TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Design vs. Arbitrary
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Design vs. Arbitrary

Cutting a long story short, I do not accept evolution as a plausible answer to our existence. The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant.

Indeed, I believe in God and creation, but for this thread, I would like to put my beliefs to a side and at the very least, tackle the question of existence by means of observable data, science.

So why the thread ? Well, I�m interested in what other users may have to say on the subject of 'design' in nature. I've read a few Evolution / Creation threads, but none of them seem to address 'design' as a plausible concept of life.

Personally, neither of the two can be integrated. It�s one or the other. 'Design' advocates a predetermined state, where as 'chance' is based on probability, guess work, hit 'n' miss, not knowing the outcome; the complete opposite of design. (Therefore creating an imbalance)

In simple terms, are we the result of design, or do we stem from randomness ? Are the days of evolution numbered ?

Apologies if this thread in the wrong forum.

First off, welcome to the PDD forums. While this may not be a political thread, it's certainly a debatable issue that's been addressed many-a-time in here, so I'd say you brought it up in the most appropriate place.

To be honest, I usually don't usually get too involved with these evolution threads because they seem to get real ugly real fast, and they're a bitch to read sometimes because they get so long. For similar reasons, I can't always read a complete, let alone several complete thread replies by Mr. Opus. Guy fucking loves to debate. Another reason is that I have conflicting opinions on some of the material, so you could say that I am not completely decided on the issue, but I digress...

If by design, you're talking about "Intelligent Design," then I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. To me it implies that some greater metaphysical force is responsible for the incomprehensible number of unique, functional, dynamic, fully reproduceable, specialized, living organisms inside of a self-sustainable, reasonably closed system. I mean to seriously sit back and comprehend how fucking amazing that is--it's just a really crazy, awe inspiring truth to accept. Let alone that Earth is the only place in the entire known universe where such a uniquely special structure exists. Whoa! Point being, it's hard to think that such a unique occurrance was due to a random sequence of events. Not to mention that we have all sorts of "creation stories" that try to explain our coming into existence, but tend to laugh those off like fiction, even though most cultures' respective creation stories are very similar in many regards.

Who knows. Maybe creation stories were just the instructions the aliens left us for reproduction so we'd know how to have sex. But how did we know to want it?

My personal philosophy gets all conflicted like on this topic, though I definitely believe in some form of architechture/Intelligent Design that manifests itself through nature, over a random walk theory that somehow(but by definition, not miraculously) rendered the most amazing functional system for as far as the eye can see(currently a long fucking way). Funny how when we try to fuck around with nature in a laboratory, the results are usually not very good, but when nature fucks around with itself, it can be much more efficient at generationg a viable result.

Anyhow, I think this ultimately comes down to what each individual believes. There's a reason it's called "Faith". I don't force my beliefs on other people, but I'm glad to talk about them.

Here is what I belive.

As has been stated before if you leave a monkey (they say 1000 I think) for long enough tapping on a keyboard it'll eventually type the complete works of every author. Rember we are talking about infinaty here a very special term. Though I'll agree that for example the earth has only been habitable for a finite time. I belive that this is part of the issue. We are the way we are because of the enviroment we live in, the enviroment was not generated for us.

We are the way we are because we are good in terms of living in this enviroment. Just like a bubble is the shape it is because it is the best form for it.

Re: Design vs. Arbitrary

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Cutting a long story short, I do not accept evolution as a plausible answer to our existence. The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant.

Welcome to PDD. I too do not accept the idea of "chance" by itself "playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life" either. Thank goodness we also have Natural Selection too, however, which coupled with Chance, or in terms of biology is often interpreted as mutation, gives a pretty clear and verifiable picture of how life evolved over time.

quote:

Indeed, I believe in God and creation, but for this thread, I would like to put my beliefs to a side and at the very least, tackle the question of existence by means of observable data, science.

No problem. I also somewhat believe in a deity, but as you state is quite irrelevant to the material. However, many scientists, including evolutionists, believe in a deity as well. Some 40% of scientists believe in a deity of sorts, including a healthy number of them being Christians. Indeed, it's quite easy to separate one's religious beliefs from scientific evidence.

quote:

So why the thread ? Well, I�m interested in what other users may have to say on the subject of 'design' in nature. I've read a few Evolution / Creation threads, but none of them seem to address 'design' as a plausible concept of life.

