Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

wow.. how tiny a man's imagination can bring.

man, you have such a complex brain, try to use it sometimes.

No. Most of the evidence is more difficult to describe. But this is not like a court case where two or three key pieces of evidence make the case. It is more like an engineering assessment where tens of thousands of lines of research all describe the same sorts of things.

Evolutionary biology has been established long enough that few papers are being written specifically trying to test the key premises. It would be like browsing the astronomical literature looking for new tests of the claim that stars are great burning (fusing) balls of gas.

Instead work done now demonstrates the underlying premise in the way what is actually being tested in the paper de jour works out.



I don't see how this helps you, in any case. Unless you are willing to single out the flavobacteria speciation events as a single obscure case that has no similarity to anything else done ever.

Which I suspect is your intent, as you characterize the entire history and understanding of the evolution of feathers as based on a single fossil specimen found in the 19th century.




Plants don't evolve into humans. Even ignoring the whole problem of crossing entire kingdoms, it is a simplistic fallacy to think of evolution as occurring laterally across developed branches.

Atheists really have some genetic defects on their brains. I mean a really major one.

Maybe it's because of the fluoride their having this sort of great brain malfunction.

thats what you get from mcdo.

Well, technically mass/energy. Because we can very much convert one to the other.

We can also (theoretically, so far!) destroy specific kinds of information. Because black holes have no hair. (Information here is used in a more classically defined sense than the -- well, very much not defined -- sense certain creationists use it in.)

The black hole, like the casimir effect, also allows "creation" of a very small amount of matter by tapping the ground state fluctuations of the vacuum. I believe this theoretically depletes the vacuum, though, so it isn't something for nothing. Any more than Hawking radiation (although he's still never getting that encyclopedia back).

Yeah.. absolutely, not plants, but rocks.

even dumber..

Give me the best example.




Stars produce observable and measurable data. Stars aren't extraordinary historical claims based on genetic mutations that nobody even knows are possible or not.

Star claims are not scientifically contested like Evolution, nor have massively contradictory data involved, like say.. the total absence of transitional fossils between two unique morphological stages.



Not really. It's kind of hard to disprove the premise of "billions of years of 'somehow' mutations". A model like that is extremely malleable allowing a near infinite wide goalpost for new data.

You can make predictions, but hey, when it fails, downplay it, shift the goalpost, or sweep it under the rug. Alternative premises are censored, and that is a fact.



It is put on a pedestal by evolutionists across the net as the best example of a beneficial novel mutation.. Please enlighten me with the other great examples.




Sorry, something far, far less complex than a plant evolved into a human. That is what you believe, isn't it?

What's wrong with flavobacteria?

The entire paragraph you were responding to it about the error of trying to condense all evidence to one single proof.

Proofs can err. But if you did 100 different tests and they all gave the same answer, the chance that each and every one had a unique error of the exact magnitude and direction to give the same value...

And in case you have forgotten, the enzyme capable of breaking down one of the products of nylon-6 was brought up not as a general argument for evolution, but as a specific example of a mutation that added functionality.




I wasn't comparing the two. You've been moving inappropriately from specific to general in several places now. I brought up astrophysics as an example of how a deep-seated fundamental idea is treated in the modern literature. To repeat; papers on the fundamental nature of stars are rare. Astrophysics has moved beyond trying to establish that premise. The work being done now is about the details and implications (such as, the role of cobalt-64 -- predicted from the modern understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis -- in heating and thus differentiation of the proto-planetary bodies that became our current meteoroids.)

But if you wish to compare the two disciplines;

No star has ever been weighed. No star has been in a test tube reacted on by reagents. No star has, in short, been in a lab or otherwise directly contacted by scientists.

Not only that, no star has ever been observed to form. Or to leave the Main Sequence. The best we have ever managed is observation of one extremely brief episode in the otherwise billion-year lifetimes; a nova or supernovae event.

We have never watched a single star go through its life cycle. Yet we speak confidently of the life cycle of stars because we have observed stars of similar mass and atomic make-up of different ages, thus, at different points in their life cycle.

This remind you of anything?







I don't follow.

Mutations have a known rate, known causes, and a known form. They leave behind specific genetic markers. And the predictions made on the basis of rate and kind of mutation have been checked out over and over again.

