution Theory (SET).

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2015, 08:57:30 pm
Palloy,
NO, I do NOT agree to using the term "clade".
Quote

Clade and ancestor

A clade is by definition monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor (which can be an organism, a population, or a species) and all its descendants.[note 1][3][4] The ancestor can be known or unknown; any and all members of a clade can be extant or extinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade)

It is far too general a term. I prefer something more specific.

You obviously are allergic to using Canis lupus as the ideal "Dog" since dogs and wolves have a common ancestor further back. That's dancing.  :emthdown: The Grey wolf is sufficiently superior to dogs to be used as an example of an ideal "dog".  Yet the Grey wolf, the CLOSEST REALTIVE TO A MODERN DOG, shares an ANCESTOR with dogs, so you don't want to go there.

Nevertheless according to Wikipedia,
Quote
"any and all members of a clade can be extant".
You want to split hairs about some common dog and wolf ancestor (i.e. NON-GREY WOLF DNA in dogs) that is extinct, even though the AMOUNT OF GREY WOLF DNA in the first dogs probably was about 90% (or more) of the other ancestor. How convenient.  ;)

And this "supreme apex predator humans caring for dogs = dogs are a SUCCESSFUL wolf spinoff species" is the best joke of the century, considering how well we are "taking care" of ourselves.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215144153.png)


You have a peculiar sense of humor, Palloy. I like mine better.     (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2015, 07:50:35 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100315194004.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100315194800.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2015, 08:09:03 pm
Science has decided that dogs are a great 'model' to USED TO STUDY genetic diseases for the good of Homo SAPS. How convenient for us that we, thanks to human (in)breeders, have this 'model' of DNA degradation to allegedly help us avoid the SAME FATE. Never mind trying to reverse the damage WE HAVE DONE to canis lupus, let's USE those dogs for the 'good' of SCIENCE (see opportunistic, anthropocentric, egocentric, greedy, arrogant and ethics free behavior = supreme apex predator).
Quote
Dog (Canis lupus)
The dog genome is similar in size to the genomes of humans and other mammals, containing an estimated 2.8 billion DNA base pairs.

Due to a long history of selective breeding, many breeds of dogs are prone to genetic diseases including cancer and autoimmune disorders that are difficult to study in humans.
FULL QUOTE for those SET worshippers to read and CELEBRATE the triumph of supreme apex predator HOMO SAPS over all those silly religious superstitions like morality and ethics in regard to other life forms in this biosphere.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
Quote
Dog (Canis lupus)

Description:
Man’s best friend is a valuable model organism for studying the genetics of complex traits. It is also an excellent model for researching numerous diseases requiring subtle phenotyping.

Transcript:
Man’s best friend is a valuable model organism for studying the genetics of complex traits. It is also an excellent model for researching numerous diseases requiring subtle phenotyping. The dog genome is similar in size to the genomes of humans and other mammals, containing an estimated 2.8 billion DNA base pairs. A comparison of the dog and human genomes could help scientists find the genetic roots of dog behavior and physiology and help to identify genes that cause diseases in both dogs and humans. Canine models have played an important role in advancing biomedical knowledge and techniques. Due to a long history of selective breeding, many breeds of dogs are prone to genetic diseases including cancer and autoimmune disorders that are difficult to study in humans.

Keywords:
dog, Canis lupus, model, system, organism, genetic diseases


http://www.dnalc.org/view/1713-Dog-Canis-lupus-.html
  (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png)


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2015, 09:13:32 pm
Now let us compare the average healthy dog with the average healthy wolf.

My premise continues to be that human induced Selection Pressures have DEGRADED the DNA of the dog MORE SO than Natural Selection has degraded that of the Grey Wolf.

I have not encountered a study comparing ancient Grey Wolf DNA with modern Grey wolf DNA to prove the main hypothesis from which the above premise springs. That is, that in both cases, DNA is being degraded. If I do, I'll post on the differences.

However, from the following short video you will see that the modern version of the average Grey Wolf appears to be smarter than the average Dog. And for those who think large dogs like mastiffs  or the wolf hound are equal or better than the wolf in hunting abilities, I have bad news for you. They are not.

Please watch this short video. I will provide a written comparison later today or tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4qN_FYMnBg&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2015, 09:27:59 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfrL1YF44G0&feature=player_embedded
How the dog came about.  :(
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 11, 2015, 06:16:37 pm
Comment on an article on non-human  predators and the public attitude towards them:
Quote
"Predators have undergone a remarkable transformation in the public consciousness in the last century. While certainly not universally admired they certainly get more favorable press than in years past."

Agelbert reply:
Especially the human ones... See News Media, CEOs and Wall Street...

The non-human predators get a bum rap while the human ones that stupidly do not limit their predation to what they need to live and eat, thereby endangering ALL of the biosphere, get the ALPHA MALE moniker in a truly Orwellian distortion of reality in nature.

I blame the deliberate ignoring of the massive levels of cooperation, nurturing and symbiotic interdependent caring observed in nature and the hyping of the relatively TINY, though important, role that predation plays in the perpetuation of species
.

The biomass of the trophic levels that eat SUNLIGHT far exceeds that of the higher order trophic levels. In fact, without the phototrophic life forms, no high order intelligence or predator can exist in our biosphere. We ALL indirectly are eating SUNLIGHT! That does not make us parasitic of, commensal or symbiotic with the sun. The sun is NOT our "prey"; it is what gives us LIFE with no sweat off its back, period. But that is glossed over in scientific studies.

The mistaken view, taught to all of us as 'evolutionary' wisdom'  ;), that in nature EVERY life form is in a 24/7 competitive life or death struggle in a predation pecking order totem pole where only the top position (apex predator) is the "crown" of evolution  (when the reality is a small minority of the total biosphere biomass!)  is duplicitous and ignorant.   >:(

I blame, not just the Theory of Evolution, but the Racist/Wall Street greedball self serving DISTORTED interpretation of biosphere cause and effect FROM THE START!   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

 Even Darwin DID NOT advocate that "ONLY THE STRONGEST SURVIVE".
(https://talesfromthelou.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/darwin-quote.jpg)

Yes, apex predators are admirable.
A Gray Wolf's teeth and bite strength are superior to any dog's (Due to degraded wolf DNA, a dog's teeth cannot break through a deer's throat). But he needs that to survive. He does not kill unless he is hungry. And even this 'evolutionary advantage' would doom him to extinction without his cooperative pack hunting activity and care of its young.

But that's too "touchy feely" for the "apex predator" worshippers. Our society has become a culture that HONORS and CELEBRATES the ability to KILL as proof of viability in nature when that is EXACTLY backwards.

But Wall Street likes it. The DISTORTION of Natural Selection Principles through propaganda justifying rampant, unchecked predation as the sine qua non of an "Apex Predator" (not!) is DRILLED into every child's mind by the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.    >:(

And that's why no kid in high school gives a second though to cutting a frog open and killing him in the name of "science".

Nature is, and always was, about LIFE, not DEATH.


"A society that loses the capacity for the sacred, that lacks the power of human imagination, that cannot practice empathy, ultimately ensures its own destruction"
Chris Hedges


If you think the scientific community does not contribute to this mindset with all the KILLING they do for "science" and "the good of society", I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

We need a paradigm shift in science. Science should not be for sale to justify human cruelty against other humans and other earthlings, PERIOD.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030514175238.jpeg)
           
(http://theosophywatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/animal-testing.jpg?w=400&h=246)
(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2953.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 11, 2015, 07:51:47 pm
Robert Wayne, evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, studies Wolf and dog DNA. His results are discussed below.

The author starts out okay. The title, while admitting we have done damage by inbreeding, paradoxically brands dogs as parasites, instead of branding us as ethics free opportunists, totally  responsible for the dog DNA damage. That is a taste of the pity party for mankind the author dreams up after presenting the DNA study results.

I present snippets form the 3 part article because it provides hard evidence about wolf and dog DNA degradation.

The writer eventually goes off into evidence free evolutionary speculation. Instead of castigating mankind for bottlenecking wolf/dog DNA, dogs are praised for being the "SMART" wolves that "used" humans while the wolves that stayed in the wild are "less fit".  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)  I think the author pushes fossil fuels and climate denial in his spare time.   :P

Recent explorations into the field of canine genetics are changing the way we think about man's best friend -- "man's best parasite" may be more like it -- and could help us repair the damage done by a century of inbreeding
by Stephen Budiansky

A few years ago Aguirre and several others decided to put on their scientists' hats and apply the tools of modern biology to the study of the dog genome. Their motivation was to try to understand the genetic roots of the particularly devastating inborn degenerative diseases that cause certain breeds -- notably, miniature poodles, Norwegian elkhounds, Irish setters, collies, and cocker spaniels -- to go blind. These diseases, characterized by night blindness followed by progressive deterioration of daytime vision, bear a striking similarity to the human condition known as retinitis pigmentosa.

More-conventional sponsors of scientific research, such as the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society, have begun to fund the study of canine genetics, because dog disease and human disease are turning out to be closely linked. More than twenty inborn diseases in dogs have been traced to specific defective genes; in every case the same defective gene has been found in human beings. Dogs even carry the brca 1gene, which was identified a few years ago as causing a significantly increased risk of breast cancer in women. Probably 90 to 95 percent of the dog genome and the human genome are identical.

Snippet 1
The view that dogs came along at about the same time as human beings settled down is so widespread and so often repeated in standard texts that it is more than a bit surprising to find genetic evidence flatly contradicting it. The evidence comes from a study by Robert Wayne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, who has applied the modern tools of genetic fingerprinting to dogs, coyotes, wolves, and jackals.

Wolves and coyotes differ by about six percent in their mitochondrial DNA, and, according to fossil evidence, separated from a common ancestor about a million years ago. Wolves and dogs differ by about one percent; using the wolf-coyote time scale, this suggests that they parted company about 135,000 years ago -- a lot earlier than the date implied by the first distinctly non-wolflike dog fossil.

Snippet 2
Wayne's study also definitively laid to rest an assertion made by both Charles Darwin and Konrad Lorenz -- that more than one wild canid species had to have made an appearance in the dog's recent family tree, given the diversity of physical types and behaviors exhibited across the range of modern dog breeds. In fact, long sequences of dog mitochondrial DNA are similar or identical to those in gray wolves, and analysis of the highly variable markers in the regular DNA of dogs and wolves shows a considerable overlap there as well. Jackals and coyotes, though they can interbreed with dogs and produce fertile offspring, possess quite distinct groups of mitochondrial DNA sequences.

Snippet 3
The most striking discovery Wayne's team made was that there is almost no correlation between a dog's breed and the mitochondrial DNA sequences it carries. In eight German shepherds the scientists found five distinct sequences; in six golden retrievers they found four. And the same sequences repeatedly showed up in many different, and apparently quite unrelated, breeds. The Mexican hairless, or Xolo, a breed known from historical and archaeological records to have existed more than 2,500 years ago in Aztec Mexico -- and which presumably separated from Old World breeds some 12,000 years ago, when the Bering land bridge disappeared -- contained representatives of all the major mitochondrial DNA sequences found in dogs throughout the world. (The Xolo sequences also resembled those of Old World wolves much more closely than those of New World wolves.)

Snippet 4
Wayne's study also suggests that for a long time the genetic difference between a dog and a wolf was too small to cause any striking morphological change that would show up in the fossil record.

Snippet 5
Wayne's conclusion is that the earliest dogs "must have been integrated somehow into human society" to keep them genetically isolated from the surrounding population of wild wolves, and also that the domestication of dogs from wild populations must have been "a rare event" -- something that happened only a few times in history.

Snippet 6 (Agelbert NOTE: This is the mandatory bowing and scraping to the UNINTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE of Natural Selection (i.e. evolution's "indispensable" mechanism). And even a quote form a SET high priest philosopher for us to all say "AMEN" to.  LOL!
The wonder and beauty of natural selection is that it is creative; it crafts solutions that for all intents and purposes seem to reflect intelligence -- "unthinking" intelligence, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett aptly put it. The evolutionarily correct way to state all this is that ... (speculation and story telling omitted by Agelbert - go to the link if you want to swallow it). If the author had been REALLY interested in the 'evolutionary correct way' (i.e. natural selection effects) to state this or that, he would have paid more attention to the DNA degradation of 150 years versus 100,000 years discussed at the end of the article. But he totally ignored the significance of that 'minor detail'.  ;) :evil4: 

Snippet 7 (Agelbert NOTE: ASS backwards logic used to JUSTIFY the alleged evolutionary advantage of the wolves that became dogs over the wolves that are still wolves. This, in the face of this study by Robert Wayne that PLAINLY established how genetically UNDIVERSE dogs are! WTF!).  ::)
Although wolves today are the most widespread wild land mammal in the world -- with a range that extends from North America to Europe to Asia, encompassing everything from semi-desert to tundra to subtropical forest -- their total population probably numbers no more than 150,000. In the United States there are about 50 million owned dogs and millions more unowned -- eloquent evolutionary testimony to the wisdom of mooching off people rather than fighting it out in the wild.

