Sunday, December 10, 2006
Just a Note for Evolutionists that May Read this Blog
Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniature sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an “evolutionist” could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. And the amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed, and they are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory.
Just a Note for Evolutionists that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. The biological time-line given by biologists for the appearance of species certainly looks scientifically accurate. There appears to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it. In reality, few people spend much time thinking about it. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionists that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.
If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence, so my thinking goes no farther. Please keep your comments within the scope of this blog. If you want to challenge my thinking or any section, please feel free. If you do challenge, please place your comment below the page you are challenging, and note the paragraph. I don’t want to debate about Creationism, ID, if there is a God, invisible guys in the sky, any religious beliefs, or angels or fairies. So please leave those off of your comment list. Also, I promote independent thinking. I have seen and read most pro-evolution sites, and many anti-evolution sites, and I pretty much know what they say. So, please do your own thinking and challenging, and don’t forward any links. Thanks
The pages of this blog are placed in chronological order, and are composed of my thoughts and experiences with evolutionists as they come, so no need to read in any particular order.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming
Since I graduated from USC in 1967, I had been a firm believer in Darwinian evolution. I thought anyone who did not was a sucker, or really naive. It seemed like such a logical way that we humans, and all other species had arrived on earth. I have always been fascinated with the subject, and study and think about it often. I was so comfortable with TOE as the only logical explanation for how we got here. I was in awe of the genius of Charles Darwin. When visiting my son who was studying medicine at Chicago Medical School in 2004, I visited the Field Museum and saw Sue, their T. Rex fossil. What a great experience. But a puzzle came to mind. Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth?
Wouldn't natural selection and mutations have evolved longer arms for T. Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes. Centipedes have roamed the earth for 400 million years showing only miniscule changes. Trilobytes showed little change over a 250 million year period, more than 100 times longer that it took man to evolve from hominid species. Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in skulls, should be the norm. Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with.
The Coelacanth is a living fish which first appeared 410 million years ago. (Fossil above left) It was thought extinct, but recently has been found live in many locations throughout the world. (Above right) Coelacanth shows absolutely no sign of evolution since it first appeared, 200 times longer ago than it supposedly took man to evolve from hominids. Why didn’t it grow arms, or something? The explanation on an evolution website: “This situation is still under investigation by scientists.” I'm certain that scientists are working around the clock trying to figure this one out! Actually, what's to figure? There was absolutely no evolution with Coelacanth. Nothing to "investigate" here. What truly objective scientists should say is, “This certainly is additional proof that Darwinian evolution may not have occurred at all.” In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
It is truly a strange experience realizing that something that I believed and defended vociferously for over forty years was completely a hoax. For me, when Darwin started going over the falls, the fall was fast. Suddenly, I started seeing, in every corner that I looked, a huge hoax perpetrated by the brainwashed, wishful thinking "scientists", writers, and professors, and avid anti-religionists. It was a real shock. This website will pretty much log my thoughts and readings about evolution since my visit to the Field Museum.
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.
For those of you who are evolution believers, I have a fun game for you: try to look at the fossil record, current biology, major organ, and specie evidence and pretend that there are absolutely no theories in existence. Your job is to make one. Do an "Einsteinien" mind experiment, and see what you can come up with.
Impossibilities of Evolution
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Six examples are:
- Sexual Reproduction
- Birds and Eggs.
- Eyes and Hearts
- Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
- Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in slow steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have "irreducible complexity". Evolutionists diminish IC, and act like they can prove that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. They have come up with outlandish tales (see below) of how these items evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens "evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn't "survival of the fittest" allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans, in reality, are extremely weak as far as all-weather survivability goes, and can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? Is this scenario gradually taking place imaginable? Could clothes gradually appear?
The fact that any one of these items above could not possibly "evolve" destroys the entire foundation for the TOE.
Evolution Websites Try to Explain Heart/Eye Evolution
The following is text from scientific evolution websites http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0400_feature1.html regarding heart and eye evolution: (My comments in italics.)
Quote: They’ve also discovered that the change from simple tube to complex, chambered organ may have happened in an evolutionary flash. (Discovered that it may have?? Then they didn't discover.)