This isn't guesswork. We've been sequencing the damned things, and seeing what changed and where and what happened when it did, as well as how often it happened.

The model is a great deal more rigorous than you understand it to be.





This comes very close to a non-sequitur. You want to explore a great example by showing that there are other, equal, great examples?





No.

Specifics matter here.

There are something like a hundred different chemical strategies for basic metabolism. The majority of eukaryotes are not even capable of that much, borrowing that core metabolic activity. The joining of eukaryotic plants and the chloroplast organelles, and the joining of eukaryotic animals and the mitochondrial organelles, happened long before multicellular life, much less sexual reproduction.

So we don't even, really, share an ancestor of an ancestor, unless you cast your net all the way back to the most primitive of self-organized proteins.

A couple posts now I've asked for an example of genetic mutation similar to flavobacteria and you've passed. Are you really riding this much on it? If you have a better example I'd honestly like to know.






We can observe stars which is what you were loosely comparing to Evolution. Regardless of the levels of uncertainties, the very fact that we can actively observe the star far removes it from the extraordinary and contested claims of Evolution.

If you're referring to the Origin of Stars, then yes that is relying heavily on speculation. The supposed "birth of a star" that was claimed is not a certainty. It could very well have been the removal of an obstruction blocking our view.




Yes they are the types of mutations constantly observed that do not account for Darwinian Evolution. Organisms are not adding complexity, even on a very micro scale.




Like what? ERVs ? And how do you know these are million years old markers, and not something designed to be there for a specific purpose? (as recent research implies about Transposable Elements)



What specifically does Common Descent NOT predict?




So you actually believe humans evolved from self organizing amino acids billions of years ago, and that is why you're sitting at a computer thinking about it.

concerning Endogenous Retroviruses... one of these "genetic markers of common descent"



An Ancient Retrovirus-like Element Contains Hot Spots for SINE Insertion

A peer-edited publication of the Genetics Society of America


Vertebrate retrotransposons have been used extensively for phylogenetic analyses and studies of molecular evolution. Information can be obtained from specific inserts either by comparing sequence differences that have accumulated over time in orthologous copies of that insert or by determining the presence or absence of that specific element at a particular site. The presence of specific copies has been deemed to be an essentially homoplasy-free phylogenetic character because the probability of multiple independent insertions into any one site has been believed to be nil. Mys elements are a type of LTR-containing retrotransposon present in Sigmodontine rodents. In this study we have shown that one particular insert, mys-9, is an extremely old insert present in multiple species of the genus Peromyscus. We have found that different copies of this insert show a surprising range of sizes, due primarily to a continuing series of SINE (short interspersed element) insertions into this locus. We have identified two hot spots for SINE insertion within mys-9 and at each hot spot have found that two independent SINE insertions have occurred at identical sites. These results have major repercussions for phylogenetic analyses based on SINE insertions, indicating the need for caution when one concludes that the existence of a SINE at a specific locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry. Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare, SINE insertions are not homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers.


[link to www.genetics.org]

Not of that particular point, not close to hand, no.

It is a very clear example. That's why it is chosen.

You want to talk about late-life lactose tolerance? That's a lot muddier, being, essentially, a neotenic mutation; a persistence of a trait that was previously genetically programmed to vanish (while simultaneously the more complex set of full digestive enzymes are activated.) You could even call it a loss of function, since most changes are trade-offs; by producing lactase enzyme, the body is spending energy and essential amino acids it could be using to manufacture needed digestive enzymes.

It's a mutation that, like sickle-cell anemia, works out for some populations because of their specific environments; in the western world, a cultural environment that includes milk cows.

And that's SIMPLE compared to most mutational changes. (Simple still being four different gene markers and two functional alleles and...)





We observe stars. Literally. Most of what we know is optical astronomy. For a very long time the theories of the internal mechanism of a star had only visual observation from a distance. For everything but our own Sun, an extreme distance; too far to make out anything but a point source.

Compare this to the genetic remnants of mutations which are right there in the lab where you can do chemistry on them.