I've discussed Intelligent Design in a number of threads in the past. Feel free to read through them here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...light=evolution

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...light=evolution

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...light=evolution


I've read some books by Behe, Dembski, Denton, Phillips, and some other IDers, as well as a number of refutation books by some various authors as well. In a nutshell I believe the ID movement is nothing shy of a desire to push religion and creationism back into schools. You think it's some coincidence that ID folks like Dembski work here?:

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19115

The Discovery.org's website, more or less the "flagship" of the ID movement, had a so-called "Wedge Project" goal. In reading about this Wedge Project, it's hard to distinguish their Christianity from "scientific ID" really:

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web...1999/wedge.html

So when IDers try to explain that there's no religious context to their "theory", I find it a bit disingenuous at best.

There is no verifiable evidence for ID in any manner - Dembki's ID Filter is highly mathmatically erroneous and very misleading, and as of yet absolutely NO research has come forth supporting ID in any way. As a consequence, the ID movement has shifted gears and are now attempting to merely wedge out evolution through a myriad of distortions, rather than demonstrate the strength of their own "theory". As of yet there is no functional mechanism given for their "theory", and I'm pretty incredulous that one will ever be found.

quote:

Personally, neither of the two can be integrated. It�s one or the other. 'Design' advocates a predetermined state, where as 'chance' is based on probability, guess work, hit 'n' miss, not knowing the outcome; the complete opposite of design. (Therefore creating an imbalance)

Well actually that's not what evolution is - chance only that is. But truthfully, if there's any credence to ID, I'd say the only spot I could possibly see it fitting is abiogenesis, where the current evidence is pretty weak. There may, indeed, been some "directed" guidance towards starting life from non-life, but after that point mutation and natural selection has been a pretty strong and supportable answer thus far.

quote:

In simple terms, are we the result of design, or do we stem from randomness ? Are the days of evolution numbered ?

You think evolutionists haven't heard that "end days" calling before?:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

And as to the question of whether or not we are the result of design, yes I think we are. Are we the result of "deliberate" or intentioned design by a Designer? Uhh, no. Considering that things that resemble a deliberate pre-determined design can be created via evolutionary pathways, I see no reason why to accept such a hypothetical. Besides, there's plenty of things designed out there which arguably weren't designed very well. If God was the architect, one could say he might have had a good sense of humor I guess:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

quote:

Apologies if this thread in the wrong forum.

No apologies necessary. This is very much in the right forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Here is what I belive. As has been stated before if you leave a monkey (they say 1000 I think) for long enough tapping on a keyboard it'll eventually type the complete works of every author....

But that is only 26 characters, the rediculus complexity of the earth ensures that the formation of the current ecosystem had to be guided in some way



http://www.geocities.com/deitiphobe1/evodefanged

Given enough time, any theory can be proven, hence 'time' is the hero of the plot, Dervish.

quote:

Welcome to PDD. I too do not accept the idea of "chance" by itself "playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life" either. Thank goodness we also have Natural Selection too, however, which coupled with Chance, or in terms of biology is often interpreted as mutation, gives a pretty clear and verifiable picture of how life evolved over time.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Personally I do not feel that the newer design theory is an attempt to push creationism and religion into the minds of the future generation. Society must be held responsible and accountable for teaching science and religion as two disconnected subjects. This of course doesn�t constitute to parallelism; simply two vast areas of study, with common components.

quote:

And as to the question of whether or not we are the result of design, yes I think we are. Are we the result of "deliberate" or intentioned design by a Designer? Uhh, no.

But surely if design is dependant, or, design uses chance as a mechanism of implementation, then it is not design ? This is my argument, it�s either design or chance, not a hybrid.

Either way, there seems to be a profusion of circumstantial evidence supporting the notion of a supernatural *intelligent* agency. Was this agency responsible for the instigation of life ?

We may never know the answer to the question, but I think it is fair to assume that evolution cannot be held responsible for the birth of life given the probability required to achieve a subsisting domain.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider But surely if design is dependant, or, design uses chance as a mechanism of implementation, then it is not design ?

You just described evolution. Now tell how one could discern the difference between "deliberate" design or evolutionary design. You do that and you'll likely win the Nobel.

quote:

This is my argument, it�s either design or chance, not a hybrid.