The first foreshadowings of the heart reach back to at least 800 million years ago, when the first known multicellular fossils formed.
Genes also provide a hint as to where that first protoheart might have come from: the throat. (What is a protoheart? Please include a drawing. And, the throat?? Great guess!)
So here’s a possible scenario for how the first heart evolved. Every now and then during cell division and reproduction, one gene (or, rarely, a group of genes) is accidentally duplicated. Perhaps this happened to the genes that induced throat formation in a lineage of primitive animals. At first, the second set of throat genes may have kept on doing their original job of helping to build the throat. Then, thanks to a mutation, (WOW! That must have been some mutation!) the genes started switching on in cells in a different part of the animal’s body. Instead of making a muscular tube that pumped food, (perhaps) these genes began to make a muscular tube that pumped blood. (I wonder where they got the blood to pump.....from the Red Cross?)
Keeping hard-working hearts supplied with oxygen may have been the initial pressure behind the evolution of lungs 400 million years ago. (Double WOW!) Unquote.
Quote: Darwin proposed that complex eyes could have been formed with a succession of photosensitive organs, each a bit more complex than its predecessor and each favored by natural selection because of the advantages that the possessor received. (What advantages are there in a blind eye?) Visualizing such a process would be easiest if steps in this sequence were preserved in closely related living organisms; but no such sequence exists*** (See *** below. Who is lying?) for eyes because the intermediate stages have been lost through extinction. Unquote.
(A sorry excuse. No wonder creationists out debate the evolutionists. The intermediate stages don't exist as fossils because they never existed as animals. The stages of eye evolution should show up as indents in the skulls of fossils which gradually grow into eye sockets over hundreds of thousands of years. Of course this evidence, which should be plentiful, is non-existent.)
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/heart_evolution.htm explains heart evolution by describing hearts that already function, but are "simpler". What about the steps from nothing to a functioning heart? What did they look like, and why did they even occur since a "proto-heart" would be useless? Evolutionists usually ignore this part of the evolution of the heart, and start their explanation with single-chambered hearts. This is an embarrassment to real science. The next part had something to do with flying reindeer and Santa Claus. "The reindeer sprouted wings and off they flew.................." No matter what the subject is in Darwinian evolution, assumptions are piled upon figments of imagination, until a whole fake science has been established, and believed by enough people to make it seem real. Then evolution "scientists" all pat each other on the back and agree that it is real, and anyone who questions is a fool. A great example of group psychology.
I have since found that creationists (again, this site has nothing to do with creationism) have the same challenge for Darwinism: that hearts and other organs cannot possibly evolve, because there are no possible intermediate steps to that evolution. What I thought about independently had already been on the books.
Try http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html for a real visit to Alice in Wonderland.
Quote: Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot (What exactly is a "light-sensitive spot"?) on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, (What advantage, since it would still be totally blind?) perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created
(Watch out! "Created" is a bad word for evolutionists!) a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. (Wow! Now this is real scientific imagining!)
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. (What change could possibly be an advantage, since a "proto-eye" would be something like a tumor?) Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, (Wow again!) the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. (Triple WOW!) It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.*** (Complete poppycock. The eyes of some species are "simpler", but still extremely complex, with nerve connection to a brain. Limpet, and Murex are examples. Also, see *** above for a major contradiction. ) The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Unquote
(Could I please see his calculations? I bet they would really be interesting and scientific!)
My Scenario for Heart/Eye Evolution
3500-2800 mya: One celled animals float in the oceans.
1500-600 mya: Two cells stick together, and become the king of the beasts, easily dominating the one celled animals.
1500-600 mya: Three cells stick together, and dominate one and two celled animals.
600 mya On and on until thousands of cells stick together and eat up on littler weaker less-fit animals with less cells.
595 mya: Multi-thousand celled animals start having trouble with their inner cells dying for lack of oxygen. Some sort of pump must evolve to get oxygen to the inner cells!
