Monday, December 21, 2015

Get Rid of Evolution With This One Weird Trick

A Limited Time Offer

People have been begging me to tell them about this one weird trick to get rid of evolution. But up until now I have been hesitant. It’s almost too easy. Plus, getting rid of evolution would mean not having evolutionists around anymore, and what fun would that be? But now, for a limited time, you too can get rid of evolution with this one weird trick.

494 comments:

  1. Religion as a whole is in the same position; both rely on faith don't they? If that is true, which one will win and which one should win?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that evolution is demonstrably false ...

      Delete
    2. Not that you can demonstrate that other than by behaving very unscientifically.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the world arose spontaneously via random chance events. So scientific.

      Delete
    4. Setting up a straw man is not science....

      Delete
    5. What was the external agent controlling evolution? (so I can fix my straw man ...)

      Delete
    6. Strange question. An external agent? You mean something outside nature?

      Delete
    7. Strange question. An external agent? You mean something outside nature?

      Yes, you said that a spontaneous origins is a strawman. If evolution is not spontaneous, then you must have an external input, outside the system.

      Delete
    8. My point is your phrase 'random chance', as you would have known if you had read my respons properly. Explain what you mean by that.

      Delete
    9. Explain what you mean by that.

      Evolutionary theory says that mutations are random with respect to fitness. Natural selection does not / can not induce good mutations. It only works on existing designs.

      Delete
    10. I would like to see that proven.

      Delete
    11. To that I can add this question: what exactly is an 'existing design'?
      Suppose feathers kept dinosaurs warm and did little else. Now, one day, a dinosaur found out that when jumping down on a prey from a low branch on a tree, these feathers helped him to make such a jump in a save way through their drag. And much later, a descendant of this bright reptile found out that flapping his arms could make him choose his way down to this prey.
      And then one day...

      What exactly is this 'existing design'?

      Delete
    12. Ed,

      "Suppose feathers kept dinosaurs warm and did little else."

      Suppose that was the case. Now, would it not require intelligence on the part of the leaping dinosaur to determine it was the feathers which provided this drag? Would it not also require intelligence to apply flapping to the drag in order to facilitate flight?

      Why does the co-opting of the feather necessitate intelligence while the origin of the feather; the 'existing design'; does not?

      Delete
    13. Nic

      Why does the co-opting of the feather necessitate intelligence while the origin of the feather; the 'existing design'; does not?


      Intelligence in the form of conscious decision making is not required for evolution. Proto-birds didn't think "hey, if I flap my arms I can jump/glide farther!". Birds that exhibited flapping behavior survived a bit better than those who didn't and thus were selected for. This led to instinctual flapping behavior becoming fixed as part of their genetic makeup.

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      "Birds that exhibited flapping behavior survived a bit better than those who didn't and thus were selected for. This led to instinctual flapping behavior becoming fixed as part of their genetic makeup."

      That's not the argument being made by Ed.

      "a dinosaur found out that when jumping down on a prey from a low branch on a tree, these feathers helped him to make such a jump in a save way through their drag. And much later, a descendant of this bright reptile found out that flapping his arms could make him choose his way down to this prey.
      And then one day..."

      His statement implies intelligence and reasoning.

      I would be interested to know how you would demonstrate flapping becoming instinctual. You've asserted that is what would happen, how about you provide some evidence for that assertion?

      Also, on what basis do you assert a 'flapping' bird would have a better chance of survival?

      Delete
    15. Nic

      His statement implies intelligence and reasoning.


      Not the way I read it but OK.

      I would be interested to know how you would demonstrate flapping becoming instinctual. You've asserted that is what would happen, how about you provide some evidence for that assertion?

      Sure.

      From extant to extinct: locomotor ontogeny and the evolution of avian flight

      Animal locomotion in general is controlled by lower order brain functions. When you walk you don't consciously think "left leg, right leg, left leg" do you? You can consciously control leg movement but you don't have to. Same with birds flapping their wings, fish moving their fins. The evolution of avian flight entailed developing flapping behavior as a non-conscious motor function.

      Also, on what basis do you assert a 'flapping' bird would have a better chance of survival?

      It's hypothesized as part of the evolution of avian flight.

      Delete
    16. ghostrider,

      "The evolution of avian flight entailed developing flapping behavior as a non-conscious motor function."

      You really can't see that is a circular argument? You presume that flight evolved and then make up stories to support that assumption.

      "It's hypothesized as part of the evolution of avian flight."

      Fine. Now how does that answer my question, how do you know a flapping bird would have a better chance of survival? Because it is hypothesized to be so in no way addresses the question.

      Delete
    17. OK Nic, I see you are too lazy to read the paper with the information you asked for. All I can conclude is you're just trolling and aren't interested in learning about the scientific evidence.

      Flapping while running is empirically observed to help increase the balance and agility of juvenile chukar birds. Such increases help the birds evade predators. That makes it a beneficial trait subject to selection. Of course you'd know that if you read the paper which you're too lazy to even open.

      Delete
  2. Cornelius Hunter

    Except that evolution is demonstrably false ...


    The first person to actually demonstrate that instead of just empty posturing will win a Nobel Prize. What's been stopping the Creationists for the last 150 years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. The first person to actually demonstrate that instead of just empty posturing will win a Nobel Prize.

    Then why didn't the protein researchers get one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they didn't demonstrate evolution is false.

      Delete
    2. Passenger: “Where is my train? It was due two hours ago.”

      Station master: “That’s not possible. Austrian trains always run on time.”

      Passenger: “If that were so, I’d be on my train. So would these other people standing here who are going to Salzburg.”

      Station master: “All of you must have missed boarding when the Salzburg train arrived.”

      Passenger: “That’s ridiculous. The Salzburg train never arrived!”

      Station master: “Well, there’s your problem. We don’t count the trains that haven’t yet arrived.”

      Delete
    3. Be sure to let us know when that Creationist train with the "demonstration evolution is false" finally gets here. It's only 156 years overdue.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This 'award winning book' of mr. Hunter, exactly what scientific award did it get?

      Delete
    6. By the way: protein researchers did receive Nobel prizes. For their great contributions to science. I can name a few names if you want.
      Of course they did not topple evolution science (which of course would also have won them a few Nobel prizes, had that theory not been so firmly established.)

      Delete
    7. http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2figures/Figure2.2-reduced.jpg

      Cornelius, how many times do we have to say that natural selection is not random! It knows that symmetry is cool so any time it mutates one amino acid, it finds the future mirror docking site and mutates that so that over time, more homomers will emerge. But remember, our goal is not to focus on the origin of life or dimers or homomeric proteins, it's about evolution! No one thinks de novo proteins are common! Once a dimer evolved, natural selection preserved it! Now granted, with the added constraints of always having to mutate the mirroring amino acid, evolution proceeded a few orders of magnitude slower, but lucky for us, that just means more intermediate forms in the proteome of life. That's why you can easily trace back the phylogeny of any organism using this method!

      Check out the guy who won the Nobel Prize for that! Take that Cornelius!

      Delete
  4. What is the nobel prize for biology?
    Its up to crazy ideas to prove themselves and not us prove them wrong.
    Anyways first things first.
    They must prove evolution is a biological scientific theory!
    When are they going to do that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They must prove evolution is a biological scientific theory!
      When are they going to do that!