Or genetic homologies. Just like stars, there is only inference that one becomes the other (or, rather, shared an ancestor once). But we've seen mutation and speciation in the lab, and selection in nature. The only thing that comes even close to that is doing nuclear fusion in the lab, and thus confirming some of what we believe is happening inside of stars. But for stellar evolution? No actual examples (outside of supernova events).

Oh, and your idea of the birth of a star is, well, ludicrous. I'm sorry...you don't know your astronomy very well. There is vastly more to the entry of a new-born star into the Main Sequence than "now you see it, then you didn't." Planetary nebulae, for one (for a Biiiiiig one!)




That's not what I see.

Information is, well, information. There are strict and simple Shannon laws describing it. Those laws do not have anything to do with any potential semantic meaning.

If I record four minutes and thirty-three seconds of material, it doesn't matter if it is a lecture, or random nonsense. It doesn't matter if it is a symphony or the bees in a rose garden. The recording will contain the same number of bits (let's not drag lossless compression in here but it amounts to the same thing once uncompressed). Properly normalized and gain-staged, all material is equal in the amount of information.

The fact that I can recognize the symphony, and a bee (if born to the correct hive) can recognize the directions to some nectar (okay...bees actually communicate via dance, not via buzzing, but bear with me!) is immaterial to the number of bits necessary to capture the material.

Genetics is the same way. Not only is the semantic content decoupled from the informational content (since DNA is, like the dance of the bee or the college lecture, encoded), the function of the gene is dependent on the environment. A gene that encodes for production of insulin won't do much good if there isn't any lysine to build that protein with. A gene that encodes for the production of an enzyme that helps break down nylon won't do anything if there is no nylon in the environment.





Bunny rabbits in the Cambrian.


Or, more subtly, for a dog to evolve into a cat. (Which is a usual creationist misunderstanding, thus I mention it).



And there are a whole slew of other expectations; such a a steady genetic drift in the absence of net selection pressure. Or that evolution is blind; each organism will react to a selection pressure in a unique way based upon its own genetic heritage. Take as a for-instance birds and bats; both evolved to fly, but neither does it in the same way.


Oops, sorry. You said "Common Descent." I was getting too used to you conflating and expanding.

So just take the top two. They work as well for that.





Yes, although that's an anthrocentric way of looking at it. I prefer to think of all life constantly evolving over billions of years, and one species having some peculiar and near-unique behavioral patterns.

But I don't hold out that species as being some sort of pinnacle or goal, as much as I am proud of belonging to it. Many species are and were wonderful and unique.

I also don't hold modern homo sapiens sapiens up on any standard of uniqueness. Tool-using, planning, language, art, society, even religion, were all known by both our direct primate ancestors and to many of the primate species that are no longer with us.

Did you happen to read any of the papers following that one (2000, please note)? Or did the ICR not include that link for you?

Here's a nice quote from the abstract of a 2003 paper available at the same site you linked and CITING THE SAME PAPER:

"Parallel independent mobile element insertions at orthologous loci in distinct species may introduce homoplasy into retroelement-based phylogenetic and population genetic data. We estimate the overall frequency of parallel independent insertion events at L1 insertion sites in seven different primate species to be very low (0.52%)."

Assuming these estimated results are accurate, the fact that it is easily possible (.5 %), and that we observe it so frequently, might be a hint that there are other unknown influences in early stages of development. Why close the book and carve it in stone that they are remnants of ancient viruses?

I have to work now, I will respond to your previous post later.

DNA Degeneration: Why your kids will be mutants!

by a Geneticist working in an actual field of natural selection with plants.



[link to www.youtube.com]

Population geneticists know that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection is not keeping up with the (overwhelming) rate of genetic entropy. Here Dr. John Sanford, an expert in plant genetics, explains seven logical errors which disqualify the evolutionary hypothesis. In part two he will prove its mathematical impossibility as well. Lopsided Mutation Rates Invalidate "Evolution". It is a religion - evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and the evidence against it only continues to accumulate.

Every measuring device known to humanity has potential errors in it.

Way back when, it was common for me and other carpenters to cut a 2x4 to 6'-9" when we meant to cut it to 9'-6". Because if you are holding the tape measure upside down, you can confuse one with the other.