592 mya: The throat gene duplicates itself, mutates and two little tube/sacs form from mesoderm cells. The cells don't know what a pump is, but survival of the fittest and mutations can figure that out. Natural selection and adaption helps out too! What an evolutionary team!
591 mya: For some unknown reason, life with tube/sacs eats up on life without a tube/sacs (survival of the fittest).
580 mya: The tube/sacs grow bigger over millions of years, of course.
578 mya: The tube/sacs begin to close so someday they can pump blood. The tube/sacs grow muscle in the walls by mutations or natural selection.
575 mya: When the tube/sacs are nearly closed, valves evolve by survival of the fittest, which open and close to let blood in and out. Oops, there is no blood!
571 mya: Blood evolves with RBC's that can suck up oxygen, and platelets too! Natural selection adds WBC's to help fend off bad one celled animals and viruses.
569 mya: Oops, there is no way to get the blood to the inner cells of the animal. Blood vessels evolve.
568 mya: Now there is no way to get oxygen to the blood. Lungs evolve by mutation and survival of the fittest.
562 mya: A nerve evolves to the brain so the brain can cause the heart to pump blood with perfect timing, one beat per second. (Oops, there is no second because there are no clocks.) Survival of the fittest decides to wait and let future generations evolve clocks. It will just estimate. "One one-thousand, two one-thousand...."
561 mya: The heart nerve tries to find the brain, but, it can't. Damn, there is no brain. Mutations evolves a brain to operate the pump and move the blood in pump-like fashion. See how mutations and survival of the fittest work together?
559 mya: The animal species now has a complete heart-lung system, and it now will eat up on all the life that doesn't.
555 mya: The new king of the beasts has light sensitive cells! Little cups form around the light-sensitive cells. Now it can really survive, and find food. The little cups start enlarging!
551 mya: The cups grow around and seal to pinholes. Hey, it's a pinhole camera! There is now an image on the retina (evolved by mutations, of course). Might as well also mutate a nerve to the new brain. Might be able to see something. The animal doesn't know what "seeing" is, but, who knows, it might be fun!
550 mya: Animals are so excited because they can see images! The first animal that sees go nuts with excitement. Next, evolution invents an adjustable lens so it can see far and near! WOW! It can now find meals, and can run or fly away from predators. Except...............
Evidence FOR Evolution
An objective look at the timeline for the appearance of species must be included in any discussion of evolution. The timeline of species shows that very early one-celled plants and animals preceded more complex versions, which eventually preceded humans. Carbon dating and layer dating make the given ages for the appearance and extinction of species look pretty accurate and acceptable. My beef is not with the biological timelines, but with the explanation of those timelines. Most will contain utterly astounding entries, like "410 MYA: evolution of hearing". Just like that, hearing evolved. How? Not a clue can be given. It's just as if saying it makes it true.
Evolutionists say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils. They use this for an excuse that the fossil record shows no Darwinian evolution. (The ones that haven't been found have the proof of evolution!) The question here is, how do they know how many haven't been found since the fossils haven't been found? To establish any number for anything that has never been found is impossible, but somehow evolutionists can do it.
There is no doubt that species are related biochemically, and genetically to various degrees. Vestigial organs are further proof of some sort of past relationships of different species. Five digit hands and paws, two eyes, two ears, etc. are the norm. Of course, some species are far more closely related than others. Humans are 99% similar to chimpanzees when looking at the DNA of both. Human DNA is 30% similar to flower DNA. This fact certainly shows a deep biological connection between all species.