      A bit over 150 years ago.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. What is the nobel prize for biology?
    Its up to crazy ideas to prove themselves and not us prove them wrong.
    Anyways first things first.
    They must prove evolution is a biological scientific theory!
    When are they going to do that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Can a rock change into another rock by itself? It doesn't happen that way. So how can one species spontaneously change into another? Can large molecules miraculously change into other large, functioning molecules all by themselves? It doesn't happen that often. See, evolution is an attempt to somehow explain how impossible things can really happen without miracles. That being the case, I would think that the burden is on evolutionists to make their case. And further, there are millions of species existing today, and millions more that are extinct. IF every single one is the result of evolution it means that there was a lot of evolution. I, for one, would expect to see a lot more actual evidence. Now, the evidence for design is all over the place. Pretty much every single bio-polymer is evidence for design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to add that evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without actually coming onto design. That means that the default explanation is really design.

      Delete
    2. Can a rock change into another rock by itself? It doesn't happen that way.

      Brilliant insight there Nat. Rocks don't reproduce.

      So how can one species spontaneously change into another?

      Mechanisms of Speciation

      Can large molecules miraculously change into other large, functioning molecules all by themselves?

      By a series of gradual changes, yes.

      It doesn't happen that often.

      But it does happen, so what's the problem?

      Delete
    3. Rocks don't reproduce, true, but when animals reproduce the offspring look like the parents, they are the same species. IMHO. the burden of proof in on evolutionist to show how this mechanism can lead to new species that don't resemble the parents, and to show that it is plausible and likely.

      And when I said "it doesn't happen that often" I meant that it happens so rarely that it isn't a viable explanation.

      Delete
    4. Let me put it this way: We see bacteria reproducing. When they reproduce, they don't produce blue whales. We can see them repeatedly reproduce, and they never produce anything other than bacteria. It's seems to be a law of nature that like produces like, and like only. Evolutionist claim that somehow bacteria produced blue whales. Now, since that the claim violates the law of like produces like, the burden of proof, IMHO, is on evolutionists to provide a mechanism and to show that this mechanism could have happened, and did happen.

      Delete
    5. It seems to be a law of nature that the next generation is not quite 100% like the previous. There is a change. Modification, as Darwin wrote correctly.
      So in the end blue wales might be possible from a simple beginning.
      So it is for the creationists to prove that there exists a hard border beyond which genetic change can never pass.
      But... these creationists simply can't. Instead of showing scientific proof, they mumble silly phrases like "a dog will always be a dog".
      Funny that is, when you realise that we people are only a few thousand years able to write and bear witness. Alas, for creationists, this extremely narrow window in time seems to be a measure of what is possible on the long term and so they behave like people that live in the mountains, saying that the mountains they see today did not change since the days of their parents and so they can never change.

      Delete
    6. We've never seen a bacteria produce anything than a bacteria, have we? We haven't seen a fruit fly produce anything other than a fruit fly, have we? So ti seems that the law is that the modification is very limited. No blue whales from bacteria. Not even different bacteria from bacteria.

      Now all the things that people accomplished within the past few thousand years did involve intelligence. So, I guess with intelligence life could go from bacteria to blue whales.

      Delete
    7. In our lifetime, we would not expect to see a bacteria change in something else than a bacteria. But it changes in something not quite the same bacteria anymore.
      It tells us that in a human lifetime, change goes very slow.

      Delete
    8. Ed,

      "In our lifetime, we would not expect to see a bacteria change in something else than a bacteria. But it changes in something not quite the same bacteria anymore.
      It tells us that in a human lifetime, change goes very slow."

      Aww, the glory of time, the impervious refuge of the evolutionist. If we cannot observe evolution just wait, we will apply copious amounts of time and everything will be fine. All you need to do is trust us, we know time will answer everything,... in time, it will. I'm sure. I think.

      By the way Ed, bacteria has been observed over several lifetimes now and they are still just plain old bacteria. Also, 'not quite the same bacteria' is still bacteria and therefore not evidence of bacteria changing to non-bacteria. So you can put that argument to rest.

      But remember, you must be a good evolutionist and keep chanting the mantra. You must not let observations and facts get in the way of the ideology. Bacteria WILL become Bowser, if you are just patient enough.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The God that supplied me with ear muscles, however forgetting to give me sinews to operate them, s a good example of a silly God.
    Evolution theory however explains the facts we can observe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe God created us with ear muscle sinews, and they got lost over time. See, sometimes the evolutionary explanation works for creationism as well.

      Delete
    2. natschuster

      Or maybe God created us with ear muscle sinews, and they got lost over time


      If that's so then what's the problem with the ancestors of whales having hind legs which were then lost over time?

      Delete
    3. Certainly not. You simply assume for everything, however strange it may be, that God simply did it that way...
      You explain nothing. Your creationism has no predictive power. It will always explain after the observation.
      On the contrary, evolution has predictive power, as vestigial organs are something you would expect from evolution. From descent with modification. It is one of the many examples of evidence that have made this scientific theory so convincing.
      Indeed, if people were born without ear muscles, you would have had good evidence against evolution.
      But they have ear muscles and so you must grasp the "God did it" excuse once again. And so you will go on doing.

      Creationism is not science. It has no predictive powers.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. GH:

      I, for one, don't have a problem with whale legs being lost over time. The thing is that evolutionists say that the loss of something proves that something could be gained. E.G.the loss of legs proved that legs evolved.

      Delete
    6. Legs did evolve. We can see that clearly in the fossil record, an intermediate stage being that of the famous Tiktaalik, to give an example.
      What the 'lost' legs of the wale concerns: we too can see this proces of size reduction happening in the fossil record. Today, they are barely present. It is something that makes fully sense in the light of common descent.

      Delete
    7. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

      It's so clear that the three options explaining the Poland tracks are,

      1. They aren't tracks.
      2. Limbs evolved twice (why not vision evolved 40 times right?)
      3.) Tiktaalik shared a common ancestor with those track makers and just branched off earlier and was never selected for full limbs.

      Crystal!!

      Delete
    8. John

      It's so clear that the three options explaining the Poland tracks are,


      Of course ID-Creationism has a much better, detailed explanation that John here will provide for us. A

      Right John?

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What a text...

    "Or maybe God created us with ear muscle sinews, and they got lost over time. See, sometimes the evolutionary explanation works for creationism as well."

    Did creationism ever predict the existence of ear muscles that do no longer make human ears flap?
    No.
    Imagine these muscles had not been there. Oh boy! Creationists would have jumped on the scientific wagon in great numbers and used it as a devastating argument for creationism. Or at least against evolution...
    But now that these muscles are there in our ears, creationists also know how to use it as an argument. Now they 'explain' them by saying that God simply ... wanted them. Not that the Bible says so, but these creationists seem to happen to sustain a private information connection with God. Very private...

    Anyway, in the end, there is no explanation by creationism.
    Had creationists ever been really scientific, they would, in great numbers, have falsified the 'theory' of creation because of the presence of these ear muscles. But the don't.

    That is why creationism is not science. It is religion. Scientifically, it is an empty desert. Funny to think that it is based on a religion that came from a desert.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question was why would a a creator create something that has no purpose, wasn't it? The answer was that the Creator didn't.
      Now evolution doesn't useless ear muscles either. It just happened. Well, ID can accommodate "it just happened" as well. Now, the standard answer is that there really is a purpose, we just don't know what it is yet. Scientists did find purposes for a lot of the stuff that was originally thought to be vestigial. It looks like the pattern is that eventually functions are found.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Creationism has no explanation for our ear muscles, that in case of most people simply do not function.
      But in evolution, with its central hypothesis of common descent, these ear muscles do make sense.