That doesn't mean we throw every tape measure out. Or insist it is impossible to cut wood until some genius invents something more accurate.

It just means we are aware there are potential pitfalls. And we try to identify them and correct for them.

Same for the "genetic clock" formed by the insertion of short meaningless sequences via ERVs into low-activity locuses of the gene. (Note that as of the FIRST paper, it was already long-recognized that active parts of the gene would not show the same clear patterns of insertion.)




I also look at it this way. If the greatest error so far detected is only half a percent, then the chance of hundreds of successive progressions (which is what is being measured) each going in a specific non-random direction is even smaller; .005^100 And that is from this clock alone; assuming there are ten other lines of inquiry with similar error bars, the chance of all of them agreeing in the same direction of error is .005^100^10.

Not even gods are that lucky; that kind of working the gaps would require intelligence. And if you are going to assume a supernatural entity with unlimited powers, then it doesn't matter what the real molecular biology is anyhow; they can simply zap up whatever they like. And hey, presto, you are solidly in the land of Omphalos, which many religious people find disquieting.

Looked at the other way, even the error is not an "anything goes." There can't be suddenly ten million insertions in a single generation. The percentage of generations -- aka years -- encompassed by the error described in these papers is on a similar order of percentage.

So humanity might not be 50 million years old. It might be a mere 49 million years.

You are going to have to come up with a LOT bigger error in order to arrive at 6,000 !

Regardless, there may be an as of yet undiscovered reason that the material is stored in that particular area of the chromosome. It may not be random at all.

In any case, there is no data that explicitly states that these are traces of something that originated millions of years ago in a common ancestry.

Since you got into odds, if you want, we can measure the odds of currently available data at any time and rule out amino acids naturally creating a functioning cell, and thus rule out non-intelligent design. Naturalists seem to have a double standard of jumping to conclusions when (rarely) convenient, and "waiting for the answers" when it doesn't serve their purposes.

There may be tiny invisible pink unicorns seated on a glittery pink throne at the center of each ribosome, determining from moment-to-moment which genes get transcribed.

Saying that there may be an alternative we haven't thought of is not the same thing as saying there are alternatives.



Nothing "explicitly states," if you are willing to allow all possibilities.

The stars may very well be points of light on a celestial dome. And it is possible that every astronomer is in on the conspiracy to cover that up.

A better way of putting it is that the homologies of the genes is consistent with common descent. And consistent in the same way (as in, it describes the same ordering of species), as other avenues of inquiry -- such as comparative physiology.




Oddly enough, it has been done.

But like the Drake Equation, working out the odds from amino acids to discrete unicellular life within a membrane (which if you want to talk about prokaryotes, you have to assume), follows too many steps that are not clear enough to assign proper odds to.

But why bother to conflate? You've previously argued that the rate of mutation is insufficient to explain evolution of well-developed multicellular life. That by itself would be sufficient to falsify common descent -- there is no reason to drag abiogenesis into it.

I have to suspect you don't believe any of your own arguments, because the moment one is discussed you Gish Gallop to something entirely different.

It's not an 'un-thought of alternative'. Many scientists have thought of it. It is the rational hypothesis that genetic function may exist where it is currently uncertain. Did not ENCODE just recently make breakthrough discoveries about previously unknown functions in the genome? The ERV's location may serve a functional purpose we are not yet aware of.






Nobody said "any and all possibilities". No need to invoke the atheists' god: invisible pink unicorn.

I'm referring to the very real possibility that Common Descent/Darwinian Evolution is not even true due to legitimate scientific dissent and its overall illogical absurdity.





In other words, maybe the abiogenesis fairies did it.

We have plenty enough data about the cell to know that it is complex enough to not have been assembled by any known natural processes.

Lets go with the data. It was *not* created by unguided natural forces. Saying that there may be an alternative we haven't thought of is not the same thing as saying there are alternatives.

It's very simple the fish that went into a fish's mouth to eat pieces usually died and didn't pass down their genes, but the sharks who didn't have an appetite for the fish and just let the fish in got cleaner teeth. Now they both have a higher chance for survival than the members of those two species who didn't have the same tendencies. The shark that didn't get his teeth clean had a slightly less chance of survival, while the fish who stayed out of the shark's mouth had a lot less chance for survival due to the lack of free food.