Explain. I think you mean whether or not the design is deliberate or not. If it is or was deliberate, one has to be able to tell the difference somehow. If one cannot, then there's absolutely no difference between evolutionary mechanisms creating design and that of an all-encompassing Designer doing the exact same. Either way, evolution explains it.

quote:

Either way, there seems to be a profusion of circumstantial evidence supporting the notion of a supernatural *intelligent* agency. Was this agency responsible for the instigation of life ?

Considering you qualified the evidence with "circumstantial", which I wouldn't even go that far, I'd say no.

Or if I were to throw a bone to the notion, I'd say "we just don't know yet". This is what scientists say all the time to unanswered questions.

quote:

We may never know the answer to the question, but I think it is fair to assume that evolution cannot be held responsible for the birth of life given the probability required to achieve a subsisting domain.

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer the question of the origin of life. It never has, though IDers and creationists like to pin this on evolutionists. All evolution cares about is what happens AFTER that point. The question of abiogenesis, i.e. life's origin, is irrelevant to the question of evolution.

quote:

You just described evolution.

I don't believe I have. If intelligent design relies on chance, then, not only is it far from intelligent, it is not a design. What I do believe is that the theory of evolution has evolved as science has advanced. We have come a long way from spontaneous generations and the �black box�. In my opinion, evolutionists move the goal posts as contradicting evidence emerges.

I use the term circumstantial because that�s exactly what it is. If I state that the Big Bang proves creation and there is irrefutable proof, one would never accept it as �concrete� evidence.

quote:

Explain. I think you mean whether or not the design is deliberate or not. If it is or was deliberate, one has to be able to tell the difference somehow. If one cannot, then there's absolutely no difference between evolutionary mechanisms creating design and that of an all-encompassing Designer doing the exact same. Either way, evolution explains it.

If that's the case, then evolution must be able to explain the birth of life. Also, I find it incredibly difficult to accept that design - perfection, stems from randomness - chance.

quote:

Also, I find it incredibly difficult to accept that design - perfection, stems from randomness - chance.

Not to try and distract from the main point too much but who said anything on earth is perfect?

For it to be perfect it would have to have a purpose to be perfect at. I don't think anything has a purpose apart from to survive(edit: on a species level). Thats what is differnt between life and rocks. (forget out lemmings btw ) )

quote:

Originally posted by CyberneticAngel But that is only 26 characters, the rediculus complexity of the earth ensures that the formation of the current ecosystem had to be guided in some way http://www.geocities.com/deitiphobe1/evodefanged

quote:

The first major fault found with natural selection is simply that no one has yet been able to discover how it works. In its basic form, of course, the theory predicts �survival of the fittest��meaning that in every species there are certain members with superior physical traits, and that they will therefore survive longer, produce more offspring, and pass their superior traits down to the next generation. Unfortunately, the world�s great scientists have been entirely unsuccessful in determining whether a specific trait is superior or not. By way of example, suppose that you had an unlimited selection of gene types, and you wanted to design the ultimate timber wolf. What sort of traits would you include--stronger legs, keener noses, greater intelligence? So far, no scientists would be able to help you decide, because none of them have ever successfully predicted the dominance of certain members of a species based on their genetic traits.

Who said evolution had to predict such things on such higher organisms such as mammals? Do you realize just how many extraneous factors are involved that render such a prediction a virtual impossibility? How on earth does this make the theory any weaker? Such predictions are done all the time on lower organisms where extraneous variables are more controlled like in a lab, for example. And the results given demonstrate over and over the strength of the theory.

quote:

As Ronald Brady points out, the scientist who wishes to determine the usefulness of a trait ��does not derive survival from his knowledge of engineering; he observes the fact of survival and then attempts to explain this by reference to design. How do we know that an animal is optimally designed for an environment? It survives in that environment. Thus, no matter how we explain good design after the fact, the criterion used for the detection of good design is always survival.�[6] In other words, it is impossible to examine individuals within a species and judge which ones are the fittest; a Darwinist can only wait and see which animals produce the most offspring, then conclude that these were in fact superior to the rest of the population.

First off, I find it a bit misleading how Professors of Philosophy, such as Brady above, are quoted as if they�re experts on evolution. More often than not, they�re not.

Second, I fail to see exactly how this author�s argument gives any weakness to evolution � if anything he�s merely distorting what evolution is. Why are we so concerned PRESENT tense which animals are deemed �the fittest�? What is the relevance to this author on which animals in the present are deemed the best for survival, and how the hell would he or any evolutionist for that matter be able to aptly judge what their survival rate would be based on their phenotypical characteristics?