Agelbert NOTE: Did you get that? It's FAR BETTER to hang around humans and get 500 inherited genetic disorders than stay in the wild. There are millions and millions of more wolf mutants known as dogs than there are wolves, so dogs are OBVIOUSLY more "evolutionarily" successful. Does it ever occur to these wonders of pretzel logic what would happen to dogs if we weren't there? I guess not.

Remember, "mooching, ass kissing, bowing and scraping to Homo SAPs = evolutionary advantage".
NOT!

Snippet 8
By now nearly everyone has heard about the evils of inbreeding in dogs, and hip dysplasia and other hereditary diseases are forever being cited by animal-rights activists in their campaigns against pet ownership in general and dog breeders in particular. Such defects are often presented as the inevitable consequence of any attempt by humankind to manipulate or direct the evolution of a species toward characteristics it happens to fancy.

Agelbert NOTE: But PRIOR to 1870, Wayne's study shows dogs were doing okay in their genetic diversity.  :emthup:

Snippet 9
As Wayne's genetic data show, interbreeding and a flow of genes on a worldwide scale was continuing even as this segregation into types was taking place. The types were distinct in both physical appearance and behavior; they clearly had been selected with specific human aims in mind. But the crucial point is that these dogs were defined by form and function rather than by parentage. They were what livestock breeders would today call "open" or "grade" breeds.

Aglebert NOTE: And then came DARWIN.  :P

Snippet 10
Beginning around 1870, however, with the establishment of kennel clubs in Britain and the United States, closed breeding books were introduced in the name of developing and maintaining "purebred" animals. A dog could be registered as a Vizsla only if both of its parents were registered as Vizslas. There was more than a little racist thinking behind all of this; writings about animal breeding from the late 1800s and early 1900s are full of exhortations to eliminate "weaklings" and to invigorate the race by maintaining the "purity" of its "blood lines."
Look up any bibliography of dog books and the name Leon Fradley Whitney is sure to appear. Whitney was the author of many standard works, including The Complete Book of Dog Care (still in print), This Is the Cocker Spaniel, Bloodhounds and How to Train Them, and How to Breed Dogs.
What you won't find in a dog bibliography is some other Whitney works, including The Case for Sterilization, a paean to eugenics published in 1934. It was such a definitive treatment that the author received a letter of appreciation from no less an authority on the subject than Adolf Hitler. (Whitney in turn publicly hailed Hitler's "great statesmanship" in ordering the sterilization of the feeble-minded and the insane. In an unpublished autobiography written four decades later Whitney still defended his stance, maintaining that "no ruler ever before had had the courage or the knowledge to put sterilization to work." He allowed, however, that in the 1930s he had not been aware "what a vile human being" Hitler was.)

Snippet 11
Genetic data confirm that the past century of dog breeding has produced some extremely inbred animals. Surveys using gene markers show that the chance that two members of a typical human family will have a different combination of genes at a given site is about 71 percent. In crossbred dogs it is 57 percent, in most purebred dogs 22 percent, and in some rare breeds four percent. Even crossbred dogs are more inbred than the most inbred human populations (the Amish, for example, or families in India in which uncle-niece marriages take place).

Snippet 12
Many breeds suffer from the "popular sire effect" as well, and here criticism of the breeding world is more justifiable. A stud dog that wins a blue ribbon at a major show may father hundreds of litters, swamping the gene pool with his virtues -- and defects -- and crowding out some other ancestral lines altogether. The problem is worse in breeds that have gone through a genetic bottleneck. A number of breeds that exhibit strange recessive ailments, including Irish wolfhounds, flat-coated retrievers, Portuguese water dogs, and Shar-Peis, almost disappeared at some point during this century and were reconstituted from very small populations.

Snippet 13
Fixing the Damage
One strikingly counterintuitive conclusion of modern genetic studies is that the worst way to correct these mistakes of the past is to weed the carriers of genetic diseases out of the breeding population. The central fallacy of the racist view of eugenics was embodied in the claim that purity is genetically invigorating. In fact just the opposite is true -- (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif) genetic diversity is invigorating (thus "hybrid vigor," well known to agricultural breeders), because it helps to ensure that breeding for homozygosity in desirable traits doesn't at the same time breed for homozygosity in undesirable traits at other sites on the genome.  :emthup: (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

Snippet 14
A number of breeders are seeking genetic probes not to detect disease but rather to measure "genetic purity" -- to test, for example, if a Vizsla really is a Vizsla, or if (horrors) tainted blood has crept in. But breeding for the purity of the breed is like hiring a storyteller not on the basis of how well he tells stories but after looking at how many generations of Irishmen he has in his background.  :emthup:  :icon_mrgreen:

Snippet 15
We can take some reassurance, too, from the fact that mutts, owned and unowned, will always be with us.  :emthup: :icon_sunny: Despite the efforts of neo-eugenicists   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif) :evil4: to ostracize them, mutts constitute a vibrant reservoir of canine genetic diversity. Mutts tend to be healthy dogs, because of hybrid vigor. They also tend to be good dogs.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jul/9907dogs2.htm (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jul/9907dogs2.htm)

Agelbert NOTE: I agree with the author that mutts are less degraded than the pure (crap) breeds.

However, I do not agree that the dog is as robust genetically as the wolf or the allegation that the wolf "used" humanity to get a free lunch. That's backwards. The evidence of DNA degradation shows which species is the guilty party here.

And the evidence certainly DOES NOT point to "undoing" the damage with mutt diversity just because the Darwinian "pure bloodline" bullshit didn't take off until 1870. The old "blink of an eye" (trick to lowball the DNA damage we have done) in evolution, as the author defines the last 150 years, ASS-U-ME-S that the damage we FORCED on the dog in 150 years can be undone in the same time period. NOPE! Mankind does not have that skill. But we are supposed to trust that science will "someday soon" figure it all out. SURE! So that's why they want to EXPERIMENT on the dogs! They are just trying to help the DOGS out, not humans. LOL!

Let's stop with the wishful thinking, okay? Let's look at the FACTS about the present DNA dog situation. They target dogs as a 'model' for experimentation BECAUSE they DON"T **** KNOW who stop the DNA degradation BOX CANYON we put the dogs in. If they KNEW how to stop the 500 inherited genetic disorders, they would ALREADY have gene therapy for them. THEY DON'T!

But there is more. There convenient 'evolution' blink of an eye isn't doing the natural selection math, according to the Wayne study. They are lowballing the **** out of how long it would take to 'fix' the dog DNA to where it was before the 19th century BECAUSE we Homo saps, according to Wayne's study, forced MORE deleterious selection pressures on dogs in 150 years than said dogs experienced (allegedly at the hands of "less enlightened' Homo saps prior to Darwin - NOT!) in the previous 80 to 100 THOUSAND years!  :o


According to the study, at least 80,000 YEARS went by while the wolf/dog genetic diversity barely changed! That means the WE FORCES MULTIPLES of SELECTION DNA DEGRADATION of the 80,000 years time period. We VISITED, maybe a million years of natural selection subtraction on those wolf/dogs in 150 years! We do not have a **** clue, biologically speaking, how to undue thousands of years of DNA degradation, PERIOD.

Homo SAPS did the crime. We need to accept our responsibility for it an resolve to demonize the (SET originated racist as well as unscientific) concept of PURE BREEDS altogether while we seek, through gene therapy and out breeding, to return the genetic diversity of the Grey wolf to the Dog as best we can, PERIOD. 


We are good at bottlenecks and lousy at diversity. So it goes. ALL inbreeding should be punishable by prison and fines. All kennel clubs and breed names should be considered an assault on common decency. NO breed should EVER be allowed to breed with another member of it's Homo SAP arbitrarily, selfishly and opportunistically created "breed", PERIOD.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 11, 2015, 10:26:24 pm
The dog and the wolf are actually the same species. Their physical appearance is similar but their instincts, disposition and temperament vary widely.

The gray wolf, or simply the wolf is the largest wild member of the Canidae family. The dog is the domesticated form of the gray wolf. Genetic drift studies and DNA sequencing confirm that domestic dog shares a common ancestry with the gray wolf.

Eurasia and North America used to hold most of the world’s wolf population but the numbers have begun to dwindle due to human encroachment. Dogs are commonly seen in any place that is inhabited by people.

(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/03/bf/94/8a/the-dogs.jpg) (http://dulemba.com/Blogstuff/2008/CatWolf-book.jpg)
Comparison Chart

Category                         Dog                    Grey wolf
Kingdom                         Animalia                     Animalia
Phylum                          Chordata                      Chordata
Family                         Canidae (Canis lupus familiaris)                     Canidae (Canis lupus)
Class                         Mammalia                     Mammalia
Order                         Carnivora                     Carnivora
Genus                         Canis                      Canis
Species                         Canis lupus familiaris                     Canis lupus
Hunting ability                         Due to their domestication, dogs have a weaker instinct to hunt. most breeds of dog's teeth are too small to rip open a deer's throat, indicating an adaptation to a different diet.                     Wolves hunt in packs, allowing them to cooperate and take down much larger prey.
Life Expectancy                         7-20 years Average                     7 years in the wild, 15 years in captivity.
Grooming                          Less frequent if short-haired, very frequent if longer-haired to avoid matting                     none
Loneliness                         Can be left alone during the day if necessary, but usually require attention throughout the day. Varies widely between breeds.                      They can live alone, as lone wolves, but even lone wolves usually find a mate and make a pack of their own. Wolves need other wolves.
Space                          Depends on breed                     They need tons of space for territories, but the space they need depends on the pack's size.
Physical Characteristics                          Dogs have "cuter" traits and a wider range of traits, due to the domestication. But in general, dogs have shorter snouts, a wide range of coat colors, thinner legs, and thinner coat.                     Wolves have longer muzzles and legs, larger feet and a broader skull. Wolves have physically larger brains.
Affection                         Affectionate if taken care of                     These are wild animals and people should not bother them for affection
Domestication                         The dog can be domesticated, are great companions and are suitable as pets at home.                     A wolf is a wild animal and not are suitable as pets. They are trainable only to a minimal extent, and that training is not passed on to their offspring.
Sound                         The  A dog barks but can howl when necessary. Sometimes growl at slight disturbances. Dogs also bark for joy.                     A wolf usually howls to bond with their pack, barking softly to another wolf occasionally if another comes on its territory.
Protection                         Some are protective of their owner. They are very protective of their pack mates. Social existence Dogs "in the streets" usually roam in packs. Dogs always live near humans, even if they are ownerless. They scavenge human waste. 3 week old puppies already approach humans.                     Wolves have stronger instincts and love to live in packs away from civilization.
Good with children                           If socialized. Some small dogs are OK with children but are fragile if handled roughly. Wait until children are 8 years old before getting a dog. Ironically, some small breeds are the most agressive.                     As with any wild animals, you should be careful and never bother them or let your children do.
Energy                         The depends on age and breed.                     They have lots of energy.
Walks                         The  Dogs need exercise; a daily walk.                     They walk all day, every day
precaudal gland                         non-functional                     Wolves have this caudal mark/scent gland (a dark spot positioned approx. 3-4 inches down from the base of the tail,) it can tend to have a bluish tinge to it with a few longer stiffer hairs that poke out of it.
Sources:   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://www.wolfhowl.org/anatomy.php Wolf Howl is particularly interesting.  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)   

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Dog_vs_Wolf
http://yamnuskawolfdogsanctuary.com/resources/wolf-to-woof/physical-differences-between-wolves-and-dogs/
Title: Accelerated Natural Selection degraded the wolf into the dog breeds.
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2015, 02:02:29 am
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120315003257.png)

The sense of smell is a Wolf's most developed sense and greatest asset. A domestic canine's nasal cavity has about twenty-five times the number of olfactory receptors and fourteen times the scent receptive surface area of a human being. It has been suggested by experts that a Wolf may have twelve times the ability to detect odors of a domestic canine and a hundred times that ability of a human being.

Hearing is a Wolf's second most developed sense. It is thought that domestic canines can hear sixteen times better than human beings. It is supposed that a Wolf's ability to hear is even better than this. Experts believe that Wolves may be able to hear frequencies far above the limits of human beings. The upper limit of human hearing is about 20 kHz, a Wolf's upper limit has been estimated at between 25 and 80 kHz. Wolves have been known to react to imitated Wolf howls from five kilometers (three miles) away. Some experts say that a Wolf can hear ten to sixteen kilometers (six to ten miles), depending on the density of trees and other obstacles between them and the source of the sound.

http://www.wolfhowl.org/anatomy.php

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120315003221.png)

The wolf is genetically superior to any and all dog breeds BECAUSE dogs are victims of degraded DNA CAUSED by accelerated Selection pressures through the artificial narrowing of the gene pool. Humans, because of opportunistic greed and ignorance, created multiple artificial islands (see founder effect) of genes where dog/wolves that would otherwise normally preserve enough diversity to overcome a host of RECESSIVE genetic disorders, instead began to express them in their degraded, inbred genes (they were not allowed to breed with different looking dogs   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) AND a single stud dog, that was considered "ideal", narrowed the gene pool further by inseminating many more bit ches than it would've normally inseminated in a natural setting.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) This irrational and unscientific inverted view of the most efficient method of propagating "good genes" (see Darwin inspired racism and eugenics ;)) continues today among breeders.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) >:(

The same stupidity (see Darwin inspired racism and eugenics ;)) is used to justify humans not intermarrying with "other races". So it goes.  >:(

Degraded DNA is the unavoidable effect of Natural Selection. All creatures are gradually experiencing degradation of DNA.