In order for them to evolve in such a way takes many many years, and lots and lots of death of the fish. It's not simply and intellectual decisions that both animals made.

Keep in mind also that the cleaner fish does this for other fish, so it's a tendency that it already had. They didn't just started doing that for just sharks and only sharks.

Did you know that young americans are less religious than their parents. You are part of a dying breed you retard

It's not an 'un-thought of alternative'. Many scientists have thought of it. It is the rational hypothesis that genetic function may exist where it is currently uncertain. Did not ENCODE just recently make breakthrough discoveries about previously unknown functions in the genome? The ERV's location may serve a functional purpose we are not yet aware of.





There is a known process for the creation of complex life, you might have heard of it. EVOLUTION

You are not a retard, sorry I'm wrong to say that. But you are definataly gullible. Read up on the origin of the christian god. The hebrews had a pantheon of gods including family dieties. Yahweh was the diety of the kings family. Your religion is massively flawed.

Again, thinking that there may BE an alternative is not the same thing as AN alternative.

I think the reason my car doesn't start might be a dead battery. You say, "There may be hundreds of other reasons."

Yes, there may be, but unless you offer an actual alternative, I'm going to go ahead with testing for battery voltage.

We KNOW there are functions in genetic material we haven't yet discovered. We also know that the functions we have discovered explain most of the observations already made (which is why the alternatives haven't been discovered yet!)




"Not true" is simply a negative statement.

With "legitimate scientific dissent" and "illogical absurdity" you might have something. You still don't have an alternative, but you have falsified the leading hypothesis.

Assuming, of course, you can actually produce either of these.

There is dissent -- coached in nice scientific terms -- with the idea of a heliocentric solar system. It is even a possibility that somehow all astronomy is wrong, and there are explanations as yet uncovered as to why things like the Foucault pendulum works. But that hardly makes it a good reason to dump the heliocentric system.






Poor paraphrase. I said we didn't understand the possible methods well enough to assign realistic odds.

With every passing year the possible routes of abiogenesis are better understood. It has been a long time since that question had the status of "...Step 3: Profit!"




Odd way of putting it. I'm looking at the red blood visible through the translucent skin of my own hand and I'm pretty sure every single RBC was assembled by a known natural process -- probably in my blood marrow.

If you meant cellular life in general, you are correct. No-one is assuming the cell was formed directly from raw materials.

Yes we do; Creation. It is currently censored.

Creation is also falsifiable.

If we found a rational explanation for the assembly of life from non-life then Creation = Toast.

If we actually found morphological cross-overs of fundamentally different organisms in the fossil record, then Creation = Toast.

If we observed small beneficial mutations happening regularly that were increasing complexity in the organism, then Creation = On Very Thin Ice

Funny that the last two components which Evolution predicts an abundance of are incredibly nowhere to be found.




That was a sneaky little goalpost shift. I didn't say directly from raw materials. I said natural processes, which would include any number of assembly stages in whatever order you'd like.

If you'd like to walk us through the logical process of chemical elements to the first micro-organism, be my guest.

Creation predicts you won't, and never will have a naturalistic explanation. If only you were objective enough to take a hint.

That's a philosophical alternative, not a scientific one.

Using Creationism, please predict where we would look to find a late Devonian sarcopterygian with tetrapod-like attributes.

Can't do it? Evolution can...and did.

Using Creationism, predict the antigens that might be present in a newly discovered species of feline-like carnivore, and the chance that its blood is transfusable with that of felis domesticus.

Want more? There's millions.

A scientific theory has predictive powers. It is mathematically model-able. That is why we like them; they aren't just there to be intellectually or philosophically satisfying, they are there to allow work to be done.





It might have happened, but it turns out God did it anyhow (just like I might have honestly won the lottery, just like any other player -- but that in itself doesn't mean I can't have cheated).

Don't like that? God figured out exactly what was necessary for life to happen naturalistically, and set up exactly those pieces, with her omniscience knowing it would come to pass.

Don't like that one either? God created the universe. Everything in it happened naturalistically.

I'm not even trying here.


NOTHING can falsify an alternative that has no structure, no limitations, no testable predictions.