      Delete
    4. One explanation is that ear muscles serve a purpose. We just don't know what it is yet.
      Evolutionists say "we hope to have an answer for you someday," all the time. Why can't Creationists?

      Another answer is that the designer created humans with functioning ear muscles. The function was lost over time. It's just like evolutionists saying that functioning ear muscles evolved, the the function was lost over time.

      Delete
    5. Our ear muscles are a very convincing kind of evidence for common descent.
      It is evidence like that the makes evolution theory so strong.

      Delete


  12. @ED

    "On the contrary, evolution has predictive power"

    Evolution is a philosophy where whatever is found is accommodated.


    "It seems to be a law of nature that the next generation is not quite 100% like the previous. There is a change. Modification, as Darwin wrote correctly."

    Can you give an example.

    "On the contrary, evolution has predictive power, as vestigial organs are something you would expect from evolution."

    The idea of vestigial organs is circular reasoning, To claim vestigial organs is to assume evolution in the first place, then you are using the conclusion of vestigial organs to validate evolution.

    You are like a dog going round in circles chasing its tail.

    Evolutionists however will accommodate function or no function. They will fit both into their philosophy, that is how dogmatic they are when it comes to their faith.

    "made this scientific theory so convincing."

    Evolution is a philosophy.



    "Indeed, if people were born without ear muscles, you would have had good evidence against evolution."

    Evolutionists accommodate whatever is found so it makes no sense to talk about evidence for evolution.

    "But they have ear muscles and so you must grasp the "God did it" excuse once again. And so you will go on doing."

    Because he rejects the dumb luck that you hold to then that does not entail any excuse.


    "Creationism is not science."

    Science is a process,By chirping for science then you are endorsing the idea that lawfulness can be discovered which makes no sense on a position where you hold the universe came about unintentionally.

    Your position that your reasoning apparatus came about by dumb chance provides no grounds for reasoning about the nature of reality.

    "It has no predictive powers."

    You accept a philosophy where everything is accommodated. You really have no grounds to talk about what is predictive or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Evolution is a philosophy where whatever is found is accommodated.”

    Certainly not. As it can be falsified. For example with that famous rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. But never such a falsification was found.

    “Can you give an example.”

    Yes. Myself. My genes differ from that of my parents. Which in countless generations can lead to significant change.
    I do not claim that I can prove that such change must occur, but still change occurs and that leaves the road open. And you perhaps know of these Markov chains that tell us that in this way you wil get a phylogenetic tree over time with nested hierachy (except at its root, but that is another story) that.

    “The idea of vestigial organs is circular reasoning, To claim vestigial organs is to assume evolution in the first place, then you are using the conclusion of vestigial organs to validate evolution.

    You are like a dog going round in circles chasing its tail.”

    I agree. Very well vestigial organs might have been one of the reasons people started to think about descent with modification. But that hypothsis would have been left to die if …. no other evidence had been found. Then indeed it only would have been circular reasoning, as you say.
    It however stand more to reason that it was the 18th century discovery of more and more fossils in the layers of the earth that made people suspect that life had changed over time and that the newer forms had arisen from the older ones. Well, once such a hypothesis was thought of (or perhaps even formulated), they would start to look for other evidence that such hypothesi demanded. Evidence to confirm. Or to disprove. To falsify. As science demands.
    And what they found was only confirming. Never did they find that iconic rabbit in the precambrium.
    Vestigial organs. The phylogenetic tree. Atavisms. The distribution of fossils in time and space. Our inability to synthesize vitamine C, just like all other apes. And so on...

    “Science is a process,By chirping for science then you are endorsing the idea that lawfulness can be discovered which makes no sense on a position where you hold the universe came about unintentionally.

    Your position that your reasoning apparatus came about by dumb chance provides no grounds for reasoning about the nature of reality.”

    Why dumb chance? Nature obeys laws. It is to you to prove that these laws could not possibly have lead to evolution. And it there that you fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One cannot disprove the null hypothesis (evolution in this case). You can only give odds of how unlikely this. I think the odds of a 100 aa protein being formed is accepted at most likely as being 10^60. In the medical field new treatments are accepted as "proven" if there is a less than 5% chance the outcome without he treatment could have occurred; i.e. p <.05. The corollary of this is that the treatment is > 95% likely to have caused the result.
      So you see we have a complete inversion of the scientific method used to prove or disprove hypotheses. In this case <1/10^60 for (a small part of) evolution versus >95% for medical treatment. This is because evolution is regarded as a fact and hence not subject to scientific analysis.

      Delete
    2. sorry that should be 1/10^60

      Delete
    3. Mad doc

      I think the odds of a 100 aa protein being formed is accepted at most likely as being [1 in] 10^60.


      No. That's the completely bogus number dreamed up by Creationists. It's based on two fatal errors: 1) the unsupported assertion that particular arrangement of amino acids is the only one that would support life and 2) the amino acids had to fall together all at once instead of the actual process whereby extant proteins evolved gradually from simpler precursors over hundreds of millions of years.

      Creationists love their "argument by improbability" not knowing or caring that their pitifully bad "calculations" would embarrass both a freshman biology major and a freshman math major.

      Delete
    4. No. That's the completely bogus number dreamed up by Creationists. ...

      No, actually, it is your response that is bogus.

      t's based on two fatal errors: 1) the unsupported assertion that particular arrangement of amino acids is the only one that would support life

      No, that would be 1 in 10^100, not 1 in 10^60. Nice own goal.

      2) the amino acids had to fall together all at once instead of the actual process whereby extant proteins evolved gradually from simpler precursors over hundreds of millions of years.

      No, it's based on several different, scientific, studies of the problem. But evolutionists ignore them.

      Creationists love their "argument by improbability" not knowing or caring that their pitifully bad "calculations" would embarrass both a freshman biology major and a freshman math major.

      Why do evolutionists make these false charges, which apply to them rather than to those "creationists"?

      Delete
    5. Go ahead and show the actual calculations then Dr.H. Show us those "different scientific studies" on the probability you claim exist. We'll go over then together and check their validity.

      Or will this be yet another silly Creationist "evolution is demonstrably false" unsupported claim?

      Delete
    6. Why would it be any different this time? You trolled the science before, why the pretending this time? You know the studies, you can try to understand them, or continue in your ignorance.

      Delete
    7. Bluff called, the Creationist folds.

      Same as it always is.

      Delete
    8. For the lurkers:

      This bogus 1 in 10^60 probability originated here, in a paper by a Theologian (not a scientist) at Dr. H's very own Biola.

      An Application of Probability Theory to Three Theological Coincidences

      You can see in his Example 1 he made the two exact blunders I described above: 1) assuming that the arrangement of amino acids is the only one to support life and 2) assuming all the amino acids fell together at once, serially, instead of evolving gradually in parallel in a whole population over millions of years.

      Like I said, Creationists love their silly made-up "argument by probability" numbers that have zero connection to reality.

      Delete
    9. Always entertaining to see what evolutionists will come up with. They know the studies. They've been blogged on here many times and summarized in the false prediction at the top right:

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/12/this-paper-explains-how-potassium.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/10/failure-how-evolutionists-react.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/did-proteins-evolve-from-long-non.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/protein-folding-and-evolution.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/protein-evolution-problem-that-defies.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-natural-selection.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/11/fred-sanger-protein-sequences-and.html

      Funny, looking at the linked paper, even a theologian understand the science better. He clearly explains he is not "assuming that the arrangement of amino acids is the only one to support life." Nice own goal.