Another piece of evidence that favors evolution is the fact that on each continent a different set of fauna and flora exist. Giraffes and lions are solely African, coyotes and grizzly bears North American, penguins Antarctic, etc. How could this be the case if evolution did not occur? Due to differing environmental conditions, minor evolutionary changes most likely occurred in the fauna and flora on different continents. These changes show up in closely related multi-continent species. These changes would involve for the most part coloring, size, and habits. Size modification refers to animal size and/or body part size. African lions,
Evolutionists cite changes that occurred in the color of a peppered moth population as a current proof of evolution. Today a battle rages between evolutionists and creationists/anti-evolutionists over whether the peppered moth really did evolve and change colors due to environmental conditions. This is really nothing more than the perfect example of a tempest in a teapot. It is insignificant, no matter who wins the battle. According to evolutionists, lichens on the trees that the moths frequented changed color from light to dark, due to smoke coming from local factories. The moth majority also changed from light to dark coloring, due to the fact that birds ate the white ones, as they were "easier to see". Anti-evolutionists have evidence that the change in coloring didn't happen. In reality, it doesn’t really matter at all who is correct. Because, even if the peppered moth did permanently “evolve” into a different color, this is not even remotely close to the kind of evolution that would be needed to produce sight, hearing, and beating four-chambered hearts. Nor is the increasing resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic a proof of evolution, as is cited by evolutionists. The least resistant die, the more resistant live and reproduce. Both of these "proofs" are explained by simple mathematics, and in no way prove that species, eyes, and hearts formed from natural selection.
If Darwinian evolution indeed did take place, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts? None exists at all. And until these fossils are found, TOE will remain a figment of
What the Fossil Record Should Look Like
National Geographics Special, "Was Darwin Wrong?"
Next the evolution scientists showed how a sea animal, a "sea squirt" with a single chambered heart, could have its DNA changed via an electrical shock at a specific location on the gene of a sea squirt embryo, which would cause the embryo to mature with a second functioning heart chamber. This is a rather astounding experiment which the scientists say proves that hearts actually did evolve. The scientists unanimously glowed with this "evidence" that Darwin was correct. They said that this is overwhelming proof for TOE. Not one of them could look at this experiment with a truly objective scientist's eye. The special did not address what happened between no hearts and fully functioning hearts, be they one, two, or four chambered. Why? Because there is no possible explanation for that evolution. They called a single chambered heart "simple". Sorry, but even a single-chambered heart is incredibly complex, requiring blood, vessels, an oxygenating system, nerves, a brain to operate it, etc. What could cause nothing to turn into an exceedingly complex pump system, which even a single chambered heart is? Again, a proto-heart in the process of evolving into a functioning heart would be nothing more than a tumor. Animals would have to carry gradually growing and useless proto-hearts for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to allow the evolution of finally functioning hearts. This scenario is not even imaginable. Also ridiculous is the idea that an electrical shock of some kind (lightning?) could perfectly modify the DNA of an embryo. A shock of any kind would actually kill the embryo, and if it didn't, it would cause catastrophic damage to the DNA which would certainly never lead to an additional perfectly formed heart chamber.
Further evidence for the TOE in the special was a four legged animal that returned to the sea and became a whale! This is so preposterous that it is truly unbelievable that intelligent people can promote this inane scenario; comical to try to imagine.
The special then went to a recently discovered flat-skulled animal/fossil that was dug up in northern Canada by an evolution scientist. The researchers named it a Tictolic (sp?). Tictolic had short "arms and legs". This was shown as proof that fish grew legs to become land animals. Again, there is absolutely no proof that earlier fish morphed into this "fishopod", or that the fishopod morphed into another specie. Why would it take 170 years since Darwin hatched his ideas to find one fossil that supposedly displayed fish-land animal evolution? Since there are and have been trillions of land animals over the eons, there should be a plethora of fish showing the growth of proto-limbs gradually morphing into full limbs. Again, there are none. This scientist found a new specie, not a transitional animal. These scientists get so excited over any interesting fossil that they find. They try to bend the fossil into a great "evolution proving" piece of evidence. They hopefully think they found the MISSING LINK! Just think what this does for the scientists' reputation in the world of evolution. With good reason they want it to be evidence so badly that they cannot look at it objectively and scientifically. The excitement of the find, group psychology, and the possibility of fame can overwhelm all objectivity. All science should be looked at with a critical and doubting eye. TOE is the one "science" that is not.
Sectioned ping-pong balls are used in the special to prove that eyes could evolve. The "scientist" takes a flashlight and moves it around the ping-pong balls, showing how the light reflecting through the balls also moves! This is touted as an advantage which will cause further evolution to a complete eye. This is not science. This is damaging perfectly good ping-pong balls. Also, the scientists fill a "hollow" lens, constructed with polyethylene windows, with water. The windows bulge and focus well to show how a lens could evolve. These wouldn't even qualify as junior high science projects. And, they are so ridiculous as examples of proof of Darwinian evolution that further discussion is useless.