Err, what? Species aren't predicted to "cross over" in evolutionary theory. That's pretty much a truism; evolution is a one-way street. A cat can not evolve into a dog. (It can evolve into a dog-like animal, but it will do so in a unique way using the genetic tools existing in the species).

And it doesn't say anything about creationism.

"God decided to do it that way. It is inscrutable." (But good with a marinara sauce).

Or if you like, "The aliens chose to do it that way. They are aliens; we don't know their reasons."




Lather, rinse, repeat.

"The Celestial Design Team is now up to version 2.1.1"

Who are we to say that gods (or hyper-advanced aliens, or really bored Keebler elves) don't believe in iterative design? Humans do it. All the time. (Heck -- we even use genetic algorithms sometimes!)

And, oh, we do. If you look at the appropriate time scale. Are humans mutating in beneficial ways in every generation? No. How long have anatomically modern humans been around? 50-200 KY. Which is at the lower end, still ten times longer than recorded civilization.

And what were we then? Human. Very slightly different looking, but the difference between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens is vastly less than the difference between two random modern humans.

So let's go back 15 million years instead. Great changes, right? Wings, six legs, the ability to breathe underwater, massive changes in size and habitat....no. Bipedal apes, the same muscle structure and viscera, skeleton and dentition are extremely familiar, even hair tracts roughly the same.

With this kind of time scale, what kind of beneficial mutations are going to be observed in the tiny scrap of time that is recorded history?

How about, a mutation (still sequestered in certain populations) to be able to drink cow's milk? How about a mutation that confers slightly better resistance to malaria? What about a mutation (even more limited, to only a couple of ethnic groups) that increases the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood in high-altitude conditions?

These are all more-or-less within the last 10,000 years. Even historical.

On an even shorter timescale, you are going to need genetic sequencing to even tell what is going on.





I don't follow. If you want the whole sequence, then, yes, you are starting from raw materials. Whether you define "raw materials" as amino acids, or CHON. Or, for that matter, as ultra-dense plasma before the formation of stable atoms!

If you want any one part of the sequence, then what about the formation of lipids from amino acids? Seen in the lab.




So, your stance is objectivity means; "I'm not going to do any research. I'm not even going to listen. Because I already know the answer I want?"

I am not a biochemist. I am not involved in the field of studying early life. I find the question interesting but I don't claim to "Speak for Science" on it.

Heck, anyone (outside of, perhaps, Neil deGrasse Tyson, who Really Is That Good), who claims to "Speak for Science" is either an idiot or lying to you. Science doesn't "Speak for Science." It is a constantly evolving understanding and at the fringes it is being fought over by a lot of very smart people with really big egos to match.

If you really want to know what the current best thinking is on abiogenesis, you need to delve into the literature yourself.



But let me take a step back. We don't have all the steps yet. None of them currently look impossible, not as of today; we have possible alternatives for every one of them. But this doesn't matter. Even twenty years ago, or fifty years ago, when the gaps were far larger, it wasn't necessary to throw everything out.

Because that isn't how you do things. No scientist, no engineer, is forced to proceed only when they have 100% certainty. I work every day at my technical job on the basis of predictions and guesses. Sure, it would be nice to know. But reality is you don't always, so you have to take a best shot in order to keep moving. And have a back-up plan!

From the background of pure philosophy, the statement "We believe life could have evolved through naturalistic processes" is not particularly strong. But from the standpoint of science, it is a GREAT premise.

What alternate premises are there that can be investigated? Do you have a butterfly net large enough to capture a god so that it may be studied? Do you have reason to believe the Enigmatic Advanced Aliens came from the direction of 61 Cygni?

To go back to my example of the car that won't start, the premise of a dead battery is not the answer. It is the QUESTION. And it is a constructive question. On the basis of "I believe I have a dead battery" I can test the battery. If the battery still has a charge, then I was clearly wrong, and I need to look further.

Your stance appears to be "You don't KNOW it is a dead battery. It could be any number of alternatives you haven't thought of yet. And because you don't KNOW, it would be foolish to open the hood and get out a circuit tester." (Actually, my usual test is to turn on the headlights!)