Evolutionists refuse to accept this because, if they did, they would be forced to accept the FACT that, Natural Selection being a SUBTRACTIVE force,  simple life could not have 'evolved' from non-living proto-proteins AND ALL life forms, simple or complex, did not, and do not, 'evolve' into complex ones (i.e. SOMEBODY created ALL life.  :o  ;D). The clock of life, like that of this universe, is winding DOWN, not UP.

I cannot prove that ALL life forms are experiencing DNA degradation from Natural Selection. But the example of what 150 years of dog selective breeding did through the RAPID DNA degrading mechanism inherent in the narrowing the gene pool of the wolf/dog to produce "pure" (crap) breeds for mankind's profit and ease is prima facie evidence that Natural Selection is a DNA subtractive mechanism, NOT an additive one.

Quote
pri·ma fa·ci·e ˌprīmə ˈfāSHē/ adjective & adverb Law adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280914173749.jpeg)
The offense rests. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/popcorn.gif)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2015, 04:07:45 pm
My latest Googling says Dogs were Domesticated between ~30K and 9K years ago.

Quote
Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out

Quote
Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago, before humans transitioned to agricultural societies, according to an analysis of modern dog and wolf genomes from areas of the world thought to be centers of dog domestication.

The study, published in PLoS Genetics on January 16, 2014, also shows that dogs are more closely related to each other than wolves, regardless of geographic origin. This suggests that part of the genetic overlap observed between some modern dogs and wolves is the result of interbreeding after dog domestication, not a direct line of descent from one group of wolves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116190137.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=genomes-of-modern-dogs-and-wolves-provide-new-insights-on-domestication (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116190137.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=genomes-of-modern-dogs-and-wolves-provide-new-insights-on-domestication)

Definitely though, the dogs in recent years have been used to experiment with the ideas of speciation and selection, no doubt there.

RE

And those Darwinian based "ideas" on speciation and selection were, and are, pseudo scientific baloney that caused (and STILL CAUSE) great harm to dogs and to humans (see eugenics and Hitler  :evil4:).


your Googling is the consensus. Wayne's study contradicts the consensus. Wolf "domestication" is a loaded term now because the phenotype (and genotype) barely changed for 80 to 100 thousand years. Wayne's study provided conclusive proof that the genotype (i.e. degraded DNA) began to change rapidly ONLY 150 years ago  :o (BECAUSE of the DARWINIAN BULLSHIT based huge phenotype changes forced on dogs by selective breeding), not as you believe, starting around 10,000 years ago. Darwin's theory is full of ****. This is more proof of the scientific reality that Darwinists DO NOT WANT TO FACE. Live with it.  :icon_mrgreen:

Please read his study. The consensus is WRONG.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif)

I'll provide the quotes for you after I exercise.  8) Wayne's study is NEW HARD SCIENTIFC DATA that contradicts the consensus view of the wolf to dog domestication time frames for phenotype AND genotype changes.

In science, as you know, OLD ERRONEOUS HABITS DIE HARD.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-161214184005.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2015, 09:57:02 pm
Agnotology
The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance
Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger

What don't we know, and why don't we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about "how we know" to ask: Why don't we know what we don't know?
http://books.google.com/books?id=qp7rKT56fw0C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=qp7rKT56fw0C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Great find, AG. Looks like a must read.
(http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 


Surly,
Thank you. I believe Agnotology is part and parcel of every single criminal act involving the BURYING of all evidence that challenges, questions or otherwise refutes any of the "sacred" tenets of SET.

These are my dots.
1. 1870 Kennel Clubs and the concept of "pure" blood lines.
2. 1900 Eugenics is embraced by the elite (for the same "pure" blood line DARWINIAN reasons.
3. 1910-1930 "science" based genocide in Australia and Africa by the "white" man.
4. 1933-1945 Hitler kills (for science) the Jews, mentally ill non-Jew Germans and starts DARWINIAN "pure" bloodline experiment (INbreeding "Arian" girls with "Arian" men).
5. 1900-1960 Many women and men prevented from reproducing in the USA according DARWINIAN ERRONEOUS beliefs about genes and inherited disorders. Only after the year 2000 did states like Vermont begin to apologize. And I'm not sure  they mean it.
6. 1930-2015 U.S. Army and medical establishment experiments on people (without their knowledge) and animals based on 'evolutionary' principles of genetics JUSTIFYING the use of 'animal models'.

ALL this alleged "science" is based on the mechanistic reductionist model of life that, because we are allegedly just a biochemical machine, EXCLUDES respect for life. The spiritual activity evidenced on a DAILY BASIS, some of which makes the news (see the drowned lady who's spirit called people to save her daughter), and most which DOES NOT (see Agnotology in the service of SET  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)) is brushed aside as "unexplained" phenomenon.

The bible says that Adam was NOT alive, even though he was fully created. God had to BREATHE life into him.  The Egyptians had the ankh, which stands for BREATH OF LIFE.  Science does not wish to accept that EVERY life form needs more than biochemistry to be alive.

Spirit animated life is a TESTAMENT to a 24/7 creative force that many here cannot accept. Yet I am convinced that NO spirit = NO LIFE, PERIOD (including bacteria  ;D).

Science will not accept that, no matter how much evidence for it exists, simply because they cannot CONTROL the spirit in their Dr. Strangelove laboratories.

Science, because it so limited, CANNOT explain the following REALITY:



Here's a very positive reaction from an atheist doomer (who I was trying to convince to NOT commit suicide) upon reading about an atheist near death experience. I deleted his name but the quote, the date and the smileys he inserted are accurate.: ENJOY!   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)


Quote
Sent to: agelbert  on: July 10, 2012
Re:Reasons not to check out
Agelbert, thank you for taking the time to write to me.  You've done a good thing pointing out the reasons I should stick around.  If you're willing to share, I'd like to hear your story about the "other side."

I read about the biker and then I followed the link to the website.  Something that immediately caught my eye was the date the article was published.  Oddly enough, that's my birth date!    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp)

Wow did that ever add to the significance for me, so again, I thank you friend!  ;D


I cried like a baby when I read that. Of course I told him about my full near death experience as well. But that BIRTH DATE was what convinced him to not check out! And that particular NDE is the one I felt MOVED to offer him after praying for him. I had no idea what his birth date was.

Considering I researched NDEs for less than 8 hours before sending him that one, the odds were ASTRONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that I could have selected his birth date randomly. There's a LOT MORE going on with us than biochemistry, Surly.

(http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sunflower-592x393.jpg)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2015, 05:48:25 pm
Ashvin said,
Quote
I like the idea that I believe you proposed before - that physical objects as we perceive them are useful icons for a more complicated reality of thoughts and processes.

(http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)   Me too.  Isn't that part of Plato's thoughts about the perfect form versus what we perceive?

Quote
It is God's way of providing us with a "software platform" which allows us to interact with our environment and with Him, without getting overwhelmed by the complexity of it all.

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

I think where humans get sidetracked is on God's MOTIVE in creating Homo SAPS.

This forum has a rather difficult time getting to some agreement that God exists at all, never mind His motive for creating us.  :(

But if we COULD get to the MOTIVE, it would clear up the FACT that we do not have. or ever will have (while our spirit resides in a physical body) the ability to truly understand God.

However, we can, as RE has done (and I think Aristotle and Plato did as well), conclude that the complexity and marvelous repetition of extremely efficient and beautiful designs in nature bespeaks of a MEGA intelligence responsible for all of it.

The fact that we are here, as Aquinas postulated, is sufficient evidence for a PROVIDENTIAL God. But, sadly, that is not enough for many Homo SAPS. They want the big dog to give them an explanation for all the bad stuff that goes on. Otherwise, they assume it's a random bunch of chemicals playing biochemical pinball. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

I consider that a very arrogant and egotistical posture. Just BECAUSE we are self aware, it certainly does not mean everything God does has to be "logical" or even "good" or "bad" from our thoroughly limited data base.

A mosquito has far more moving parts and is infinitely more complex, as well as being totally biosphere friendly than the 100,000 plus parts B747. The B747 is a piece of DEAD, UNSUSTAINABLE, POLLUTING JUNK compared with a mosquito. Why TF can't these arrogant folks who sniff at a creator God use some no-brainner perspective about how incredibly IGNORANT and CRUDE mankind's technology  is compared with the bio-machines God created?

My only answer to that is the scientific community's 24/7 agnotology. That is, they lowball the complexity of living organisms and inflate, out of all proportion, GMO or other tehcnological tiny microscopic droplet sized incursions into a veritable OCEAN of biosphere complexity. But scientists have their  "priesthood" to defend so the sales pitch (we will solve ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS - just wait and see... (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)) continues.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

IF they had solved more than 0.0000000001 % (I'm being conservative - the number is probably a lot lower!) of problems dealing with cause and effect in biochemistry from the micro to the macro level, to the point that they COULD assemble living bacteria from chemicals in the lab, never mind more complex organisms, I would give them credit for having a logical a basis for their celebration of replacing the God "superstition" with "science".

But they can't create the simplest life! And what they have done in the lab with GMOs is DEFINITELY not random! It can be argued that the GMO stuff is UNintelliigent design, but it is NOT random.

In fact, many of the so-called "advancements" in science in the 20th century made everything WORSE! But don't tell that to the Palloys and McCaffertys! They will ridicule you or be highly offended at your "silly" premises. LOL!


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2015, 06:54:48 pm
A frustrating basic pitfall:
The philosophers' final downfall.
They try and they try
But they can't reason why
The real world should make sense at all.

The latest ploy of "evolution deniers" is the notion of "Intelligent Design", being promoted as a "scientific theory" worthy of (a) replacing the theory of evolution, and (b) sitting alongside Newton's mechanics as one of the great ideas of science.

It has a few problems.

The Intelligent Design (ID) argument doesn't qualify as a proper scientific theory.
The ID argument has the trappings of a logical argument, but it is full of logical gaps and holes. It is "pseudo-logic".   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)

There is a lot more to read on this web page if one so desires......  ::) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif)


https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm)

Knarf,
Wrong thread. This thread is about the EXISTENCE, OR NOT, of God, not about evolution. Many evolutionists DO believe that God created this universe and uses evolution as his pet mechanism. Consequently, you are out of line bringing the "evolution denier" pejorative term into this discussion, pal.

But you never tire of trying to trash Intelligent Design, do you? How DESIGNING of you.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

If Knarf was a paramecium shaped, Chlorophyll based alien life form visiting this planet, this is the "logic" he would apply to Mt. Rushmore:   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250115210019.png)

Here Knark, just for YOU!    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

Demarcation argument (Intelligent Design is not Science) take down  :emthup:

SNIPPET:

The use by evolutionary biologists of so-called demarcation arguments—that is, arguments that purport to distinguish science from pseudoscience, metaphysics or religion—is both ironic and problematic from the point of view of philosophy of science. It is ironic because many of the demarcation criteria that have been used against non-naturalistic theories of origin can be deployed with equal warrant against strictly naturalistic evolutionary theories. Indeed, a corpus of literature now exists devoted to assessing whether neo-Darwinism, with its distinctively probabilistic and historical dimensions, is scientific when measured against various conceptions of science.9 Some have wondered whether the use of narrative explanation in evolutionary biology constitutes a departure from a strict reliance upon natural law. Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory "untestable" and classified it as a "metaphysical research programme." While he later revised his judgment, he did so only after liberalizing his notion of falsifiability to allow the weaker notion of "falsifiability in principle" to count as a token of scientific status.