A quote from this NG special: "Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere." In reality, all fossils appear out of nowhere. There are no bird fossils that show gradual growth of wings. Can't the NG writer/scientists see that this fact alone is a Darwin killer? Answer: not even a thought. Another quote from this special: "If a single one of these (proofs for TOE) fails, the whole theory will come crashing down." Virtually all of the "proofs" in this special, with the exception of dating of fossils, in reality, fail any objective test of evidence. NG wants Darwin to be right so badly that it can't come close to an objective look at its own "evidence".
A Model of the Current Fossil Record
Sight and Sound: A Daunting Task for Evolution
Further, a requirement of three dimensional vision is two eyes. Only one eye would provide flat vision. Before there were eyes and vision, evolution could not have known that there was such thing as "3D". Evolution provided one mouth, and one nose with two nostrils that are connected to one trachea. Why didn't one eye in the center of the forehead evolve first? How did evolution "know" that two eyes were required for 3D vision, or that there was 3D vision in the first place? Was 3D vision just a lucky byproduct of two eye evolution? If you answer that animals needed a second eye so they could see right to left for protection and hunting, why wasn't an eye or two evolved on the back of the head? This is where species are most vulnerable.
The same is true for our hearing systems. The earth before 500 million years ago was totally, and profoundly quiet. There was no sound at all, since there is also no sound outside of the head of a listener. A boulder falling off of a cliff makes waves in the air or water, not sound. The waves vibrate a receptor's eardrums, which creates a signal that the auditory nerve sends to the brain. The brain makes the sound, not the boulder. Sound does not exist outside of the brain of a capable receiver (observer).
It's not as if there was light and sound all over the early earth environment, and animals needed only to evolve systems to see and hear, much like we plug speakers into a stereo system or use binoculars. The earth before 500 million years ago was profoundly quiet and dark, and the knowledge that evolution would require to "realize" that electromagnetic and water or air waves could be utilized to make color, light and sound is unthinkable.
There is an excellent book written on this subject called "The Symbiotic Universe" (Quill, NY) by George Greenstein, an astronomer, and firm believer in evolution. I really like his thoughts on why we are here, but not his conclusion that there is no intelligence in the universe. He states that the universe "knows" that conscious observers are required for its existence, however there is no intelligence in the formation of those conscious observers. His book reeks of intelligence in the universe, but his conclusion is that there is none. The book is an excellent read, however.
My Debate with an Avid Evolutionist
I wrote an email to an evolution website that had amazingly condescending things to say about anyone who doubted evolution. My comment was that they shouldn't be so disdainful of people who don’t believe in Darwin's theory as the way species appeared on earth; that there were so many evidences that Darwin was wrong, which would make them (the website) wrong. Instead of intelligently responding to my remarks, the website answered my communication condescendingly and basically called me a fool. I got an unsolicited email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionist who treated me in the same manner. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. I started communicating with him as a devil's advocate, as if I was a non-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized what a hoax Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, I became thoroughly convinced that Darwin's theory was a complete wrong. His communications were as disdainful as the website’s. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)
Me: Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?
Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:
We don't need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.
(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)
Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic "either-or" thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.
Tom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.
Me: You must know that nothing in science is "settled". As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.
Tom: You are presenting Paley's arguments from incredulity. Just because you can't see how it can't happen doesn't mean that it didn't. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don't have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310 You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)
Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.
Tom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn't intelligent.
Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)
Tom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the
Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.
Tom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NEVER REQUIRED OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN ORDER TO FALSIFY AN EXISTING ONE. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies...nothing more! I've seen this attack used many times, and it is nothing more than a cheap shot.)
Me: Unlike evolution, the "steady state" theory was supplanted by the "big bang" because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It's exactly the same as science's theory on what there was before the big bang. It's called, "We Simply Don't Know, but Here is
What We Have So Far".