      Delete
    10. All peer reviewed? If, for example, I look at

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution

      I find that no writer name is mentioned, nor is the magazine in which it might be published.

      Delete
    11. He clearly explains he is not "assuming that the arrangement of amino acids is the only one to support life."

      Of course he does. He specifically says so

      "There are 20 amino acids, but conservatively estimate that about 1 in 4 will produce a viable molecule...Thus in the primordial ocean of amino acids, the probability that a single amino chain would form a viable protein molecule is"

      Unless the word "viable" means something different in Creationist-land.

      Here is the entire simple-minded calculation.

      P (X1 and X2...X100) = (1/4 x 1/4 x ... 1/4) = 10e-60

      Show us where the calculation takes into account the iterative evolutionary process with feedback from the environment and a slow development of function.

      The person who came up with this nonsense calculation should be very embarrassed.

      Delete
    12. Of course he does. He specifically says so

      "There are 20 amino acids, but conservatively estimate that about 1 in 4 will produce a viable molecule [...]

      Here is the entire simple-minded calculation.

      P (X1 and X2...X100) = (1/4 x 1/4 x ... 1/4) = 10e-60


      (1/4)^N means he is assuming a majority amino acids will work at any position, an astronomically conservative assumption in evolution's favor.

      Your argument that he is "assuming that the arrangement of amino acids is the only one to support life." is absurd.

      Your failure to recognize this after being apprised of it is yet another example of the dogma at work.

      Delete
    13. You forgot to show how his simple-minded calculations actually model the empirically observed observed iterative evolutionary process with feedback from the environment and a slow development of function.

      You forgot again I should say.

      Delete
  14. Anyone already know what scientific award that book of mr. Hunter received?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed, you can't even explained how the ear is evolved during a short timespan of a few million rears.

    Explain this.....

    http://www.britannica.com/science/ear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Need I? Newton did not know what caused gravity. Did that make his laws obsolete?
      Does your link falsify common descent? I think not...

      Delete
    2. C'mon, ed, stop dodging. I know it's part of your coward nature.
      Don't compare a testable theory with a untestable fairytale. At least, gravity is a teastable scientific fact, while the theory of evolution is totaly based on story telling abilities. You know... assumptions.

      Delete
    3. Topgoosz

      Ed, you can't even explained how the ear is evolved during a short timespan of a few million rears.

      Human ears did not evolve in a few million years. The basic ear structure evolved with the early tetrapods back in the Devonian some 370 MYA. The basic mammalian ear structure evolved over 150 MYA in the mid Jurassic.

      Fossil evidence on evolution of inner ear cochlea in Jurassic mammals

      Creationists: so much ignorance, so little desire to learn

      Delete
    4. Perhaps Topgoosz is now studying evolution?

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Edje

    Certainly not. As it can be falsified. For example with that famous rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. But never such a falsification was found.


    What about bloodvessels in dinosaurbones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about bloodvessels in dinosaurbones?

      What about them? The all date to over 66 MYA so that falsifies evolution exactly...how?

      Delete
    2. Blood vessels would seem to indincate that the dinosaurs aren't 66 MYA.

      Delete
    3. natschuster

      Blood vessels would seem to indincate that the dinosaurs aren't 66 MYA


      Of course they don't, no more than finding a 1965 quarter in the park is evidence the Earth is only 50 years old.

      Delete
    4. The Earth might be older, but the dinosaur bones might not be.

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      The Earth might be older, but the dinosaur bones might not be.


      Then how did the rest of the fossilized bone end up as part of the 66 MYO stone matrix? Not just buried in it, an integral part made of the same material?

      Delete
    6. The riddle of soft dinosaur tissue seems te be explained after all. Iron plays an important roll in the conservation proces.

      http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

      Delete
    7. Explained...

      http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

      Delete
    8. GR: Maybe the rocks aren't 66 MYA.

      Delete
  18. @Edje

    Why dumb chance? Nature obeys laws. It is to you to prove that these laws could not possibly have lead to evolution. And it there that you fail.


    What a stupid statement.
    You can't even give one single law that leads to evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete


  21. @Ed Vassen

    The claim that a Precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution was made long after the fossil pattern was already known.

    It is not really brave.

    If they discovered a precambrian rabbit then they would either say it was an anomaly or that the strata was not really precambrian or the result of convergent evolution or that it was a "rabbit like" organism. Or shelve it to be resolved later.




    "Yes. Myself. My genes differ from that of my parents. Which in countless generations can lead to significant change."

    The difference between you and your father, like height and weight do not affect the body plan one iota.

    "I do not claim that I can prove that such change must occur, but still change occurs and that leaves the road open."

    You can claim it but that is a claim, that is all.


    "And you perhaps know of these Markov chains that tell us that in this way you wil get a phylogenetic tree over time with nested hierachy (except at its root, but that is another story) that."

    Some evolutionists say there is no tree, The philosophy of evolution accommodates both.



    "I agree. Very well vestigial organs might "if …. no other evidence had been found."

    The philosophy of evolution accommodates everything, thus it makes no sense to talk about evidence.

    "Then indeed it only would have been circular reasoning, as you say."

    It is circular reasoning, You seem to accommodate that too.

    "It however stand more to reason that it was the 18th century discovery of more and more fossils in the layers of the earth that made people suspect that life had changed over time and that the newer forms had arisen from the older ones. Well, once such a hypothesis was thought of (or perhaps even formulated), they would start to look for other evidence that such hypothesi demanded. Evidence to confirm. Or to disprove. To falsify. As science demands.
    And what they found was only confirming."

    The philosophy of evolution will accommodate everything so it makes no sense to talk about confirmation.


    "Never did they find that iconic rabbit in the precambrium."


    A claim of falsification, long after the fossil record was already known.
    Evolutionists would do one of the things already mentioned to deal with it.

    "Vestigial organs."

    circular reasoning.

    "The phylogenetic tree."

    Can accommodate a bush or a web pattern or any other pattern also.

    " Atavisms."

    Circular reasoning

    "The distribution of fossils in time and space."

    accommodated after the fact.

    "Our inability to synthesize vitamine C,"

    Losing something is not a mechanism for humans to evolve towards a new form of life over time.

    "just like all other apes."

    Begging the question.

    " And so on..."

    You mean that you have more "Elephant Hurling"




    "Nature obeys laws"

    The idea that nature obeys laws has no grounding on your faith of the universe came about unintentionally.

    "It is to you to prove that these laws"

    Incorrect, the idea of lawfulness in nature is perfectly consistent with design, It is not consistent with your faith that the universe came about unintentionally.

    "could not possibly have lead to" evolution."

    Not only can your faith that the universe came about unintentionally not account for laws in nature but you reject the known law of Biogenesis with your faith of life arising from non living matter in nature.


    "And it there that you fail."

    Incorrect, I accept the law of Biogenesis that shows life could not arise naturally.

    You are the one that fails. You chirp for laws while rejecting intention and design for the origin of the universe while rejecting the law of Biogenesis.


    You are all over the place. You need to get your act together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The claim that a Precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution was made long after the fossil pattern was already known.
      It is not really brave.
      If they discovered a precambrian rabbit then they would either say it was an anomaly or that the strata was not really precambrian or the result of convergent evolution or that it was a "rabbit like" organism. Or shelve it to be resolved later.”