The use of demarcation arguments to settle the origins controversy is also problematic because the whole enterprise of demarcation has now fallen into disrepute. Attempts to locate methodological "invariants" that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed.10 Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability (nor falsifiability), nor the use of lawlike explanation (nor any other criterion) can suffice to define scientific practice. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’…they do only emotive work for us."11

 Nevertheless, philosophical arguments about what does or does not constitute science continue to play a vital role in persuading biologists that alternative scientific explanations do not and (in the case of nonnaturalistic or nonmaterialistic explanations)  can not exist for the origin of biological form and structure. Indeed, demarcation criteria continue to be cited by modern biologists as reasons for disregarding the possibility of intelligent design as a theory of biological origins.12


If you aren't too bored by this topic, read the full enchilada at the link below.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design:
The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories1

Stephen C. Meyer
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press)
December 1, 2002

http://www.discovery.org/a/1780 (http://www.discovery.org/a/1780)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2015, 11:00:58 pm
"The cell is NOTHING like ANY complexity we have EVER encountered in the physical world."  :o   ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wmhiq25MqU&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2015, 11:59:43 pm
The mind boggling complexity of the cell is MORE PROOF that God exits. WHY? Because the scientific community that made the OBSERVATIONS through advancements in technology that enabled them to view, in detail, and measure, in detail, WHAT GOES ON inside a cell WERE/ARE MOSTLY ATHEISTS! They were EXPECTING to "prove" the Darwinian SET principles in the cell! They were the OBSERVERS! Yet they were NOT pleased or happy with what they OBSERVED because the OBSERVED phenomenon CONTRADICTED SET!!

So HOW, if the "observer" influences the "reality observed", did these atheist Darwinian true believers SEE complexity "Beyond anything previously encountered by the scientific community in the physical world"? 

Because God exists and HE is the one in the microscopic/thermodynamic/quantum DETAILS.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VezMuPgiYr4&feature=player_embedded

I am a Christian but I agree 100% with this Islam video on creation and cell complexity. The cell is blown up to mother space ship size with all the activity simplified as if it was a hive of multiple space ships performing tasks inside. Very cool!   (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 12:54:57 am
Hello again!

Something was born in a humanoid mind about 100,000 years ago. When it was born, it was its first appearance in the known universe, and the place it was born could only have been a humanoid mind. It would go on to define humanity, but first it had to get out of that mind.

Now we don't know what this thing that has just been born into the universe is going to grow into yet, because it has only just been conceived, but we do know it is an object - it exists. Its difference to anything else in the universe and indeed that human mind, came from its own objectivity and was the first instant of time of its existence. Now that it exists, it can start making its way to the edge of the mind where it can be released.

That thing was "meaning" - and that individual projected meaning onto something and that something was the subject. So we've now got objective meaning in the human mind and whatever that human projected meaning onto had subjective meaning. It was more than the sum of its parts - it was a new way of being. Something could now have meaning.

That human wasn't alone. They were with their brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, parents and children etc etc. They now had to get not just that subjective meaning they had projected onto something, they had to get objective meaning into the minds of the others in the group. Obviously that succeeded, but it wasn't difficult to transmit because they all had conscious human minds too. Even though we don't know who that human was, or what that first thing they projected meaning onto was, we know of no other occurrences of this in life or the rest of existence.

Those people with their new way of being now had to stand the test of time, the nature of life on Earth and the violence of the universe. The first big test was the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago which reduced the human population to 1000 to 10,000 breeding pairs. The conjecture I make is that those people wouldn't have survived and go on to outlast other hominids, such as neanderthals, if they didn't have meaning.

Spiritually speaking now, when this thing called meaning was born, God's knowledge of it was instantaneous. Before that God never had meaning, life never had meaning and existence never had meaning. Standing the test of existence, meaning increased God's stature. It changed God, and now He could observe something as having a meaning above just its existence.

This is how it stands now. When someone at the Federal Reserve hits 'enter' on a keyboard to start printing electronic money, God knows the meaning of each electron as it travels down the fiber-optic cable to the big banks to buy their worthless assets. He knows if this meant people got laid off from work because of this debt burdening, or if people couldn't afford food because of it. He knows that meaning can cause misery and even death, as well as survival. That person that hit enter, judged themselves instantaneously by what meaning they'd brought into the world - and they brought misery.

We - if there is a 'we' - are getting all our poor judgements of meaning reflecting back on us now. Humanity is simply not going to endure because of this. God doesn't judge us, we judge ourselves - our judgement is immediate and final.


Joseph,
That is an interesting hypothesis. However, physicists have difficulties accepting the part a bout God not having any "meaning" prior to "meaning" (or perhaps awareness?) some 70,000 years ago.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif)

WHY?

According to these scientists, our pixelated, quantum, spooky action universe has all the characteristics of virtual reality and fails the test, by various experiments they have performed, of being a physically real universe! (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

I know. that is WEIRD (but not to a monist!(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/meditationf.gif) ;)). What's more, they claim NO PHYSICAL UNIVERSE has the energy to make a virtual reality one! So whoever is ultimately GENERATING this (or these) "virtual reality universe(s)" CANNOT be from a PHYSICAL UNIVERSE! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)


Now it gets REALLY good.
  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)
They claim that, uh, see below while you play the Twilight zone music.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-310714182509.png)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150315002502.png)

All I can say is, that sure is a strange way to prove God exists and has a mind that has thought us up. I agree that God exists and created the whole video game universe ex nihilo, However, I resent being called a video game character! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 04:00:46 pm
Quote
Meaning only allows Homo Saps to become AWARE of the Universe, it does not imply the Universe Existed or did not Exist before Homo Saps became aware of it.

To make an analogy with a child being born, prior to the birth of that child, does the Universe of that child exist? Sure, the mother existed before, everything around her existed before the child was born, but from the POV of child since it wasn't born yet the Universe did not exist.

Some folks believe that when the last Homo Sap goes Extinct, the Universe will pop back OUT of Existence, because there are no sentient observers of said Universe. Maybe, but I doubt it. There is no requirement that Observation is done for Existence to be present.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)  Observation is only required for MEASUREMENT of Existence. Things could still exist in the absence of Sentience, but they couldn't be measured.

RE
(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)
Let me add some Agelbert style emphasis to your excellent assertions.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150315151816.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 04:43:14 pm
Agelbert NOTE About J.C.s Homo SAP physical appearance: Yes, we Homo SAPS tend to picture our God(s) in the most hyped and glorified appearance possible according to our own provincial, narrow, racist, 'take car o' yer own' (and so on) prejudices.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

BUT, trhe Judeo Christian Bible, according to the prophet Isaiah, stated that J. C. was UGLY, as well as POOR and not particularly popular either.
Quote

Isaiah 53:2
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

No one really has a literal view of Scripture, no matter where on the spectrum one falls, every interpretation must allow for figurative language. But in the above case, I believe the only interpretation that is logical is the literal one. OF course ;), the fact that J.C. did not show up for centuries after Isaiah's prophecies is a (rather tawdry, but they'll use it anyway  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)) excuse that God did NOT reveal the future to Isaiah because, uh, God doesn't exist and Isaiah was smokin' some great stuff!     (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).

Yes Ashvin, that passage has been interpreted (wrongly, I think  :() as a reference to what J.C. looked like when he was being punched, whipped, poked and beaten to a pulp. I disagree. I think that passage, just because it is linked prophetically to the crucifixion, is NOT a justification for claiming the Lamb of God (i.e. perfect  PHYSICALLY unblemished and SPIRITUALLY sinless specimen of Homo SAPdom) looked like Michelangelo's handsome side kick.

I agree that the Shroud of Turin is an extremely accurate representation of J.C. (i.e. a run of the mill Jew). There was nothing special in J.C.'s appearance.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 05:38:49 pm
The mind boggling complexity of the cell is MORE PROOF that God exits.

WHY?  ???

Because the scientific community that made the OBSERVATIONS through advancements in technology that enabled them to view, in detail, and measure, in detail, WHAT GOES ON inside a cell WERE/ARE MOSTLY ATHEISTS! They were EXPECTING to "prove" the Darwinian SET principles in the cell! They were the OBSERVERS! Yet they were NOT pleased or happy with what they OBSERVED because the OBSERVED phenomenon CONTRADICTED SET!!

So HOW, if the "observer" influences the "reality observed", did these atheist Darwinian true believers SEE complexity "Beyond anything previously encountered by the scientific community in the physical world"? 

Because God exists and HE is the one in the microscopic/thermodynamic/quantum DETAILS.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VezMuPgiYr4&feature=player_embedded

I am a Christian but I agree 100% with this Islam video on creation and cell complexity. The cell is blown up to mother space ship size with all the activity simplified as if it was a hive of multiple space ships performing tasks inside. Very cool!   (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2015, 07:15:33 pm
JM, are you a fan of Nietzsche and/or Derrida? Your recent posts remind me of them.

Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4400.msg70382#msg70382
When we judge other peoples judgements, we are being subjective. When we judge between good and evil, we are being subjective. But there is an objective behind our asking is something right or wrong, good or evil, to be or not to be? And that is, "Will this sustain me and what I want to do?"

I go on climate skeptics websites and read their thoughts and opinions and ask myself, "Why are people like this?" How can they just ignore all the evidence? Why are they being so aggressive to climate scientists? It's because they have stuff in their life that they want to sustain - like driving to a supermarket - or working in an oil refinery, because doing those things sustain them. So they accuse the climate scientists of being evil, or activists of trying to bring about a socialist world order, or any other accusation they can pull out of their ass
.

No argument there. Willful ignorance is popular these days.

Quote
That's just one example. Ask yourself what is good or evil in your own opinion? Everything evil is what is not going to sustain you. It could be anything detrimental to your life and health, it could also be anything that goes against what gives your life meaning or your beliefs.

To do or not to do? Some people commit suicide - some people commit murder. The objective is sustainability. A serial killer is trying to sustain what drives him. A FOREX trader is trying to sustain what drives him. A sociopath is trying to sustain what drives him. Inhofe is trying to sustain what he's trying to sustain. Good is what endures, but we can see there is no durability in the ways of psychotics. So many civilizations have fallen, because they rose by psychosis
.

And that is another example of an objective moral judgment - selfish = bad. I don't agree that evil = what does not sustain me or my beliefs. My belief in God does not necessarily make me less prone to selfish behavior. I am capable of evil and do commit evil on a regular basis.

But that forces me to wonder, WHY am I so sure that my selfish behaviors are objectively wrong, instead of a product of my evolutionary, social and cultural "programming", and therefore something I shouldn't be too worried about. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that there exists a transcendent being who sets the standard (or IS the standard by nature of his being), and my choices are judged against that standard.

I don't believe that what allows us to "endure" is the measure of what is good and what is evil, although it is generally true that evil behavior is long-term destructive to us and our environments.


Quote
We are all asking, will this sustain me? We just differ in what we want to sustain, and how long for. It's why there is any disagreement at all.

Perhaps, but the issue is HOW we evaluate one person or group's opinion of what they want to sustain and for how long against another person or group's. If there is no way to objectively decide which opinion is superior, then all ethical judgments against climate deniers, murderers or anyone else are arbitrary.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2015, 08:24:07 pm
This is a song that has meaning. It is sung with meaning, by the woman who wro,te it. Do you know what the meaning is?

The clouds never expect it
When it rains,
But the sea changes colors,
But the sea
Does not change

She uses metaphors to tell a story, but do you know what the story is about?
Thanks for bringing this up... I really liked this song and could hear it was sung with meaning, but I had no idea what the story was, until I looked it up on Wikipedia just now.  And, I find myself inspired by the mondegreen "one-winged dove".

Interesting page for the song on wikipedia. I never knew there was a word called mondegreen and I didn't know 'edge of seventeen' was an example of one. I took it as being literal-figurative, meaning seventeen going on eighteen - at least that's what it meant to me.

It's funny because a song is someone projecting their 'objective' meaning. All the people listening to it, give it 'subjective' meaning from their own objectivity. You rarely think what a song means, it just paints pictures - until that is the song starts meaning something to you. It's unexplained on the wikipedia page, how Tom Petty's first wife is involved in the song, but from the meaning I project onto the lyrics and story and emotion, Tom's wife's involvement is what the song's about.

The story is told from the POV of a woman, talking to her friend about how her relationship broke up. She then tells how when she first met him at seventeen, he gave her life meaning. But as time goes by, she is watching her man fall in love with another woman. That other woman is a singer - she is both the white winged dove, and the nightbird. From the POV of the man, she is the dove singing "Ooh ooh ooh!", but from the POV of the woman, she is a nightbird - an owl - singing "Come away, come away." By being a singer, and singing a song to the man and for the man, she is giving her love for him more 'meaning'. Singing I love/want you. has more meaning than saying it, and that's how the woman telling the story lost the man.

I can empathise with Tom Petty's first wife, because the song is sung from her point of view - it is how I lost the love of my own life. The man is Tom Petty "seemed broken hearted" (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers) The white-winged dove/nightbird is either Stevie Nicks or another singer, who sings for Tom and gives his life more meaning. This happened to me, and although I've liked this song for years, I only liked it for the term 'edge of seventeen' which is how old my love was when I first met her. We broke up 13 years ago now. I only know the song because it is one of the tracks that play on Liberty Rock Radio in the video game Grand Theft Auto IV - which came out in 2008. The meaning of the song only became clear to me when I read the wiki page about Tom's wife. I get Stevie's objective meaning from that, and even then, because the wiki page doesn't go into detail, I have to apply subjective meaning to it. What it meant to me, only dawned on me about an hour before I posted the video, so in the past 24 hours, I have learned something about myself and the break-up of my relationship with Barbara.