Evolution takes tens of thousands to millions of years, yet this author seems it appropriate to be able to judge organisms RIGHT NOW? Asking just a tad bit too much here, and is really creating quite the straw man.

quote:

But if natural selection is a failure in nature, can it be produced in the laboratory? Animal breeders have known for centuries that their �artificial selection� can produce small-scale changes, but also that there is a limit to how far a species can move from its original design. I might well add that these changes almost always have negative side effects: consider the case of the �purebred� dog, which is almost inevitably peevish, high-strung, sickly, brainless, or all of the above.

So? This is artificial selection, and judging by man�s standards we�re not too good at it, especially when compared to nature�s way of doing it. This argument is dangerously close to the old creationist argument of �a bacteria is still a bacteria�. A very weak argument that once again demonstrates very little understanding of evolution, as well as the timeline for which it adheres to.

quote:

Darwinists, however, insisted that the limitations of breeding are a byproduct of limitations within the given gene pool. There simply aren�t enough different gene combinations available in normal breeding. To produce greater change in a species you need an infusion of new genes, which can be produced via mutation. So to this end the evolutionists have diligently been using various methods to force mutations in the common fruit fly. So far it has proven nearly impossible to produce any that are beneficial: the most common result is sterility, which is definitely not a Darwinian survival trait. In cases where a fly survives the mutation and is able to reproduce, a second mutation quickly follows which serves to cancel the effect of the first, as a physician might re-break an athlete�s bone so that it will heal straight.

I�m sorry, but this author really hasn�t a fucking clue about drosophila research genetics. You really don�t need to search too far to see the wealth of beneficial mutations and effects of those mutations with drosophila. Why obfuscate this?

And what�s worse, the case of sterility is a case FOR speciation, such as this:

quote:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

quote:

Natural selection is also a sadly disadvantaged theory when one attempts to apply it to the vegetable kingdom, especially once you consider the argument raised by Fleeming Jenkin: the effects of �good� mutations would quickly be lost through interbreeding with the original species.[7]

Did the author just use an 1867 quote? Why am I not surprised. He does realize that evolutionary research has progressed quite a ways since then, doesn�t he?

quote:

(Darwin himself referred to this as the biggest difficulty for natural selection anyone had ever raised.) In the animal kingdom, it is possible to contrive intricate scenarios to deal with this problem, but species in the vegetable kingdom are rooted in place; they can�t do anything to avoid cross-pollination. It seems the main principle operating in the plant world is �survival of the luckiest�.

And surely he would realize that there are other extraneous factors to plant breeding, such as geographic isolation (yes, this does occur even on the plant level), plant-animal interaction, uhh � plant-climatological interaction (the wind can blow pollen, last I checked), etc., all which have quite a tremendous effect on plant interbreeding. Surely this wise author would have realized this?

quote:

Carnivorous plants, for example, seem to defy the idea of natural selection. This group, which includes the pitcher plant and Venus� flytrap, has the ability to obtain nourishment from flying insects that fall prey to their various traps. This is an incredible advantage over the other plants, because it gives them the ability to flourish in poor soils where other plants cannot survive. Logically, then, we should see multitudes of carnivorous plants at every turn, glorying in their enhanced survival skills and sneering down at lesser plants such as crab grass, which are still dependent on sun and soil for nutrition. But carnivorous plants are actually quite rare. Why? The Darwinist has no choice but to conclude that although the ability to catch insects for food appears to be an advantage, since they have not reproduced as well as other plants without this ability, this trait must actually have no particular benefit.

Or one would also include that his premise of this being a �superior� trait over non-carnivorous plants is a bit weak and faulty. Why would such a trait be considered �superior� if other non-carnivorous plants are extremely successful in their given niche? If a plant or organism is successful in their given environment, they�ll remain successful even in the face of competition. We see this over and over again in the environment. Besides, again other factors may limit the success of carnivorous plants, such as climate adaptation, predation, camouflage, etc. etc. Strange how these minor points are seemingly overlooked.

quote:

The animal kingdom also seems inexplicable in terms of natural selection. Gordon Taylor, who was once Chief Science Adviser for BBC Television, published a book called The Great Evolution Mystery posthumously in 1983. It contains a multitude of examples from nature that pose serious problems for the idea of natural selection. One is the problem of under-development. Taylor observes that while the wasp was able to develop a smooth sting capable of being used as often as necessary, the bee is stuck with a barbed sting that is torn out by the roots after one use, generally resulting in the bee�s death. Is it really beneficial to have as your only means of defense a weapon that is suicidal to use?