      The rabbit is simply an example of what would falsify evolution, if it could be proven that it lived more than 540 million years ago. Strata can be dated, you know.
      But indeed, when that fossil pattern was already known, it would save to expect that such rabbit would never be found.
      But how do you explain the fossil pattern, by the way?

      “The difference between you and your father, like height and weight do not affect the body plan one iota.”

      Body plan like 2 arms and 2 legs and so on? Indeed. That would not change. But it is not the point. The body plan of horses and donkeys is also the same, yet they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Already they have grown too far apart genetically. That is what change upon change can lead to.

      “You can claim it but that is a claim, that is all.”

      It is you who must prove that the road to significant change is closed. Simply stating that a body plan does not change a iota does not do that.

      “Some evolutionists say there is no tree.”
      What exactly do they say? I wonder.


      “The philosophy of evolution accommodates everything, thus it makes no sense to talk about evidence.”

      It simply is science and it can be falsified.

      “circular reasoning.”

      Vestigial organs and atavisms are simply evidence for common descent. And that is what science is about. If you start to call every bit of evidence ‘circular reasoning’, you are just closing your eyes for what science is about.

      “Losing something is not a mechanism for humans to evolve towards a new form of life over time.”

      Our inability to synthesize vitamin C, which we share with all other apes due to the same damage in the ULO gene, is once again evidence for common descent. You are missing the point completely.

      The rest of your answers is too silly to deal with.

      Delete
    2. We have never seen small incremental changes produce a new species. Moreover, can small incremental changes produce a function or structure that is irreducibly complex, or has highly specified complexity? Maybe the burden of proof is on you to show that it can.

      And I read that there is evidence that the ULO gene might have some function. It might be like everything else that was thought to be vestigial.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and how do evolutionists explain the fact that the fossil pattern does not show incremental change but new species just popping up.

      Now, if you look at a museum display of the evolution of technology, for example,
      Y'know, designed stuff, it would very strongly resemble the fossil reocrd.

      Delete
    4. The explanation is not that exotic. The new species are not completely different fom the older ones. But the fossil record is far to spotty to document species to species transitions, certainly for terrestrial life. Transitions on the higher taxa level are much better to follow.

      Merry Christmas!

      Delete
    5. But it doesn't show one species changing into another, via incremental changes. If that is what happened, why doesn't it show up in the fossil record?

      Delete
    6. It does show up in the fossil record. We don't get the granularity of having a sample every generation because fossilization is so rare. We do have enough samples to reproduce the evolutionary trajectory of many lineages.

      Delete
    7. What I keep on reading is that the fossil record doesn't show one species evolving into another, just different species living at different times. Evolution from one species into another is inferred. Evolutionists have to come up with apologetics like the fossil record is incomplete, or punctuated equilibrium. Now, if a somebody wanted to created a museum display of the evolution of technology, then it would like the fossil record. IF we take the fossil record at face value, it looks like a display of the development of designed things.

      Delete
    8. Nat

      What I keep on reading is that the fossil record doesn't show one species evolving into another, just different species living at different times.


      That's because all you read are garbage Creationist sites full of lies and religious propaganda. Try reading the actual scientific literature for a change.

      Delete
    9. "What I keep on reading is that the fossil record doesn't show one species evolving into another, just different species living at different times."

      Which would mean that God just repeatedly destroyed species to replace them with new ones? And in doing so, God would never once think of creating a rabbit in the precambrian or a T-Rex in the holocene? Had God done so, that would really have been the end of evolution theory even before it could have been thought of.
      But now it is as if God wants scientist to think that species did descent from older ones.

      Delete
    10. I not sure what God would do or not do. But if God wanted the creation of life to resemble the evolution technology that humans are familiar with, then I would expect the fossil record to look pretty much like it does. Now, if life evolved through small incremental changes from one species to another, I, for one would expect to seem of that in the fossil record.

      Delete
    11. It is not you who decides what counts as scientific evidence.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There's a much simpler way to get rid of evolutionists. It involves only three letters - DNA. Anyone that thinks this complex 4 element information system was created by random forces is an idiot. And anyone that believes said idiot is stupider than a brick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should it be random forces? Chemicals follow natural laws.

      Delete
    2. But you can't derive DNA and it's function fromt he laws of chemistry alone.

      Delete
    3. Ed Vaessen

      "Why should it be random forces? Chemicals follow natural laws."

      Chemicals do follow natural laws but natural laws do not produce information, at least none that I'm aware of. Can you provide a natural law that would?

      Delete
    4. You will have to define the word 'information' I think. Science uses exact terms. Otherwise, one simply does not know what the other is talking about.

      Merry Christmas!

      Delete
    5. It is up to the evolutionists to prove that anything other than God can create DNA. Until they can their theory is meaningless.

      Delete
  24. Evolutionist like to use vestigial structures to prove evolution. Bu that is saying that the lose of a function proves that the evolution could produce the gain of a function. It doesn't make sense. It's like proving that, since I broke my car's windshield, a new one can form spontaneously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They use it as one of the many independent evidences for common descent. That is what science is about.

      Delete
    2. Ed
      More like they "used" it.
      evolutionists started out with 180 vestigal examples but now are down to only claiming the fact I can wiggle my ears as proof of the theory.
      Could it be your understanding of the function of these things was a false claim?

      Delete
    3. Sorry. It is not a 100% proof that cannot be explanied other than by evolution. It is simply one of the very many evidences for evolution.
      Science does not decide the validity of a theory on only one kind of evidence. It does it by looking where all the independent kinds of evidence point to.

      Merry Christmas by the way!

      Delete
    4. If we are to take "big picture" approach, then there is evidence for design all over the place. Just about bio-polymer looks designed. There are neat little nano-machines in so many organisms everywhere. In fact, Darwinism is an attempt to explain design without actually coming on to design.

      Delete
    5. We also see unintelligent design. Like that laryngeal nerve taking he long way round in mammals. At least that points to common descent, mammals being descendent from fish.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. The recursive laryngeal nerve may be an artifact of fetal development instead of evolution. Lots of designed things have limitation and constraints as a result of the manufacturing process.

      Delete
    8. "The earth was cursed for our sake and genetic pool shallowed by close-kin relations from Noah's days, so we may have been further devolved through that means."

      Question: what has this to do with science?

      Delete
    9. "The recursive laryngeal nerve may be an artifact of fetal development instead of evolution."

      It still is a convincing piece of evidence for common descent.

      Delete
    10. That same question is perfect for both my rhetoric and the evolution rhetoric. They read about the same to me.

      Delete
    11. Ed:

      "The recursive laryngeal nerve may be an artifact of fetal development instead of evolution."

      It still is a convincing piece of evidence for common descent.


      Why is that true?

      Delete
    12. Cornelius:

      "Why is this true?"

      Yes, I also have wondered many things similar to the faith affirmation he gives here. Somewhere I would suppose scientists have tweaked and manipulated the genetic makeup of a Giraffe embryo to correct all the imagined flaws they believe are the result of copying error natural world did when it put it all together in the first place ? Somewhere in the world there is a Lab where all of this improvement has been accomplished by the world's leading geneticists in correcting nature's flaws.

      I'm also waiting for that scientific experiment so often alluded to where evolutionists have supposedly tested what an intelligent being (which they insist does not nor never has existed) would or wouldn't do regarding anything regarded as a flaw and proof only blind unguided evolution did it. I would imagine such a dogmatic believer as Mr Ed would have replicated such an experiment for himself and perhaps is willing to share with us where to begin such an experiment to our own satisfaction that an intelligent designer never laid finger one on designing a giraffe, or at least the information and nanomachines for developing one ?