(https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/316041_2164337262489_700453877_n.jpg?oh=b3ce8ea814884ee81f65c5a895bbd3ef&oe=55B61E6C)

I bought GTA4 in 2008 - it changed my life. It got me hooked up to the internet again, because I wanted to choose that "muliplayer" option on the "player character's" phone (an in-game options menu) I got hooked on video games at that point - I gave away my garden to play them and give them my time. I nearly always had a game console, but it was the most casual pastime. Multiplayer and the world of the internet changed that. I liked relating to people both in-game, and on internet forums - there is something to be said for running around a virtual world where other people like you have agency. It can give your life meaning - and the way game developers make games, they can fill those virtual worlds with more meaningful activities. Caring about this and discussing this is all part of the love of gaming. The GTA community is massive and passionate, because the way Rockstar Games build worlds, fills them full of humour, activity and physics. You can switch radios on and off or change the channel - the term used is "living, breathing world." This is Rockstar's goal as artists and commercial game manufacturers.

So I'm playing this game and Edge of Seventeen is a part of it. It's just background music. First you like the sounds - music is so great - the rhythms and melodies. I can't describe music in words. Then you like the songs - the pictures they paint in your mind, sung in full voice. Then you may find it means something to you, so you give it some more attention. Then you personalise it. Have you ever noticed that when you break up with someone, all the songs seem to be about you?

In 2002 I broke up with the love of my life. We were together nine years and loved each other very dearly. I met her when I lived in the Cayman Islands. She was seventeen, four weeks from her eighteenth birthday, I was twenty-four. We fell in love, but she was from Germany and only on the island to vacation with her Godparents. I was from the UK and living under Caymanian gainful occupation license. Cut a long story short, I moved to Germany and lived there for three years - then we broke up. I came home to England, but Barbara said she made a mistake and came over to England. We lived together in England six years, but by 2002 I was having a serious problem with alcohol.

She would say to me, "Come to bed Joseph, I MEAN it!" but I would wait until she had gone to bed to open up my stash of booze that I had hidden away. She knew all about this and confronted me many times - even making me go to AA - which ended in abject failure. In this final period, she was at teacher training college, doing a post-grad so she could become a German language teacher in the UK.

Unbeknownst to me, she was going out with her friends some evenings (it's all part of drifting apart) and visiting a bar where a band played. I found this out later, that the lead singer dedicated songs to her and sung them for her. Then she came and dropped the bomb that she wanted to break up with me. I asked her why and she said it was the alcohol. Then she told me she was going to Sweden very soon; on her own to visit her Godfather without me. This was a big thing. When she came back, I had tried to clean my act up and begged her to stay. But she told me she was going to visit a friend in Oxford, and when she came back she was going to Germany and to Spain with her sister.

So she was in Spain and I went on the computer and she got an e-mail which I opened - it was from a guy. I went through her e-mails and she had hidden his e-mails among her friends and family's. I pieced together that she had not been to Oxford, but had gone to France to be with this singer.

I expolded, and changed the locks so she couldn't come back. I took all her stuff to my mothers and when she got back to the UK, it was the start of her first term as a teacher. She had to stay at one a friend's house, and eventually she needed to get her stuff from my mother's. I agreed to help and we spent a couple of days together. When she had got all her stuff into her new home, she helped me write a letter to her mother apologising for what I had done, because her mother meant a lot to me. Then I made a pass at Barbara which she rebuffed.

The next day I called Barbara and apologised and said it would be better if we didn't see each other again - she said OK. A minute after I put the phone down it rang. She was crying and said, "Come here. I want to see you." I asked why and she said, "I don't want to lose you." I ran as fast as I could to see her - I just felt the same way. We then had an affair which broke down because of my emotional state and the fact that drugs had joined the alcohol in the list of my addictions.

Over the next two years I lost everything that meant something to me. I was a first class ecology student at MMU, on my way to becoming a biology teacher - that blew up. I had a part time job as a domestic at the Manchester Royal Infirmary - where I meant something to people - that blew up. I lost my cat - I left it out in the hall drunk one night and she disappeared. Everything just collapsed and all that was left was the alcohol and drugs.

In May 2004 I didn't drink for one night, and one night became two. Then a week passed and by now I was back doing the job I was doing on the Cayman Islands when I met her. I said to a colleague, "Not drank for a week!" He said it's good to have a break now and again isn't it? "Yeah."

11 years later and I've cleared myself of drink and drugs, and I'm listening to that song and talking on the Doomstead Diner about existence and God (who I saw years before Barbara by the way) and the meaning comes to me. Not Stevie Nicks' objective meaning but my own. The song itself is about meaning - and how saying I love you through song, has more meaning than just saying I love you through language.

Stevie Nicks is singing the song through the eyes of Tom Petty's wife, she herself is the night bird. Stevie Nicks is saying that the POV of Tom Petty's wife is more song-worthy than the POV of herself (or other singer)

[embed=1056,594]<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ojGKSgug_FM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

This is what makes Humanity new in the Universe - meaning. The question is not, "What is the meaning of life?" because Humanity = life plus  meaning. My cat has a conscious mind. Conscious minds have no meaning. Only humans, in the known universe, have meaning. Life has no meaning. From life only humanity has meaning. Meaning is everywhere and it is a ubiquitous part of human life. The most intelligent animals can do tricks and are capable of emotions, but they cannot do the meaning thing.

There is no life on the internet - only meaning. You ask the question, "What does something mean?" Look around the room or place you are in right now. It is a place in this universe that holds some of your meaning. Everything in the room has meaning, because you have meaning and project it onto it. You could be looking at somebody elses meaning, reflecting back at you. It is what you are doing as you read my words. What is reflecting back is your meaning of them.

Why are we here in the Diner? It is a quest for meaning. I'm going to project my meaning as best I can, but remember - meaning is only 100,000 years old - give or take a few millennia. It was born in a human mind and into a universe where powerful forces already existed. Life, chemistry, physics, free will. Those things and many others that came into existence, added stature to the thing that was there in the beginning - that thing is The Great Spirit.

My question to The Great Spirit - God - is are we just here to provide You with meaning, and when we go You keep the meaning? Or do we take meaning with us and You have no further use for it?

JM,
Thank you for sharing all the challenging and difficult experiences you went through. It takes courage to be honest. I salute you for that honesty.  :emthup:  :icon_sunny:

Quote
My question to The Great Spirit - God - is are we just here to provide You with meaning, and when we go You keep the meaning? Or do we take meaning with us and You have no further use for it?

I don't have the mental horsepower to answer for God. All I know from my experience is that we exist and there is a right way, a wrong way and (many ways in between) for us to behave as human beings. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is not, in my opinion, subjective. In fact, the Being that created us wrote the owner's manual into our spirit.

The "owner's manual", if followed perfectly, will enable us to achieve our highest potential. Aristotle, in so many words, said that happiness, while we all would love to have it 24/7, cannot be sought because happiness is the byproduct of a life of virtue.

Many will split relativistic hairs on what "virtue" is and what "vice" is.  ::)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

I think that ALL human beings, mentally retarded or Amygdala stunted psychopaths excluded, understand instinctively what "virtue" is and what "vice" is. IOW, if you can't handle it, don't dish it out. If you see someone in need, help them if you can. Protest against any and all physically and mentally harmful actions by your fellow humans against themselves, each other and other life forms (beyond honest, not contrived, self defense). 

We are designed to support the tribe, not to seek to have the tribe rotate around our wants. Service without self interest is counterintuitive to a degree, but it is the only modus vivendi that provides the "meaning" to a life that gives happiness as a byproduct.

People who are that way live more fulfilled (i.e. happy) lives.   (http://www.smile-day.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smiley-Thumbs-Up2.jpg)

I believe God needs nothing from us. We are the ones that need to follow the owner's manual instructions written in our spirit. I believe God is pleased by that because God is good.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 17, 2015, 01:11:24 am
AG, your posts on dog DEvolution have been extremely informative  (http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg)

I was hoping that Palloy would follow up on HIS suggestion and actually debate this with you, but that's not looking very likely now...

It's also fascinating how animals such as dogs were pre-designed to interact uniquely with humans, in ways they don't interact with ANY other animal, including other dogs. They possessed these qualities BEFORE any humans existed, so evolutionists have absolutely NO explanation for why they developed in the first place. I have not heard any evolutionist even attempt to explain how these uniquely human-interactive qualities developed in MANY birds and mammals. To believe this all happened due to sheer coincidence is the height of magical thinking.

Thank you, sir. Evolutionists have their hands full, that's for sure.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif) Even bringing up three way symbiotic mechanisms like the two types of ants in one colony, one for leaf harvesting, and one for tending the leaves, with a fungus that metabolizes the leaves to make a nutrient for the ants, gives them a headache.Ant-plants and fungi: a new three way symbiosis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19383109).  Ants, plants and fungi have rather different 'evolution', to put it mildly.  ;)

The name given to this activity (co-evolution) is absolutely hilarious, as well as being another excellent example of pseudo scientific magical thinking.

But for now, I'm about to get VERY controversial. ;D I have dug up some fascinating commentary that, although covering some of the ground that has been covered here already, adds some clarity and evidence, that I had not researched much before  :-[, that is rather eye opening, to put it mildly.  ;D

I will post segments that cover, more or less, one issue, so it can be kept relatively simple to debate. Yeah, I know - mission impossible! But we can have a lot of fun!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)

Quote
 
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 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif), and both sides left with the feeling that the other was in some sort of denial.

The biggest group of people who do not believe in evolution is probably mathematicians, and not Christians.  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html (http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html)

*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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif)

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

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 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.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

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/08dna01.htm)).

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

 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 22, 2015, 08:51:52 pm
Creation is faith; evolution is science’?  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)


by Florin Mocanu

Published: 22 March 2015 (GMT+10)

It’s very likely you have heard this phrase before. And it’s actually true—but only half of it. That is, “Creation is faith” is true. As Christians we affirm that creation is indeed a matter of faith. We accept by faith that God created this world; and we can’t do otherwise. None of us was there when this world was created, so we only have God’s word for it; or rather, His Word.

The Bible does not shrink from teaching that belief in creation is indeed a matter of faith. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” And what’s the very first thing on the list that needs to be accepted by faith (v. 3)? “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” There we have it! As Christians, we accept that we believe in creation—it’s a faith statement. Yes, there are many scientific facts that assure us that our faith accords with reality—but our faith rests ultimately on the Word of God.

Yes, there are many scientific facts that assure us that our faith accords with reality—but our faith rests ultimately on the Word of God.

However, I cannot say that the second part is true as well: “… evolution is science”. (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif) Yes, this is what evolutionists want us to believe; yes, this is what they teach our children in schools; yes, this is what they present as truth in movies and TV programs. And yet this part of the statement is simply not true.

And why would I say such a thing? Do I want to commit academic suicide?  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)  ;D On the contrary, my academic training made this abundantly clear to me.   (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)  ;D

While taking a year-two cell biology course, I became acutely aware of the amount of faith that is necessary to accept evolution. For example, phrases like, “it just happened that …” did not sound very convincing as a scientific explanation of how the DNA code arose. I had heard of evolution being supported by ‘just so’ stories, but I still found it shocking to be served one in my cell biology course.  :o

The evolutionists’ faith

Then Hebrews 11 came to mind.  ;DI realized that this text applies not just to belief in creation, but also to the ‘Big Bang’ and evolution hypotheses. How would Hebrews 11 sound in the ‘evolutionists’ standard version’ ?

Quote
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed in a Big Bang,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible; by faith we realize that the universe made itself from nothing.

By faith we know that stars were formed out of gas clouds.
By faith we acknowledge that heavy elements were formed from stars that exploded; we proudly affirm that we are all ‘star dust’, ‘sons of stars’.

By faith we claim that first life appeared in a ‘chemical soup’
—although there is no geological evidence that this soup ever existed.

By faith we accept that the genetic code appeared through a mindless and unguided process of chemical activity, that the coded information got corrupted by many copying errors, and that this led to the production of new and better adapted types of organisms.

And without faith and imagination it is impossible to understand evolution, because anyone who studies evolution must believe that it really happened, since no real scientist doubts it.

By faith we affirm that the ‘present is the key to the past’. We don’t really know what the past was like, but this faith helps us ignore all the evidence for Noah and the Flood—such a preposterous idea would mean that God has judged the world and He may do it again.

By faith we boldly affirm that death is the hero of the plot and that less adapted organisms have to be sacrificed on the altar of progress. The less fit need to die in order to make space for the more fit—there’s no mercy and no care for the weak. Struggle for existence and death have always been around—this is how it was, how it should be, and how it will always be.
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif) (https://worldviewofjesus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/evolution.jpg)

By faith we accept that we are nothing but animals.
It’s only random mutations and natural selection that brought us here some 100,000 years ago and made us able to study our evolutionary past. We are here for a while, we suffer, and then we die.