Alternatives you haven't thought of are useless. Give me a real alternative. Say "I have good reason to believe the engine has flooded." This is an alternative that allows testing, and yes, falsification.

What you offer with Creationism is "I suggest we'll never know, so lets just stick our fingers in our ears and hum." I reject that, not just as a fan of the sciences, but as a human being. If there was a god that demanded that of its worshipers, I'd say "no" to that god as well.

Creation predicts we will see evidence of design and fine-tuning in everything, everywhere, below and above. How many perfect conditions for thriving life on Earth are resting on a knife's edge? How many elements 'just happen' to be in place to support us having this discussion?

Creation predicts incredibly diverse body plans and symbiotic relationships of organisms that defy unguided mutations, and cause 20th century Evolutionists to invent case after case of 'just-so' stories to explain.

Creation predicts we will never understand how or why anything really works without invoking an Intelligent Designer. What are the chances there is just no explanation for why natural laws exist, why matter exists, why it arranges itself in different ways? Why can't Naturalism pull it off for once? Why does every breakthrough lead to another level of complexity and amazing coincidences?

Creation predicts HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, Morality, Guilt, Self-Sacrifice, Justice, concepts of Good and Evil, and a pervading awareness of God the Creator, and a long history of Humans testifying to the direct spiritual experience of their Creator.

This isn't philosophical, these are empirical observations. How does Darwinist Evolution predict any of this, besides, "It's here... therefore Evolution... somehow." ???








Oh, you have an unfalsifiable god, too Nomuse. It's called "Infinity".

No matter what the increasingly infinitesimal odds are of life on earth and the cosmological fine-tuning to support it.. the naturalist will bow down to the altar of an infinite universe, or multi-verses, to magic away the improbabilities.

Anyways, like I've already pointed out, Christian Creation is very falsifiable in the fossil record alone.




Crossing between, Transitional, Intermediate. Why don't we see any visible morphological stages between two fundamentally different organisms of any age. Why no visible chains of 10/90, 20/80, 30/70 percent ratios? These intermediate generations ran around on this Earth for millions of years. Where are they? Not even insects, or early cambrian intermediates. Are the Evolution Gods testing your Faith?




That's like explaining how a computer assembled itself by showing someone the box it came in.

Anyways, I'll stop asking the question since it's pretty obvious you have no clue.




Who is against research? Research all you want. In terms of actual raw data, it's done nothing but further the cause for Creation. (Now your religious hijacking of the data, that's another story)

Things aren't getting easier for Naturalism, they're moving further and further into realms of naturalistic incomprehensibility.

For centuries now, the data has been pointing to greater and greater levels of computer-like intricacy and coordination.

Like you were going on and on about earlier, I'm just following the best data we have. And it's pointing to intelligent design.

Why do you have so much blind faith in Naturalism, anyways?




No... the data points to intelligent design, or should I say, phenomena that defies a non-intelligent explanation. The "ignorant goat-herders" knew it. Modern geneticists know it now.

You're the one rejecting the data and chanting "Someday we'll confirm it was all a non-intelligent accident!"

I'm not even sure if you really understand the difference between Science and the Naturalistic Faith... You've probably been lumping them together for so long.

so, . .if i understand you correctly,
this universe is locked in perpetual stasis, . .
nothing changes.

i highly recommend you open your eyes and mind
and see, and understand what is happening
all around you.

How can you say that? Are you smarter than the creator? Then how do you know what design constraints she was working under?

Perhaps it was her intention that the pharangal nerve take a 40 cm detour, or that we have severe spinal problems from walking upright, that women die in childbirth and that there are liver flukes.

You see fine-tuning. I see smoothing -- exactly as happens to rocks in a tumbler.



The fallacy of the strong anthropic principle. In this case, wedded to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I argue the Earth is a failure; that all the random factors fell in exactly the WRONG way to support the low-temperature, superconducting, methane-based life form that was supposed to be here.



Why? Why is it a creator must have a diversity of body plans? What is wrong with designing conservatively, using a limited number of templates? That's what human designers do.

Not that the plans are particularly diverse. Most multicellular life is bilaterally symmetric. The family we are familiar with, that represents almost all mega-fauna, is the tetrapod; and there isn't a single one with more than four limbs. Even the birds and bats, which you would think would benefit from having a pair of hands.