      Delete
    13. The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies the upper oesophagus as I recall and therefore has a function. As far as I know all the "vestigial organs" have a function so think that "vestigial organs" are very poor evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    14. mad doc

      The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies the upper oesophagus as I recall and therefore has a function. As far as I know all the "vestigial organs" have a function so think that "vestigial organs" are very poor evidence for evolution.


      The RLN isn't considered vestigial.

      BTW vestigial doesn't mean having no function. It means having lost or degraded from its original function. There's nothing in evolution that prevents a vestigial organ from picking up a new, secondary function. In fact a large part of evolutionary theory deals with co-option of features for new uses.

      Delete
    15. And for that vestigial organs are evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    16. "Why is that true?"

      Because it fits so very well in with common descent. It is one of the very many evidences for evolution.

      Delete
    17. "Why is this true?"

      Because it fits so very well with the hypothesis of common descent.

      Delete
    18. Because it fits so very well with the hypothesis of common descent.

      Can you elaborate on that? Why does the RLN fit so very well with CD? This sounds like affirming the consequent to me. Do evidences that contradict the CD hypothesis count? If not, why not? Is this confirmation bias?

      Delete
    19. I would imagine such a dogmatic believer as Mr Ed would have replicated such an experiment for himself and perhaps is willing to share with us where to begin such an experiment to our own satisfaction that an intelligent designer never laid finger one on designing a giraffe, or at least the information and nanomachines for developing one ?"

      Well, that laryngeal nerve is excellent evidence for common descent.

      Delete
    20. Why does the RLN fit so very well with CD?

      The RLN's bizarre routing in the long-necked giraffidae is consistant with evolution from a short necked ancestor. Further evidence of this is found in the genetic closeness of giraffes with their cousin species the short necked okapi. It's also found in the discover of the intermediate-length-neck transitional species Samotherium major

      Fossils Reveal How Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

      In science you have to look at all the data as a whole, not pull the Creationist dishonest trick of cherry-picking each piece separately.

      Delete
    21. The RLN's bizarre routing in the long-necked giraffidae is consistant with evolution ...

      "Consistent"? When you ask about the high claim, they walk it back, and then place the blame on creationists.

      Next question: Do evidences that contradict the CD hypothesis count?

      Delete
    22. "Consistent"? When you ask about the high claim, they walk it back, and then place the blame on creationists.

      (shrug) Not science's problem Creationists love to dishonestly cherry pick individual pieces of evidence instead of considering the integrated whole.

      If you have an alternate hypothesis about the origin of the giraffidae I'm sure science would love to hear it. Do you?

      Next question: Do evidences that contradict the CD hypothesis count?

      All evidence counts. What doesn't count is cherry picking one specific piece of convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer among bacteria and claiming it somehow negates all the other evidence for common descent among the multicellular species.

      Delete
    23. All evidence counts. What doesn't count is cherry picking one specific piece

      Which is precisely what you just did with the RLN.

      of convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer among bacteria and claiming it somehow negates all the other evidence for common descent among the multicellular species

      Sorry, if your theory predicts X, and the evidence is not X, then guess what?

      Delete
    24. Which is precisely what you just did with the RLN.

      LOL! Of course it's not. I also pointed out the consilient evidence of the griffadae / okapi genetic closeness as well as the fossil record with transitional intermediate-neck forms. Only Creationists love to dishonestly cherry pick individual pieces of evidence instead of considering the integrated whole.

      I notice you don't have an alternate hypothesis for the origin of the giraffidae. No surprise there.

      Sorry, if your theory predicts X, and the evidence is not X, then guess what?

      Then you modify the theory accordingly. A scientist wouldn't have to ask that.

      Delete
    25. There are two recurrent laryngeal nerves, left and right. They both supply the upper oesophagus and are branches of the vagus nerve. One very important function they have is the control of swallowing which is unconscious. The R hooks under the R subclavian artery and the L, under the aorta and they ascend on either side of the oesophagus. An inspection of the anatomy of the heart and aorta demonstrates why this has to be the case. There are also R+L superior laryngeal nerves which are also branches of the vagus nerve and which innervate the larynx, pharynx and tongue. The design of this apparatus is logical to me and I do not understand why it is repeatedly paraded as evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    26. P.S. I am describing human anatomy here.

      Delete
    27. Only Creationists love to dishonestly cherry pick

      Which is exactly what you just did.

      Then you modify the theory accordingly

      So where are your modifications then, if you are not cherry picking?

      Delete
    28. I notice you don't have an alternate hypothesis

      That would be a scientific discussion.

      Delete
    29. Which is exactly what you just did.

      Of course it's not. I also pointed out the consilient evidence of the girffadae / okapi genetic closeness as well as the fossil record with transitional intermediate-neck forms. Only Creationists love to dishonestly cherry pick individual pieces of evidence instead of considering the integrated whole.

      So where are your modifications then, if you are not cherry picking?

      Where appropriate hey have already been made to the theory as currently accepted by science. You should read up on it sometime.

      That would be a scientific discussion.

      Which explains why you won't provide your answer.

      Delete
    30. Amazing! No matter what evidence is found it can always be spun. When you have the only philosophy that can be used it sure simplifies things. Even blind men can make watches with the theory.

      Delete
    31. Phillymike

      Amazing! No matter what evidence is found it can always be spun.


      You're confused again Mike. ToE can't accommodate all possible evidence, in fact it's rather easy to falsify. It's just that all the evidence actually found fits under the theory which speaks to the theory's veracity.

      Delete
    32. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    33. Did I do that?

      It's a scientific fact, and no amount of evidence can prove otherwise.


      That evolution over deep time has occurred is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution which explains the mechanisms that produced the fact is a scientific theory and can certainly be changed if/when sufficient new evidence is introduced.

      Delete
    34. "ToE can't accommodate all possible evidence."

      "It's just that all the evidence actually found fits under the theory."

      Thats your theory's problem.

      Delete
    35. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    36. Ed Vaessen:
      "Well, that laryngeal nerve is excellent evidence for common descent."

      Yes, I'm already familiar with what a Faith Affirmation is, I merely asked what scientific experiment you and others have used to arrive at those conclusions which validated your faith. Clearly your faith remains intact and nothing or no one can shake it.

      Cornelius Hunter: "Can you elaborate on that? Why does the RLN fit so very well with CD? This sounds like affirming the consequent to me. Do evidences that contradict the CD hypothesis count? If not, why not? Is this confirmation bias?"

      Cornelius Hunter: "Do evidences that contradict the CD hypothesis count?"

      Cornelius Hunter: "Sorry, if your theory predicts X, and the evidence is not X, then guess what?"

      Cornelius Hunter: "So where are your modifications then, if you are not cherry picking?"

      Ghostrider: "LOL!"


      Now I understand why such idiocy is allowed and even encouraged on his blog comments section. It's actually very illustrative in exposing what motivates the people on the other side of the issue. Clearly it's never had anything to do with Science.

      Delete
    37. Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter does a great labor in making such a thick bundle of (mockery for) evidence for evolution. When you see billboards down the highway one by one, its a far cry from the impact reading a list gives. I've read 2012-2014 archives and comments - ad nauseam. I'm reading the 2009 posts, and they contain some of the most condensed, "everything I wanted to say until now" articles. I suggest them as further entertainment and enlightenment. Good day.

      Delete
    38. Kevin Franck

      Now I understand why such idiocy is allowed and even encouraged on his blog comments section.