And what more shall I say? I do not need to say many words about those who have already died: they are dead and buried and the chemicals that once formed their bodies have already entered nature’s cycle. As for their deeds—whether they did right or wrong, whether they brought justice or injustice, whether they were brave or cowards, whether they raped women or were faithful husbands, whether they properly raised their children or rather abused them, whether they helped others or tortured them, whether they invented new drugs to heal people or rather committed genocide—these are all irrelevant since there is no resurrection of the dead and no final judgement.

These are all dead, and very soon we will be too. There is no meaning in universe, and no purpose in life.

Eyewitness testimony versus a just so story

Belief in creation is based on faith indeed—and so is belief in evolution.

The two faiths, though, were not born equal: one is based on a continuously changing system of inferences, ‘educated guesses’, and ‘just so’ stories (which sometimes even defy logic and known scientific principles 1); the other is based on a historical account inspired by the Creator who, needless to say, was there when these things happened. And this account makes sense of the world we live in and which we all experience.

http://creation.com/creation-faith-evolution-science

(http://www.yell.com/static/image/3d6ba416-058e-457b-a214-28b29f7bbfeb_image_jpeg?t=tr/w:550/h:412/m:FitPad)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2015, 06:38:06 pm
For those here that have issues defining objectivity (or accepting that objectivity exists at all!), duality, a personal God and so on, I think this all goes to the ENORMOUS disagreement on what HUMAN PERCEPTION validates as true or not true in this forum.

I see demarcation arguments left and right used for the SOLE PURPOSE of invalidating hard empirical evidence of what IS and what AIN'T.

But let us say, for the sake of non-argument, that everything our brain, consciousness, mind, soul (or whatever you want to call the "illusion" of cognition  :icon_mrgreen:) is kidding itself 24/7.

If that is so, everything we perceive is suspect, along with any and all concepts (because concepts are a function of our "illusory" cognition  ;)) about right and wrong.

This "illusion" we all have is an ORDERED illusion. That ORDER is necessary to CREATE THE ILLUSION of cause and effect. Cause and effect, from the observed laws of nature to the metaphysical claims of right and wrong, as a duality world view function of obedience or disobedience to a Supreme SEPARATE Being OR as a Monist function of harmony within the ONENESS of all (see ethical behavior of Monists).

But that STILL leaves us with the DEMARCATION argument that CAUSE AND EFFECT ORDER (laws of thermodynamics and measurable phenomenon) are THEMSELVES and illusion.

That argument is CIRCULAR. It's a TAUTOLOGY. Therefore it CANNOT "fly" as a valid demarcation argument.

We NEED some phenomenon that we ALL CAN AGREE is objectively observable and scientifically measurable. Monists DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. They say that our minds are creating that order so anything measured is no proof of DUALITY.

I posted all the evidence of incredibly complex cell machines as a direct refutation of the monist view that our minds shape the order of our reality. Nobody said jack **** about that. The scientists, mostly atheists, were EXPECTING (see order created by mind over matter "creates perception" according to the monist world view) to see SIMPLE MECHANISMS that could have evolved randomly in 14 billion years! They SAW what they DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

But let us assume that they were, as any monist worth his salt will claim  :icon_mrgreen:, really, deep down, expecting complexity that contradicted all their atheistic views. That's certainly possible but it sounds rather improbable if our mind, as monists claim, works 24/7 to SHAPE reality.

But let us say that cell complexity is just part of a random universe and we just haven't figured out the evolutionary mechanism, like Palloy claims.

Even THAT claim will be challenged by monists because everybody is at a different "level" of "oneness" so no universal this or that will ever be discovered (MORE demarcation fun and games).

RE agree that the mind of God created the ORDER in the universe. That order is measurable and is evidence of a creator.

I will go further. That ORDER is NOT shaped by our expectations and perceptions, as Monists claim. When Mankind ONLY had his senses to measure cause and effect, the words of Aristotle ("Man is the measure of all things") might have worked for the Monist view of a universe shaped by ONE mind that we are, according to our level of spiritual advancement, capable of tuning into and perceiving the whole enchilada with (see meditation).

BUT, mankind invented INSTRUMENTS. The LATEST measurements by those extremely sophisticated instruments that measure quantum frequencies within chains of atoms have found evidence TOTALLY at odds with the scientific view of a random universe. And the ORDER at the sub atomic level is BEYOND the power of ANY human mind, regardless of what the monists will claim.

What has been found is that the Fibonacci ration of 1.618 ORDERS quantum particles. That was discovered in 2010. The scientists DID NOT WANT TO DISCOVER THAT. It blows away any and all concepts of randomness in this universe. It is the FINGERPRINT of a God CONSTANTLY creating 24/7.

Monists will say, ho hum. That's cool. You are entitled to your illusions. But phi down to the quantum level is NO ILLUSION. Spare me the demarcation argument. This is OBJECTIVE evidence of a creator separate from Homo SAPS. Quantum particle ENTER and EXIT our universe CONTINUALLY. Some AGENCY is ORDERING them in the phi 1.618 ratio EX NIHILO. That AGENCY is God CREATING MATTER AND ENERGY 24/7.   

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230315175806.png)

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4447.msg70987.html#msg70987
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on April 21, 2015, 10:21:27 pm
The truth that doesn't make the papers, for some reason... ;)
 https://youtu.be/LWM31KpLmr4

 https://youtu.be/lKNYD42Ntig

 https://youtu.be/KptzcAb2NXE

 https://youtu.be/ltTDvLHU9ok


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2015, 09:41:11 pm
https://youtu.be/7xSi8g2ouCQ
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
 
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2015, 07:32:27 pm
https://youtu.be/G-4F9e7tr5U
Panspermia is a dodge because it refuses to address WHO created the Panspermists!  ;D
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 28, 2015, 10:04:08 pm
https://youtu.be/VHeSaUq-Hl8

Dr. David Berlinski explains why the Theory of Evolution is based on Conjecture, NOT reproducible, empirical scientific evidence.


Who is Dr. David Berlinski? Find out HERE:  ;D

https://youtu.be/0XIDykeZplU

Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Intro is a bit long with too many corny jokes.  ;) Jump to 8:40 to go straight to this VERY interesting presentation.  8)



Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 29, 2015, 06:52:23 pm
(https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/758/1565/f/3912-Finger-of-God-0.jpg)

We NEED some phenomenon that we ALL CAN AGREE is objectively observable and scientifically measurable.

I have posted here all the evidence of incredibly complex cell machines as a direct refutation of evolution according to atheist Darwin worshippers. Nobody said jack **** about that. The scientists, mostly atheists, were EXPECTING  to see SIMPLE MECHANISMS that could have evolved randomly in 14 billion years! They SAW what they DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

But let us say that cell complexity is just part of a random universe and we just haven't figured out the evolutionary mechanism, like Palloy claims.

RE agrees that the mind of God created the ORDER in the universe. That order is measurable and is evidence of a creator.

Atheists poo poo that and claim it's all the product of random space time farts and fluctuations.  ;D

These same atheists admit, and indeed celebrate, the fact that mankind invented INSTRUMENTS. The LATEST measurements by those extremely sophisticated instruments that measure quantum frequencies within chains of atoms have found evidence TOTALLY at odds with the scientific view of a random universe.

What has been found is that the Fibonacci ration of 1.618 ORDERS quantum particles. That was discovered in 2010. The scientists DID NOT WANT TO DISCOVER THAT. It blows away any and all concepts of randomness in this universe. It is the FINGERPRINT of a God CONSTANTLY creating 24/7.

This is OBJECTIVE evidence of a creator separate from Homo SAPS. Quantum particles ENTER and EXIT our universe CONTINUALLY. Some AGENCY is ORDERING them in the phi 1.618 ratio EX NIHILO. That AGENCY is God CREATING MATTER AND ENERGY 24/7.   

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230315175806.png)


(http://www.goodsalt.com/view/the-finger-of-god-GoodSalt-lwjas0397.jpg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 05, 2015, 02:55:11 pm
Facts versus the LENSE though which you view the facts
https://youtu.be/AwEev_bnhGk

Quote
CMI's Dr Robert Carter is interviewed by Jim Cantelon of 100 Huntley Street. Dr Carter's PhD is in Marine Biology. He currently works as a scientist, researcher, writer and speaker for CMI-US. See creation.com for thousands of articles that show how the latest scientific discoveries support creation.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 20, 2015, 07:18:14 pm
Quote
... the theory of natural selection was first extensively developed not by Charles Darwin, but by the Christian creationist Edward Blyth. In 1835 (many years before Darwin’s Origin book) Blyth stated, “The same law (natural selection)*, therefore, which was intended by Providence (God)* to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties (artificial selection)* … ”.    :o  ;D


The Religious Nature of Evolution Theory and its Attack on Christianity


http://creation.com/evolution-religious



Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on August 03, 2015, 11:03:17 pm
https://youtu.be/pa2_1Xb5A7M
The holocaust BEFORE the holocaust.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2015, 09:33:15 pm
Quote
New study claims significant oxygen 3.5 billion years ago

A recent report reinforces the notion that the atmosphere contained oxygen well before the GOE, in fact about one billion years before, some 3.46 Ga ago within the evolutionary/uniformitarian timescale.9 Primary hematite, directly deposited and not a result of subsequent events, was found in iron rich sedimentary rocks in northwest Australia dated at 3.46 Ga. Such hematite can form in two ways. In an oxygen-less atmosphere, ultraviolet light reaching the earth’s surface, strikes iron hydroxide minerals and triggers a reaction that drives the water away forming hematite.

However, hematite can also form by the oxidation of iron without ultraviolet light. This is the type of hematite formation claimed for the hematite/chert sedimentary rocks supposedly formed about 3.5 Ga ago. These sedimentary rocks were sandwiched between two thick volcanic layers (greater than 3 km) that strongly suggest they were formed in deep water, at least 200 m, and possibly up to 1,000 m, deep. This deduction was based on:
1. the lack of erosion surfaces in the rocks,
2. the absence of textures from waves or currents,
3. the lack of features associated with subaerial volcanism,
4. the lack of bubbles in the volcanic rocks suggesting the layers all formed under high water pressure, and
5. the virtual absence of aerosols, detrital minerals, and volcanic ash.

So, if there was oxygen in the seawater to form hematite, there was also oxygen in the atmosphere:


“The implications are profound: if oxygen existed at near-modern levels in such a broad, deep body of water, the atmosphere must have been oxygenated also. Presumably that oxygen was produced by organisms capable of photosynthesis, also pushing back their appearance.”10

Pushing back an oxygen atmosphere by a billion years also pushes back the evolution of photosynthetic bacteria a billion years or more, since evolutionists believe the oxygen had to come from these bacteria.

This result does not leave much time for the supposed evolution of these complex bacteria.


Such rapid evolution of single-celled creatures from chemicals makes evolution ever more astonishing: “Envisioning the steps that led to this complex biochemistry [of photosynthesis] is mind-boggling.”11

Furthermore, the hematite was in the form of single crystals indicating that they were not made by ultraviolet light. The researchers go on to say that geochemical analysis of the hematite crystals suggests that they formed at temperatures greater than 60°C from hydrothermal discharges rich in ferrous iron that spewed into cool, oxygenated waters.

This new evidence seems convincing to many and offers evidence “that the Earth’s atmosphere held significant amounts of oxygen far earlier than previously thought”.10
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://creation.com/did-early-earth-atmosphere-contain-oxygen
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2015, 03:21:00 pm
Convergent Evolution Pseudo-Scientific Speculation IS Wishful Thinking
https://youtu.be/NasV4omER4A

Description

Quote
We are commonly told that similarities between living things prove that they are related by evolution, but did you know that many similarities found in nature defy evolution?

Take for example the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. These creatures are remarkably similar, but according to evolutionists they did not inherit this startling similarity from a common ancestor. Instead, we are told, ‘evolution’ achieved the same design in both creatures, independently.
 
They call this ‘convergence’ because evolution has supposedly converged on, or arrived at, a similar looking outcome. But ‘convergence’ is really just a word used to try to explain away similarities that don’t support evolution.

Indeed, convergences are so common in nature that they cause major problems for evolutionists—but they fit nicely with the proposal that the living world is the handiwork of a single divine designer.

The similarities tell us that there is one mind behind it all. He even designed things in a way that thwarts evolutionary story telling.  ;D

http://creation.com/creation-videos

Self Writing Software?(http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)  ???   (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) I Don't Think So.

https://youtu.be/fnlz9b5TZB0

Description
Quote

What is something computers and humans have in common which constantly needs upgrading in computers but not in humans? The answer is software. You might not have realized that you have software but inside the nucleus of each of your cells a program is written in the form of three billion DNA letters.