Tom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can't do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren't absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn't known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn't exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.
Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.
Tom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)
Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.
Tom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn't to me!
Me: The "we simply don't know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have" would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?
Tom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)
Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)
Tom: I'll be honest with you Stephen, I don't believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology at USC.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don't understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)
Me: Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn't NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the
Tom: Evolution isn't a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn't because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven't evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)
Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for
Tom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had at USC that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)
Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.
Tom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is 'poppycock'
Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.
Tom: Evolution doesn't envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don't intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven't studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bullshit, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on 'evolution'. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)
Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing "on the horizon". The really great thinkers were able to "think out of the box". You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It's far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.
Tom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.
Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I've seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn't believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)
Tom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the
earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom are
religious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views
because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general
public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning
their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the
Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public
realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the
dark ages, haven't you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies
ruled the Western world.
Tom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD........ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.
Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?
Tom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
"scientists" do. It's the only thing they have to do battle with religion.
Tom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn't
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!
Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so "educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.
Tom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn't worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)
Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don't have time to "educate me". My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.
Tom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can't
recognize that it has been refuted.
Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn't believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.
Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/
Either way, have a great holiday......
I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that's real science!)
Richard Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker"
|Evolution is so much fun, because the proponents are so condescending to the non-believers, and they think they are so right. The proof of their fake science is nearly non-existent, but they act like there is bountiful proof. Thanks evolution for providing me with so much thoughtful fun. Whenever I think that I have no more to say about evolution, I read another evolution website, and, amazingly, there is more fodder to show how ridiculous TOE is. This is an excerpt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page02.html) about Richard Dawkins, famed evolution proponent, and writer of "The Blind Watchmaker", displaying his totally wishful thinking evidence for evolution: (My comments in italics.) |
One improvement at a time
|Quote: The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures has been brilliantly (This is brilliant? See how one evolutionist pats the other on the back?) explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford University. The essence of Dawkins’s explanation is simple. Given enough time (thousands of years) and material (millions of individuals in a species), many genetic changes will occur that result in slight improvements in a system or structure such as the eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine (Absolutely! It must be "genuine"!), natural selection will favor its spread throughout the species over several generations.|
Birds have highly
developed eyes, in
some ways even
more so than
| Little by little, one improvement at a time, the system becomes more and more complex, eventually resulting in the fully functioning, well-adapted organ that we call the eye. The retina and the lens did not have to evolve separately because they evolved together. (Huh? How does he know? Steps from eyeless species to the first usable eyes are skipped, and in place of any kind of logical explanation, "thousands of years and millions of little changes" is inserted. The god of evolution is millions of years. Who can argue with that, since "millions of years" cannot be replicated in the lab? It's the perfect proof for evolution, as it cannot be substantiated.) |
|Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine (there we go again......."imagine" ) a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, (Huh! How do they know?) no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own (Absolutely!) as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it. Unquote|
(That's is an order! It's not that it "did stand", or "stood". But it "must stand". The underlying psychology here is that the writer doesn't believe that it happened, so he will order it, then it will be true. This is common evolutionary phraseology.)
What Should be Taught in Schools
If biologists give up Darwin, the great concern is that Adam and Eve and a 4,000 year old earth will creep into science classrooms. Creationism and religious teachings should be absolutely banned from school teaching. Evolutionists are too focused on fighting Adam and Eve, and Darwin is their only weapon. They are desperate to keep Darwin going because if they lost evolution, they would have nothing to battle Biblical creation.
Evidence for intelligence in nature is overwhelming. Even the most radical evolutionist would have to admit that. Eyes, hearts, and lungs cannot be copied by the greatest engineering minds in the world. However, the source of this intelligence cannot be found scientifically, so ID should also not be taught in science classrooms. Both Darwin and ID would be good subjects for philosophy classes. The advantage of doing this would be not only to give students a real objective look at our origins, but also open the door to real scientific research that would give science a new look at other possibilities for the origin of species. It would also eliminate any more ridiculous court battles between evolutionists and creationist-ID’ers that are so costly, and provoke so much hatred.