      Gee Kevin, it was mighty Christian of you to chop out my actual replies and claim the OP starter's questions weren't answered. There's a reason quote-mining like that is considered lying and a reason Creationist clowns who practice it get the respect they deserve in the science community.

      Delete
    39. Sockpuppet: "There's a reason quote-mining like that is considered lying and a reason Creationist clowns who practice it get the respect they deserve in the science community."

      Let's be honest here. Your very reason for being here has nothing to do with respect, understanding or respectful dialogue. Your entire belief system can actually be summed up in "LOL!"

      Delete
    40. Dishonest Creationist

      Let's be honest here.


      What, and change your pattern of lying by quote-mining? Personally I doubt you can do it. The next time you're honest here will be your first.

      Delete
  25. It would be wonderful if evolutionary biologists would morph that fast from storytellers to bona fide scientists (and stay that way!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'storytellers' seems to convince the scientific community to a high degree. Perhaps you should look at the arguments these scientists have brought forward over 150 years.

      Delete
    2. And Merry Christmas, of course!

      Delete
  26. http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2figures/Figure2.2-reduced.jpg

    Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  27. "ToE can't accommodate all possible evidence."

    "It's just that all the evidence actually found fits under the theory."

    Thats your theory's problem.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mad doc

    Thats your theory's problem.


    Hehehe! It's problem that a theory explains the data? That's FSTDT material. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. You chose to ignore the fact that I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself in two successive sentences:
      "ToE can't accommodate all possible evidence."
      "It's just that all the evidence actually found fits under the theory."




      Delete
    2. No. You chose to ignore the fact that I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself in two successive sentences:
      "ToE can't accommodate all possible evidence."
      "It's just that all the evidence actually found fits under the theory."


      Sorry doc but there's no contradiction. "All the evidence actually found" is but a tiny subset of "all possible evidence".

      "All possible evidence" would include anything you could think up such as a winged, 6-limbed horse, an actual half fish-half human mermaid, finding the magic genetic barrier Creationist claim that prevent one "kind" from ever evolving into another "kind". Those wouldn't fit under the current ToE.

      Like I said, lots of things if found would falsify the current ToE. They just have never been found. Everything that has been found is explainable by the current theory.

      Delete
    3. You are mixing up possible imaginings with possible evidence. There is no evidence for a winged horse or a mermaid.

      Delete
    4. mad doc

      You are mixing up possible imaginings with possible evidence. There is no evidence for a winged horse or a mermaid.


      The confusion is all your doc. There is no evidence that has been found to support such things. There is certainly such evidence possible as I've already described.

      Sorry doc but you face planted on this one. Best to cut your losses and move on.

      Delete
    5. mad doc

      It's taking him a while to spin that one.
      But have no fear! He will!

      Delete
    6. Phillymike

      mad doc

      It's taking him a while to spin that one.
      But have no fear! He will!


      No spin necessary Mike. Doc screwed up, he knows he screwed up. What is possible to exist and what has actually been found are two different things. The second is a small subset of the first. Even Creationists should be able to handle that simple concept.

      Well, maybe not the Creationists around here. :)

      Delete
  29. Ok. I'll leave it there. There is no point arguing with someone who believes that there is possible evidence for a winged horse or a mermaid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you simply misrepresent what ghostrider is trying to tell you.

      Delete
  30. Cornelius Hunter wrote:

    "Sorry, if your theory predicts X, and the evidence is not X, then guess what?"

    The theory predicted X. But is was not completely X. There was something more.
    It certainly made sense to assume a phylogenetic tree. But just as Einstein showed the Newton was not completely right, so study of the DNA showed that the tree has some fuzziness at the root. And even was found out that horizontal gene transfer occurs also at our level, when viruses invade our germ cells.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think evolutionists REALLY stretch what a theory can flex to without breaking. Take Einstein's theory of general relativity. Started in 1911, published October in 1915 with a grave error, and fixed in November. That's what omitting naieve falsification is for. Relativity wasn't wrong because of one blunder. But then it was fixed. That was just a few years. Over 150 years and probably as many stories encompass evolution but its held to as the same quality of fact. The quality really diminishes the more and more it must change, not even being wrong but utterly inapplicable. It's like having an equation for the "orbits of the planet" where each planet needs 30 coefficients and they change for each planet. It's more after the fact that predicts the fact. And after so many changes who could believe it's anywhere near true as gravity.

      Delete
    2. You do not sound very scientific.

      Delete


  31. Ed “The rabbit is simply an example of what would falsify evolution,”



    No it wouldn’t, Evolution is taken as indisputable fact so if they found an earlier Rabbit then they would do one of the things that I already mentioned.

    Furthemore you are begging the question because you are already presupposing that evolution can explain the existence of Rabbits where they exist now, not only are evolutionists divided on mechanisms but I would suggest that the existence of Rabbits already contradicts evolutionary argumentation but then again, the philosophy of evolution can accommodate contradiction so it does not matter.



    "But indeed, when that fossil pattern was already known, it would save to expect that such rabbit would never be found."

    If they found it then they would do one of the things already mentioned to accommodate it.

    "But how do you explain the fossil pattern, by the way?"

    I would say that bacteria and cockroaches survive just fine and that creatures like the great ape and whale on the extinction list are more vulnerable. This pattern contradicts your faith of life evolving to survive because these larger life forms are less sturdy and reproduce less.

    There really is no need for rabbits and whales and apes when it comes to your evolutionary position but your evolutionary faith can accommodate this contradiction.

    "Body plan like 2 arms and 2 legs and so on? Indeed. That would not change. But it is not the point. The body plan of horses and donkeys is also the same, yet they can no longer produce fertile offspring."

    “Already they have grown too far apart genetically. That is what change upon change can lead to.”

    Failing to interbreed does not provide a mechanism for one type of organism to evolve towards a different type.

    Some Humans cannot interbreed with others, they are not a new life form.


    “It is you who must prove that the road to significant change is closed. “

    No, I am not under any obligation to prove your story telling is wrong. You are making a claim but you provide no mechanism, Your claim can be dismissed.




    “Simply stating that a body plan does not change a iota does not do that.”

    Simply claiming that it does,is not a demonstration of what you claim as being true.


    “What exactly do they say? I wonder. “


    Venter says it is a bush and that there is no tree. Others said there is no tree also.



    “It simply is science and it can be falsified.”


    It can’t be falsified because it is accepted as absolute fact and thus whatever is found can be accommodated.


    “Vestigial organs and atavisms are simply evidence for common descent.”


    Claiming them as such is based on already assuming your faith, You are already assuming your faith to declare them as such.

    “And that is what science is about.”


    No, Science is a process, and if scientists are using poor logic like you are demonstrating then we need to be wary of what they claim.

    “If you start to call every bit of evidence ‘circular reasoning’,”

    I called your claims circular reasoning, Pointing out your circular reasoning is not saying anything about all claims of evidence.



    “you are just closing your eyes for what science is about.”


    No, science does not require your bad logic.

    “Losing something is not a mechanism for humans to evolve towards a new form of life over time.”

    “Our inability to synthesize vitamin C, which we share with all other apes”

    To say all other is to already assume your faith.



    “is once again evidence for common descent.”


    No, it is just evidence of loss of something and does not entail common descent.



    “The rest of your answers is too silly to deal with.”