I�m not well-versed in bee biology, but again it all has to do with a given niche. The bees are highly successful creatures working together in one cohesive unit. Given their success, once again the question has to be asked � why would they need to adapt? The author seemingly misses this obvious point ad nauseum.

And correct me if I�m wrong, but aren�t there bee species out there that retain their stingers if used? Bumble bees? Killer bees? I forget, but I believe they do exist.

quote:

Another obstacle to natural selection is over-development. Two of the examples Taylor gives are the Irish elk and the peacock. The �Irish� elk, now extinct, actually lived in Siberia. Its most striking feature would have to have been its truly gargantuan antlers, which typically measured twelve feet in length and weighed more than 500 pounds. Imagine a cheerleader twirling a thirty-foot, hundred-pound baton, and you might begin to question how much the elk�s burdensome headgear really aided its survival.

Again, I�m not too well-versed in elk evolution, but one may think the author just answered his own question here by pointing out that the elk is now extinct. So what was the point in this again?

quote:

Similarly, the peacock�s fabulous array of tail feathers is an enormous hindrance when it is attempting to outrun or escape its predators. In addition to slowing it down, when fully spread it can greatly limit the peacock�s field of vision. Where is the evolutionary advantage there? Some Darwinists argue that the impressive display of feathers aids the peacock during the mating process. But Taylor points out that other birds are perfectly capable of carrying out a courtship without such a liability, so the question remains: why would a bird ever have grown such a thing in the first place?

Ahh, I get it � because God said so, right?

Seriously, the author�s shortsightedness in understanding evolution is shown when he narrows his own definition of evolution by mere survivability. Indeed that is a driving evolutionary factor, but there are other factors involved as well � sexual attractiveness is definitely one too. Remember, organisms want to survive AND reproduce. There are certain cases, such as the peacock, where the sexual drive will tend to supercede the evolutionary drive of survival. There are a number of other examples of these sexual attractive displays in other bird species as well as loud mating calls which certainly attract predators, as well as in frogs, fireflies, etc. Are these animals any less successful? Of course not. Traits that are a liability to survival can evolve when the sexual attractiveness of a trait outweighs the liability incurred for survival. A male who lives a short time, but produces many offspring is much more successful than a long lived one that produces few.

So once again, the author doesn�t seem to know too much about evolution.

quote:

Natural selection takes yet another blow from simple odd development, as in the case of the scent glands found in goats and deer. These glands allow them to keep track of each other, but simultaneously give them away to predators. Attempting to rationalize the survival of deer with scent glands over deer without them leads to wildly improbable scenarios: perhaps the glands evolved at a time when their predators had not evolved a sense of smell! Or did the scents left by deer communicate among the species a plan for avoiding predators, which the glandless deer were unable to read? Pierre-Paul Grasse, a leading European zoologist, cites this example along with several other problems of natural selection before concluding, �Selection tends to eliminate the causes of a population�s heterogeneity and thus to produce a uniform genotype.

I just addressed this.It acts more to conserve the inheritance of the species than to transform it.�

quote:

Some of the most compelling arguments against evolution are provided by those creatures and systems that exhibit something called irreducible complexity. Michael J. Behe, in his book Darwin�s Black Box, uses the example of a mousetrap to explain this concept: you can�t begin catching mice with just the wooden base, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, becoming better and better as you add the bar, the catch, and the hammer. All of these parts must be present and functioning if the mousetrap is to catch any mice at all; therefore, it is irreducibly complex.