Intelligent programmers write computer software but what about living things? Evolutionists tell us that the information in the first living cell just appeared by itself, with no intelligent input required. But is that possible? The answer is a resounding no.

Even one of Australia's best known scientists, Paul Davies, conceded that, "There is no know law of physics able to crate information from nothing." And perhaps that's why, in a New Scientist article, he lamented, "How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows."  ;)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 12:02:47 am
More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy

by Robert W. Carter

My colleague John Sanford and I have recently published a paper in a secular journal with what we believe are profound implications.1

Our basic claim is that ‘genetic entropy’ works in the real world, which brings questions about the role of natural selection and the long-term survival of species into the future.

A new look at an old virus

The paper analyzed mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza genome using over 95 years’ worth of genetic sequences (figure 1).

(http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p102/c10260/relative-mutation-count-lge.gif)
Figure 1. Mutation accumulation in human H1N1. The published Brevig Mission strain from 1918 was used as the baseline (bold line) for comparison with all available human-infecting H1N1 genomes. There are two distinct trend lines in the data. The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions. The remaining points represent mutation accumulation in the ‘human’ version of H1N1: from 1918 to its initial extinction in 1957, a break of 19 years, its re-introduction in 1976 (of a strain from approximately 1955, after which the mutation count picks up where it left off), and a second disappearance in 2009.

This type of data is a rarity in the world of genetics, since most sequence data are from recent organisms with long generation times. The influenza virus, however, has been isolated and sequenced from human tissue samples all the way back to 1918.

With a human-to-human transmission on average every three days or so, this makes over 11,000 disease generations and many times more than that number of viral generations.

The number of viral generations is possibly comparable to the number of generations since the supposed human-chimpanzee split.


Full article:
  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://creation.com/evidence-for-genetic-entropy
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on April 10, 2017, 06:53:35 pm
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.     (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on April 10, 2017, 06:58:55 pm
I disagree with your implying that its human nature and nothing we can do about it.

I never implied any such thing, in fact I said exactly the opposite that inherently like all pack animals Homo Saps has a cooperative nature that asserts itself in groups around the size of Dunbar's Number of 150.  I have written on many occasions how these behaviors are NOT "Human Nature" but rather the cultural outcome of the development of Agriculture, the Property Ownership system and Money.  I have used on MANY occasions the line "Money is the ROOT of all EVIL".           (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)

I am appalled you can so seriously misinterpret my writing.

RE[/size]


Well you're close RE....

FOR THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)


 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)


I know RE claims it's six of one and half a dozen of another. But I don't think so. And, I'm glad to see you and I are on the same page. All that said, I hasten to add, in defense of RE (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif), that he practices a lack of LOVE for money in his life!  (http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100115191314.jpeg)

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?  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)

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  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)) 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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif)

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 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif) , 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/

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

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? ???

  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)



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.
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) have been vociferous about the God footprint on the universe (Fibonacci down to quantum level  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)) 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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013011359.png)


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

(http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on April 21, 2017, 09:21:35 pm


 (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png)

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

(http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/170420141844_1_900x600.jpg)
There’s no metabolic tweak that would make them less ugly though.
Image credits Thomas Park / UIC.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)

You know what would really ruin your day? A lack of oxygen.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

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 (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) 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  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif) 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.

https://youtu.be/oVnuFY20st0

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.

(https://aramblingwanderer.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/p10.gif)

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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2017, 06:34:58 pm
Forbidden History, Evolution Theory is Wrong

Out of Place Discoveries TV

https://youtu.be/pLykeM27aig

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?
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2017, 06:58:08 pm
https://youtu.be/tPShDz6nEyI

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. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-020617175335.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2017, 07:06:20 pm
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/treeswing.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif)

Harpa Cristã instrumental em Flauta Andina

https://youtu.be/NcUdPwtG968

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-031014195733.jpeg)

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...
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040817140651.png)

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:

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017140758.jpeg)



Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png)

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:

(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/178-curvature-blindness-illusion-1.jpg)
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/ (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/ (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!

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215144837.png)

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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)).

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). (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)

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/ (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 (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! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)

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!

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100115191314.jpeg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm
Aversion to Snakes?  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)


Hey doomers, do you want to hear a lot of academic mumbo jumbo about why we don't like snakes or spiders much?   (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

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 (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030817202100.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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:

(https://cache4.pakwheels.com/ad_pictures/1183/toyota-corolla-1966-11836585.jpg)

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.

(http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

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. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

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. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)

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.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

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/08dna01.htm)).

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

(http://img.picturequotes.com/2/555/554096/its-not-because-my-mind-is-made-up-that-i-dont-want-you-to-confuse-me-with-any-more-facts-its-quote-1.jpg)

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 (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 (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.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250315144837.png)

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?
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017145820.jpeg)

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  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png). They had "species" that were "evolving" and, of course, "dominating" (i.e. the Palloys), while others were "going extinct" (i.e. the Agelberts) too!  (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200018.png)

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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/458746798270447616/U-eXuzjf.jpeg)

We finally get the gel electrophoresis truth molehill that they (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) 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"? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif)

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.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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 (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 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp) 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.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) 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.
https://youtu.be/GJor1sk_JDI (https://youtu.be/GJor1sk_JDI)

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:

(https://cache4.pakwheels.com/ad_pictures/1183/toyota-corolla-1966-11836585.jpg)

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.

(http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

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. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

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. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)

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.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

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/08dna01.htm)).

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

(http://img.picturequotes.com/2/555/554096/its-not-because-my-mind-is-made-up-that-i-dont-want-you-to-confuse-me-with-any-more-facts-its-quote-1.jpg)

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 (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 (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.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250315144837.png)

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?
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017145820.jpeg)

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  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png). They had "species" that were "evolving" and, of course, "dominating" (i.e. the Palloys), while others were "going extinct" (i.e. the Agelberts) too!  (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200018.png)

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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/458746798270447616/U-eXuzjf.jpeg)

We finally get the gel electrophoresis truth molehill that they (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) 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"? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif)

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 (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.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-111214174727.png)

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. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)

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!
(https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/108949049/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=1,version=1385952966/we-all-originate-from-this-soup.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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):
(https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/108949049/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=1,version=1385952966/we-all-originate-from-this-soup.jpg)
Quote
Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.

  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)


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 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)

Add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/sign-the-list/)


RECENT POSTS:

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/22/professor_colin_reeves_coventr/)

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) (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/02/edward_peltzer_university_of_c/)

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 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/08/11/chris_williams_phd_biochemistr/)

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/ (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!
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2018, 10:34:40 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-131013160639.png)

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.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)
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.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)


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.(http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)


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 (http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2018, 10:35:35 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013204749.png)
But Dawkins cannot accept that the most obvious reason for said "planting" is creation.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210733.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013210944.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-151013211306.png)
                                                     
(http://robservations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/happy-cat1.jpg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2018, 10:36:50 pm
https://youtu.be/7Wr-lXLGCxQ
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)

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...  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

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 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif) 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.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)
 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/ (http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37874/title/Fossilized-Mosquito-Blood-Meal/)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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."  ;)

Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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?  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif)

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! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)).

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

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Amoeba_(PSF).svg)
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.
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2018, 03:07:36 pm
Some excellent proofs against Darwinism are presented here. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

2,205,539 views 🧐

https://youtu.be/k2jyF_XyTc8
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2018, 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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2018, 08:10:34 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

What about all the successful predictions?

Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha) One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the confirming evidence is more often retained and documented. Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts. Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed, evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no evidence that is contrary to evolution.

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

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2018, 05:13:39 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. This is the last of the list of objections.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

We will move, after today, to 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 falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of data.

The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the time they were held. They are well documented in both peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists. They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists. Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions. That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of evolution’s false predictions is important.

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
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 01, 2018, 05:13:35 pm
.DarwinsPredictions

Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?

Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments.

Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. (Lakatos) In fact evolutionists argue that false predictions made by the theory of evolution are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to review a theory’s false predictions. A theory’s track record can be highly informative. The history of false predictions generated by a theory tells us about its strengths and weaknesses, and how and why the theory is believed to be true.

In the case of evolutionary theory, its many false predictions reveal that the theory is not motivated by the science and that the textbook claim that evolution is a fact does not come merely from empirical evidence (see Conclusions). Therefore the objective of this paper is to collect and record, in one place, a sample of the false predictions generated by evolutionary theory.

The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria.

• They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought.

• They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints.

• Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated.

• They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.


This paper does not maintain that the predictions presented are the only fundamental predictions of evolution, or that evolution does not have successful predictions. Those are well documented in the literature.

Nor does this paper maintain that the predictions presented, though false, have not served to produce productive research.

Also, this paper does not maintain that these false predictions cannot be remedied or reversed by future scientific findings.

References

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

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 03, 2018, 04:41:49 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)

.DarwinsPredictions

Early evolution predictions

The DNA code is not unique

Shortly after the discovery of the DNA code, which is used in cells to construct proteins, evolutionists (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) began theorizing how it evolved. The same code was found in very different species which means that the same code was present in their distant, common ancestor.

So the DNA code arose early in evolutionary history and remained essentially unchanged thereafter.   (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200018.png)

And since it arose so early in evolutionary history, in the first primitive cell, the code must not be unique or special. For how could such a code have evolved so early in the history of life? As Nobel Laureate Francis Crick wrote in 1968, “There is no reason to believe, however, that the present code is the best possible, and it could have easily reached its present form by a sequence of happy accidents.” (Crick) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017140758.jpeg)

Or as one widely used undergraduate molecular biology text later put it, “The code seems to have been selected arbitrarily (subject to some constraints, perhaps).” (Alberts et. al., 9) And an evolution textbook further explained, “The code is then what Crick called a ‘frozen accident.’ The original choice of a code was an accident; but once it had evolved, it would be strongly maintained.” (Ridley, 48)  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)


In other words, somehow the DNA code evolved into place but it has little or no special or particular properties. (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817122018.gif)


But we now know that the code’s arrangement uniquely reduces the effects of mutations and reading errors. As one research study concluded, the DNA code is “one in a million” in terms of efficiency in minimizing these effects. (Freeland)

Several other studies have confirmed these findings and have discovered more unique and special properties of the code. One found that the DNA code is a very rare code, even when compared to other codes which already have the error correcting capability. (Itzkovitz)

Another found that the code does not optimize merely one function, but rather optimizes “a combination of several different functions simultaneously.” (Bollenbach)

As one paper concluded, the code’s properties were “unexpected and still cry out for explanation.” (Vetsigian)

References

Alberts, Bruce., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson. 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3d ed. New York: Garland Publishing.

Bollenbach, T., K. Vetsigian, R. Kishony. 2007. “Evolution and multilevel optimization of the genetic code.” Genome Research 17:401-404.

Crick, Francis. 1968. “The origin of the genetic code.” J. Molecular Biology 38:367-379.

Freeland, S., L. Hurst. 1998. “The genetic code is one in a million.” J. Molecular Evolution 47:238-248.

Itzkovitz, S., U. Alon. 2007. “The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences.” Genome Research 17:405-412.

Ridley, Mark. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Vetsigian, K., C. Woese, N. Goldenfeld. 2006. “Collective evolution and the genetic code.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:10696-10701.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-dna-code-is-not-unique
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 04, 2018, 01:34:55 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)

.DarwinsPredictions

Early evolution predictions

The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal

In addition to the DNA code, there are other fundamental molecular processes that appear to be common to all life. One intriguing example is DNA replication which copies both strands of the DNA molecule, but in different directions. Evolution predicts these fundamental processes to be common to all life. Indeed this was commonly said to be an important successful prediction for the theory. As Niles Eldredge explained, the “underlying chemical uniformity of life” was a severe test that evolution passed with flying colors. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117175700.png)(Eldredge, 41)

Likewise Christian de Duve declared that evolution is in part confirmed by the fact that all extant living organisms function according to the same principles. (de Duve, 1) And Michael Ruse concluded that the essential macromolecules of life help to make evolution beyond reasonable doubt. (Ruse, 4) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121829.png)

But this conclusion that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell are common to all species was superficial. In later years, as the details were investigated, important differences between species emerged. For example, key DNA replication proteins surprisingly “show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.” (Leipe) Also different DNA replication processes have been discovered. These results were not what were expected:  ;D

In particular, and counter-intuitively, given the central role of DNA in all cells and the mechanistic uniformity of replication, the core enzymes of the replication systems of bacteria and archaea (as well as eukaryotes) are unrelated or extremely distantly related. Viruses and plasmids, in addition, possess at least two unique DNA replication systems, namely, the protein-primed and rolling circle modalities of replication. This unexpected  diversity makes the origin and evolution of DNA replication systems a particularly challenging and intriguing problem in evolutionary biology. (Koonin) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png)

Some evolutionists (http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg) are reconsidering the assumption that all life on Earth shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry, and instead examining the possibility of independent evolution, and multiple origins of fundamentally different life forms. (Cleland, Leipe) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


References

Cleland, Carol. 2007. “Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38:847-861.

de Duve, Christian. 1995. Vital Dust. New York: BasicBooks.