    With your circular reasoning then you are not really in a position to dismiss others answers as silly.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "No it wouldn’t, Evolution is taken as indisputable fact"

    Just like the round shape of the earth.
    All evidence points to it.
    Or do you question the round shape of the earth?
    If not, than what would be a reason to question evolution?

    The silly writings of mr. Hunter, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Did I do that?

      I think to myself in amusebewonderment, "if evolution is supposed to be scientific, why does it get in bouts with religious dogma - they're not even apples to apples... ohhhh"


      Easy. It's because those pushing their religious dogma keep trying to dishonestly sneak their anti-science horsecrap into public school science classrooms. The scientists and educators who have to waste time and money countering these slimy underhanded attempts at pushing Fundy religious beliefs where they don't belong naturally resent it.

      Delete
    3. Frankly, people will believe what they will believe. There's more to that but I'll just leave that bait sit.

      Isn't there enough irrefutable factual science to be taught without bringing evolution into the picture? Or creationism?

      Yes there, but warfare thesis. Make a materialistic move, watch the "fundies" react, then claim self defense. Classic abuse.

      Delete
    4. Did I do that?

      Isn't there enough irrefutable factual science to be taught without bringing evolution into the picture?


      Evolution is factual science that hasn't been refuted. That why it is taught in science classes. Creationism gets filed with the other junk pseudoscience beliefs like a flat Earth and geocentrism.

      Make a materialistic move, watch the "fundies" react, then claim self defense

      Go ahead and name an area of science or technology that doesn't rely 100% on materialistic assumptions. Should we "teach the controversy" that airplanes fly not by the lift generated from the wings but because sky pixies hold them aloft? Or that the internet works because tiny invisible djinn carry the data in their tiny little backpacks between distant computers?

      Delete
    5. Dude that's so cliché, evolutionists deserve better. You're equating the necessarily materialistic view of line level encoding which can be observed with an oscilloscope and needs no just so stories with something that is hardly unrefuted fact. Is this site not refuting it? I've seen this evolution argument hundreds of times on this blog alone. AD NAUSEAM.

      Delete
    6. Did I do that?

      Dude that's so cliché, evolutionists deserve better.


      It may be a cliché but it's also 100% true.

      I've seen this evolution argument hundreds of times on this blog alone.

      Yet you still can't even begin to offer a refutation. All you Fundies whine about materialism yet can't offer a single example of where your supernatural woo would work better in the real world.

      Delete
  33. Hi Ed
    When you say evolution do you mean modern evolutionary theory that includes population genetics along with natural selection? If so, I think that Dr Hunters argument that shows long odds of random change creating new genetic information (DNA sequences) is strong. So overall evolution has occurred the mechanism is still not well understood. I think an interesting confirmation of Dr Hunters thesis is the 2004 and 2005 debate between Behe Stokes and Michael Lynch because it is hard to justify modern evolution transitions (driven by random mutation and selection) even from the numbers that come from Lynch's model. Would value your perspective on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill Cole

      I think that Dr Hunters argument that shows long odds of random change creating new genetic information (DNA sequences) is strong


      No one has ever done any sort of probability calculations showing that which could withstand even the slightest scientific scrutiny. Every attempt has been rigged with unrealistic and often fabricated values coupled with amazingly stupid assumptions that comes nowhere close to modeling actual evolutionary processes.

      A good example of just how stupid these "calculations" can be is upstream in this very thread. The "model" used for evolution was 100 amino acids had to self-assemble into a protein all at once. Evolutionary scientists look at inanity like that and just chuckle.

      Delete
    2. Hi ghostrider
      I looked at the papers Dr Hunter sited. There were 4 particular papers that range in dates from 1977 to 2006 that all support the numbers in the blog above. Are you saying all these papers are wrong? Can you site any papers with strong counter arguments?

      Delete
    3. Hunter didn't cite any papers. He cited his own unsupported claims on his own blog. It's a favorite trick of creationists to make the quote-mined quotes and misrepresentations of actual data harder to find.

      Why don't you list the papers and summarize the values calculated here. I guarantee not one legitimate paper will show "long odds of random change creating new genetic information (DNA sequences)" because that's not how the process of evolution works.

      Delete
    4. Hunter didn't cite any papers.

      Translation: Evolutionists have no response to the science, so they just deny it altogether. The sheer absurdity (right, no papers cited) of evolutionists' comments says it all. They have no choice. When you believe the world arose by chance, the only way to maintain your position is with these sorts of canards. A teachable moment ...

      Delete
    5. You are not the owner of science.

      Delete
    6. Hi ghostrider
      Yockey et al 1977
      Yockey et al 1990
      Axe 2004
      Hayashi et al 2006
      all range 10^63 to 10^77 for 100 residue protein these are all from respected scientific journals.

      Delete
    7. Bill
      Please don't confuse things with the science of Math.

      Delete
    8. Bill Cole

      Hi ghostrider
      Yockey et al 1977
      Yockey et al 1990
      Axe 2004
      Hayashi et al 2006
      all range 10^63 to 10^77 for 100 residue protein these are all from respected scientific journals.


      Yep. Seen them all. Not one calculation shows "long odds of random change creating new genetic information (DNA sequences)".

      Here is a good explanation for Yockey's failure. He makes the usual layman's blunders, assuming what we see now is the only possible combination that supports life and assuming what we see now had to assemble all at once.

      Yockey and the odds of life

      Axe is an IDiot who has been pushing his protein fold idiocy for a decade. Here is a good explanation for why his numbers don't support his conclusion

      Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

      The Hayashi paper has been heavily quote-mined and misrepresented by Creationists. The figures in the paper are a probability based on point mutations only which the author himself acknowledges is not realistic. There are many more ways in evolution to produce genetic variation, such as sexual recombination. Here's a good layman's explanation

      A Creationist Blog Quote Mines Peer Reviewed Research about Protein Evolution

      The bottom line - everything you read by Creationists about those papers is a misrepresentation or an outright lie.

      Delete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ed "Just like the round shape of the earth.
    All evidence points to it."

    The Philosophy of Evolution accommodates everything, thus your assertion is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Ed
    Explained...

    http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


    Hmmm.. explained? Not. Just trying to finding a way out to explainn 75 years old bloodcells in dinosaur bones. What about this?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3117137/Blood-skin-cells-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones-Tissue-extracted-fossils-left-storage-century.html

    Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil


    https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


    Ouch! Evolution Failsified.


    But, as a Darwin-worshipper, this won't affect you.


    And.. uh.. may i remind you this is from a very recent article, compared with that old rubish aka ''Just so stories'' you always come upp with.

    ReplyDelete
  38. update:Dinosaur Blood Vessels Survived 80 Million Years Without Fossilizing

    http://www.livescience.com/53032-dinosaur-blood-vessels.html

    75 million years without fossilizing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Topgooze


      75 million years without fossilizing?


      Yep. A pretty neat and unexpected scientific find.

      It doesn't do one thing to cast doubt on the millions of pieces of evidence we have for a 4.55 billion year old Earth and the 3.5 billion years' of life but it does give Creationists a cheap thrill.

      Delete
  39. @Ghostrider

    I don't have a problem with an old earth, so what's your point?

    But one thing is for sure, evolution is a fairytale for adults, the most flexible ''scientifc theory'' (?) you can imagine.
    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Topgoosz

    @Ghostrider

    I don't have a problem with an old earth, so what's your point?


    Then why do you think 75 MYO trace biological finds are a problem for evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ghostrider

    What makes YOU think Dinosaurs roars the earth 75 millions years ago, based on what scientific evidence?

    ReplyDelete