But, again, you are making arbitrary definitions of what you think a designer should do, and on no rational basis.





So you can imagine exactly how a designer you know nothing about must design, but it is impossible to imagine how a symbiotic relationship might occur? Who made you god?





Or after, for that matter.





Are you confusing origins with operations? Because it sounds like you are. Understanding how the Higg's Boson makes gravitational attraction possible has nothing to do with understanding how the universe came to contain Higg's Bosons. (Well...almost all. When you get deep into particle physics you also get deep into cosmology).

We aren't asking these questions just for fun, you know. We are asking to find cures for human diseases and new power sources and and so. And, unfortunately, the real universe IS complex. You may just wish to go about building bridges without having to deal with all that horrible complexity, but if you don't spent the time with your Euler sections you are going to end up with a collapse and lawsuits and even deaths on your hands.

Saying "I have the answer to the nature of the atom...it's all here in this line in my bible here" means SHIT for someone who is trying to work out the potential contamination from a short-lived radionuclide. In our modern society, we need the complex answers. We can't afford to simplify.




Again, why?

There are plenty of peoples on Earth that believed their god or gods were pleased by blood sacrifice. How do you know they are wrong? How can you show that they weren't, in fact, created by a god who WANTED a ritual-obsessed culture that would send warriors out to bring home captives to kill?

There are peoples on Earth that believe that they are the special creation of their gods, and no other people share that. Izanami formed THESE islands with the sacred spear, and no Ainu or Gaijin need apply.

There are many peoples in my native land who believe there are many gods, of which the one to take the most interest in humanity is a trickster; his goal is personal amusement. There are people who believe the gods created an entirely different land, and this one is just a resting place between the times spent there.

None of these define their creator or his, her, it or their goals in the same way you do. Ask any one of them, and your list of predictions would be entirely different.



This isn't philosophical, these are empirical observations. How does Darwinist Evolution predict any of this, besides, "It's here... therefore Evolution... somehow." ???

We are a social species. That has a net survival advantage.

This is a hard concept for you? I shudder at the thought.

See, this is why the followers of one of those various gods we've touched upon gives me the willies. Because they apparently believe the obvious goals and behavior of a human being should be the most bloody, selfish, murderous, self-centered, sociopathic behavior they can imagine. No, more than that. They IMAGINE themselves, without the benefit of their god, in indulging in the most reckless and ultimately self-defeating behavior.

And these same people show, over and over, just how easy it is to re-interpret what they believe their god demands, and thus justify that very behavior they claimed would be abhorrent.








Citation wanted.

(I've already pointed out the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy).




Idiotic.

Evolution operates in tiny steps.

The only thing that can create the impression of long disjunct jumps is a paucity of fossils. And fossils ARE a very rare occurrence.

Every species is a species. Full stop. It isn't "on its way to becoming something else" because Evolution has no vector. There is no plan. Each species that survives and thrives enough to make it into the fossil record, does so because it is suited as well as Evolution could make it to the environment it currently inhabits.

Every species is in constant flux. Every species, every organism, every fossil is a snapshot of a single moment in time. Over spans of time, species drift, or are forced into new patterns, or bud off new patterns, or fail to adapt and die off.

Every single fossil is transitional, when taken in the full context of the fossil record. But not a single one is "changing into something else." That sort of nonsense belongs with former child actors and jailed tax evaders.





Is the ICR god trying to make you stupid? Species change doesn't look like one of those "make a monster" flip books you get as a kid!

Please, by all that is holy, read some REAL books!







I don't know why you can't grasp the idea of different domains. Perhaps a quote from a faith will help;

"Trust in Allah, but tie up the camel."

You want to sing opera, sing opera. You want to do science, do science. Don't go around complaining that it doesn't include stock car racing (although some of the operas I've seen, I wouldn't put it past them!) Science is naturalism full stop. You can't do science while faking half the answers. Do or not do. There is no fake it.

Plenty of faithful people are capable of doing good science. And do. And have, for thousands of years.

You're just huffy that we won't believe your fairy tale of magic sky wizards poofing life into being.