Eldredge, Niles. 1982. The Monkey Business. New York: Washington Square Press.

Koonin, E. 2006. “Temporal order of evolution of DNA replication systems inferred by comparison of cellular and viral DNA polymerases.” Biology Direct 18:1-39.

Leipe, D., L. Aravind, E. Koonin. 1999. “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?.” Nucleic Acids Research 27:3389-3401.

Ruse, Michael. 1986. Taking Darwin Seriously. New York: Basil Blackwell.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-cell-s-fundamental-molecules-are-universal
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:20:33 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121014155219.jpeg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:21:57 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121014153442.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:23:52 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121014144740.jpeg)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:27:54 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300914234100.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:35:53 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914223702.png)

]
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914230448.png)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190914225020.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 01:41:23 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180914225557.png)
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2018, 02:08:30 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090914233747.png)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140914192719.png)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140914200100.png)

(https://unashamedofjesus.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/wp-1461770161627.jpg?w=625&zoom=2)

 
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2018, 12:30:51 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)

.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Mutations are not adaptive

In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained:

chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised. (Monod, 112)

Ronald Fisher 😈 wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis)

But that assumption is now known to be false. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png) The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright)

The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists  (http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg) now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050616182935.png)

References

Burkala, E., et. al. 2007. “Secondary structures as predictors of mutation potential in the lacZ gene of Escherichia coli.” Microbiology 153:2180-2189.

Chen, Y., R. Lowenfeld, C. Cullis. 2009. “An environmentally induced adaptive (?) insertion event in flax.” International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology 1:38-47.

Chen, Y., R. Schneeberger, C. Cullis. 2005. “A site-specific insertion sequence in flax genotrophs induced by environment.” New Phytologist 167:171-180.

David, L., et. al. 2010. “Inherited adaptation of genome-rewired cells in response to a challenging environment.” HFSP Journal 4:131–141.

Fidalgo, M., et. al. 2006. “Adaptive evolution by mutations in the FLO11 gene.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:11228-11233.

Foster, P. 2005. “Stress responses and genetic variation in bacteria.” Mutation Research / Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 569:3-11.

Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in Action. New York: Signet Science Library Book.

Johnson, C., T. Moss, C. Cullis. 2011. “Environmentally induced heritable changes in flax.” J Visualized Experiments 47:2332.

Monod, Jacques. 1971. Chance & Necessity. New York: Vintage Books.

Moxon, E., et. al. 1994. “Adaptive evolution of highly mutable loci in pathogenic bacteria.” Current Biology 4:24-33.

Orr, H. 2005. “The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history.” Nature Review Genetics 6:119-127.
Wright, B. 2000. “A biochemical mechanism for nonrandom mutations and evolution.” J Bacteriology 182:2993-3001.


https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 24, 2018, 01:07:56 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017143841.jpeg)


.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Competition is greatest between neighbors

Darwin’s basic theory of evolution, by itself, did not account for the tree-like, hierarchical pattern the species were thought to form. Darwin was keenly aware of this shortcoming and wrestled with it for years. He finally conceived of a solution for why modified offspring would continue to evolve away and diverge from their parents. The principle of divergence, the last major theoretical addition before Darwin published his book, held that competition tends to be strongest between the more closely related organisms. This would cause a splitting and divergence, resulting in the traditional evolutionary tree pattern. (Desmond and Moore 1991, 419-420; Ridley, 378-379)

But no such trend has been observed. 🧐 In a major study of competition between freshwater green algae species, the level of competition between pairs of species was found to be uncorrelated with the evolutionary distance between the pair of species. As the researchers explained, Darwin “argued that closely related species should compete more strongly and be less likely to coexist. For much of the last century, Darwin’s hypothesis has been taken at face value […] Our results add to a growing body of literature that fails to support Darwin’s original competition-relatedness hypothesis.” (Venail, et. al., 2, 9) The team spent months trying to resolve the problem, but to no avail. As one of the researchers explained:

It was completely unexpected. When we saw the results, we said “this can’t be.” ::)  We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right? (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/Smileys/dd1/icon_scratch.gif) … (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif) When we started coming up with numbers that showed he [Darwin] wasn’t right, we were completely baffled. … We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life. (Cimons) ;D

Why this long-standing prediction was not confirmed remains unknown. Apparently there are more complicating factors 🕵️ that influence competition in addition to evolutionary relatedness. 

References

Cimons, Marlene. 2014. “Old Idea About Ecology Questioned by New Findings.” National Science Foundation.

Desmond, Adrian, James Moore. 1991. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ridley, Mark. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Venail , P.A., A. Narwani , K. Fritschie, M. A. Alexandrou, T. H. Oakley, B. J. Cardinale. 2014. “The influence of phylogenetic relatedness on competition and facilitation among freshwater algae in a mesocosm experiment.” Journal of Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12271.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/competition-is-greatest-between-neighbors

Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 25, 2018, 07:44:38 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.  (http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130730115824/plantsvszombies/images/5/59/Sunflower_Free_Promo.jpg)


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Protein evolution

Protein coding genes make up only a small fraction of the genome in higher organisms but their protein products are crucial to the operation of the cell. They are the workers behind just about every task in the cell, including digesting food, synthesizing chemicals, structural support, energy conversion, cell reproduction and making new proteins. And like a finely tuned machine, proteins do their work very well. Proteins are ubiquitous in all of life and must date back to the very early stages of evolution. So evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after. But despite enormous research efforts the science clearly shows that such protein evolution is astronomically unlikely.  ;D

One reason the evolution of proteins is so difficult is that most proteins are extremely specific designs in an otherwise rugged fitness landscape. This means it is difficult for natural selection to guide mutations toward the needed proteins. In fact, four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 1070 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. For instance, one study concluded that 1063 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. (Reidhaar-Olson) And a similar result (1065 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. (Yockey) Another study found that from 1064 to 1077 attempts are required (Axe) and another study concluded that 1070 attempts would be required. (Hayashi) In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making for an easier search. Furthermore these estimates are optimistic because the experiments searched only for single-function proteins whereas real proteins perform many functions.

This conservative estimate of 1070 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. 👀 ;D And explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular*. For example, one paper estimated that evolution could have made 1043 such attempts. But the study assumed the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumed the preexistence of a large population of bacteria (it assumed the earth was completely covered with bacteria). And of course, bacteria are full of proteins. Clearly such bacteria would not exist before the first proteins evolved. (Dryden) Even with these helpful and unrealistic assumptions the result was twenty seven orders of magnitude short of the requirement.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png)

Given these several significant problems, the chances of evolution finding proteins from a random start are, as one evolutionist explained, “highly unlikely.” (Tautz) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png)

Or as another evolutionist put it, “Although the origin of the first, primordial genes may ultimately be traced back to some precursors in the so-called ‘RNA world’ billions of years ago, their origins remain enigmatic.” (Kaessmann) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-240718213433-14592370.png)


(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718163600-14411639.png)
  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)


Quote
* Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) begins with what they are trying to end with.
  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


References

Axe, D. 2004. “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” J Molecular Biology 341:1295-1315.

Dryden, David, Andrew Thomson, John White. 2008. “How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?.” J. Royal Society Interface 5:953-956.

Hayashi, Y., T. Aita, H. Toyota, Y. Husimi, I. Urabe, T. Yomo. 2006. “Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space.” PLoS ONE 1:e96.

Kaessmann, H. 2010. “Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes.” Genome Research 10:1313-26.

Reidhaar-Olson J., R. Sauer. 1990. “Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor.” Proteins 7:306-316.

Tautz, Diethard, Tomislav Domazet-Lošo. 2011. “The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.” Nature Reviews Genetics 12:692-702.

Yockey, Hubert. 1977. “A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.” J Theoretical Biology 67:377–398.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution


Title: Re: Darwin
Post by: AGelbert on July 26, 2018, 10:05:20 pm
Agelbert NOTE: For those who are unfamilar with Histones, I am posting some info and a video to help make clear to you how absolutely essential they are to life. 

Quote
Histones are one of the specific proteins involved in cell division and cancer. Technically, the ball-like groups of histones are referred to as nucleosomes, but--for simplicity--the website will continue to refer to these groups as histones.

In more general terms, histones are the protein “balls” that DNA wraps around in order to help DNA coil itself and condense into a chromosome during interphase. In fact, the image of nucleosomes (groups of histones) strung along a strand of DNA is often referred to as the "Beads on a String" model.

In the image below, you can see the histones, drawn as gray spheres that attach to the DNA and each other as the DNA condenses into a chromosome that can be easily divided and transported during cell division.


(http://www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/proteinsmodule/images/Histones.png)

We, however, are interested in just the histones, as pictured below:

(http://www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/proteinsmodule/images/chromosome%20copy.png)

The video below provides a good representation of what histones look like in the cell. The clip denotes the histones as groups of orange spheres wrapped in blue globular DNA. Courtesy of jccairs.

https://youtu.be/_5vzKDYgmys

http://www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/proteinsmodule/histones/index.html

You read that part about cell division, but, leaving the cancer issue aside for the moment, Histones have other vital functions. You all know what an anti-histamine spray is. Certain types of Histones cause the release of histamines (vasodilators - relax blood vessel smooth muscles and make them leaky) which give you a runny nose. It is an immune system response to get rid of something your body does not want. An anti-histamine spray counteracts that. You may not like that runny nose, but keeping it from running may not help in getting rid of some bacterial or viral agent attacking you, so please keep that in mind.

You also should know about the Histone that sends histamines to your H3 receptors when you eat sweets (they are located throughout your body). When those H3 receptors get hit too often, they become sensitized and more and more histamines are required to make the H3 receptors work. What work is that? It's calling for insulin to process the sugar. Eating too much sugar triggers a massive amount of histamines towards the H3 receptors. When the H3 receptors get overtaxed over a number of years, the person develops Diabetes.

I apologize for being so brief, but the point I wish to make is that we cannot function without Histones and that all of their functions are extremely fine tuned and targeted. Histones are an irreducibly complex part of the eukaryotic cell (Eukaryotic means true=Eu - karyot=nucleus versus Prokaryotic=bacterial cells - Pro=before) design.

They are either all there or they do not work. In the case of cancer, they work too much, which is also not part of their function. All biological functions work inside a life band of "not too little" and "not too much" activity. It is ludicrous to claim that any organism had a non-functioning partial group of all the histones that just randomly mutated to be an extremely precisely targeted tool of cell division and the immune system. Without Histones (and several other irreducibly complex parts of the celluar anatomy and physiology that work in precise harmony), there is no life because there is no cell division, period.  (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png) The fact thar Eukaryotic Histones can continue to function with several deleterious mutations, contrary to what evolutionary theory had predicted, strengthens the hypothesis of a robust original design, even though evolutionists are trying to talk their way around this. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


Smileys added by yours truly. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png)


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change

Histones are proteins which serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped. They are highly similar across vastly different species which means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history. As one textbook explains, “The amino acid sequences of four histones are remarkably similar among distantly related species. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes.” (Lodish et. al., Section 9.5) And this high similarity among the histones also means they must not tolerate change very well, as another textbook explains: “Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. … virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection.” (Alberts et. al. 1994, 243)

So the evolutionary prediction is that in these histone proteins practically all changes are deleterious: “As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell.” (Alberts et. al. 2002, Chapter 4)

This prediction has also been given in popular presentations of the theory: “Virtually all mutations impair histone’s function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.” (Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates)

But this prediction has turned out to be false. An early study suggested that one of the histone proteins could well tolerate many changes. (Agarwal and Behe) And later studies confirmed and expanded this finding: “despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodifiable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.” (Kim et. al.)

Similarly another paper documented these contradictory (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718210558.gif) results: “It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution.  (http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg) Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.” (Dai et. al.) In fact, even more surprising, many mutations actually raised the fitness level. (Dai et. al.)

References

Agarwal, S., M. Behe. 1996. “Non-conservative mutations are well tolerated in the globular region of yeast histone H4.” J Molecular Biology 255:401-411.

Alberts, Bruce., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson. 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3d ed. New York: Garland Publishing.

Alberts, Bruce., A. Johnson, J. Lewis, et. al. 2002. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th ed. New York: Garland Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26834/

Dai, J., E. Hyland, D. Yuan, H. Huang, J. Bader, J. Boeke. 2008. “Probing nucleosome function: a highly versatile library of synthetic histone H3 and H4 mutants.” Cell 134:1066-1078.

Kim, J., J. Hsu, M. Smith, C. Allis. 2012. “Mutagenesis of pairwise combinations of histone amino-terminal tails reveals functional redundancy in budding yeast.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:5779-5784.

Lodish H., A. Berk, S. Zipursky, et. al. 2000. Molecular Cell Biology. 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21500/

“Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates.” 2001. WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/histone-proteins-cannot-tolerate-much-change