Yes but the components of that mousetrap can be made into a number of other noticeable things, such as a tieclip, a doorstop, etc. Behe�s arguments were terribly weak.

quote:

Examples of this abound in nature. We will begin with the animal kingdom, observing a fascinating variation on the ant: the ant-lion. Alan Hayward rephrases the findings of Pierre-Paul Grasse: �This remarkable insect lives in regions of dry sand or sandy soil, where it digs a pit about two inches deep and waits at the bottom for ants to tumble in. It has a delicate intruder-alarm system, sensitive to the slightest vibration. If a single grain of sand rolls into the pit the ant-lion springs to the alert, with its pincer-like mandibles gaping, ready to seize its prey. The underside of its body is provided with a set of horn-like anchors, so that it can grip the soil while struggling with its captive. The ant-lion�s mouth is quite extraordinary, being fastened almost shut with a complicated locking system. This makes it unable to eat solid food, but the mouth forms a kind of drinking straw, ideally suited to supping broth. Having grabbed an ant, the first thing the ant-lion does is to inject a paralyzing drug. Then it gives a second injection of digestive juices which gradually turn the ant�s insides into a nourishing liquid, ready for the ant-lion to suck it out. There is no drinking water in the hot, dry sandpits where ant-lions live. Most insects would soon die of dehydration in such an environment. But not the ant-lion. To begin with, he is provided with an impermeable skin which, like the aluminum foil around a roasting chicken, prevents his body moisture from drying up. And his digestive tract has a system for recycling the urine, like astronauts do in a spaceship, so that every drop of water can be used again and again.� The odds that this �avalanche� of chance adaptations would occur in a sequence that allows the insect�s survival, says Grasse, are �infinitesimal�.

You must forgive me if I think Hayward is a bit of a distorter right off the bat:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...wgood-yea2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html

Aside of that, complex features such as the one mentioned above have been demonstrated to arise via evolutionary mechanisms. What�s the point in this example?

quote:

Another insect that embodies irreducible complexity is the brain worm. Robert Wesson provides an account of its bizarre life cycle. �The brain worm that reproduces in sheep uses ants to get back into a sheep. The worms get into ants by infecting snails that eat sheep feces. The snails expel tiny worm larvae in a mucus that ants enjoy, and some dozens of worms take up residence in an ant. But this would do them no good if the ants behaved normally; too few ants would be eaten by sheep. Consequently, while most of the ants make themselves at home in an ant�s abdomen, one finds its way to the ant�s brain and causes the ant to climb up a grass stem and wait to be eaten by a sheep. Ironically, the worm that programs the ant is cheated of happiness in the sheep�s intestine; it becomes encysted and dies. The whole procedure seems unnecessary. Why do the worm eggs defecated by the sheep not simply hatch and climb up the grass stem to await being eaten by a sheep instead of making the hazardous trip through snail and ant? How could they become adapted to being carried by the ant unless the ant were already programmed to make itself available to be eaten by a sheep?�[8]

I think the author needs to take such examples a few steps further � what about those animals, INCLUDING the human brain worm Plasmodium falciparum that are quite harmful to humans, and are rapidly becoming resistant to drugs? What about all those harmful organisms that kill humans, period?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html

Oh, I know � �the Lord moves in mysterious ways�, right?

I think my favorite example really of intelligent design is cancer cells. Don�t you think God did great with these little buggers? Talk about irreducibly complex! He sure did wonders with cancer cells, didn�t He?

quote:

Bombardier beetles are another fascinating example of the irreducibly complex. These amazing insects use a form of chemical warfare to fend off enemies. When they sense danger, they produce a chemical irritant by mixing hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinones, and certain enzymes. It seems a fairly clear-cut case of design: take away any of the ingredients, and the formula doesn�t work. But staunch Darwinian Richard Dawkins has an airtight scientific explanation. He points out that ��both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle�s ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around.�[9] Apparently we are expected to believe that long, long ago, a portion of the beetle population began to negotiate arrangements between various and sundry of their internal organs, until finally by trial and error they arrived at the highly beneficial situation they enjoy today.

Why is that so difficult to believe? Surely you understand evolution enough to know that transitional parts or intermediary novel features likely have served other purposes, don�t you? Again, nature is full of examples. And besides, the beetles have some strange features that seem a bit undersigned:

quote:

*With design, we expect similar forms to be created for similar functions and different forms for different functions (Morris 1974, 70). However, what we see is different forms for similar functions. Many ground beetles have very similar habits and habitats as centipedes, but their forms differ greatly. Different groups of bombardier beetles use very different mechanisms for the same function of aiming their spray (Eisner 1958; Eisner and Aneshansley 1982). *Some forms have no function. Some bombardier beetles have vestigial flight wings (Erwin 1970, 46,55,91,114-115,119). *If bombardier beetles have a purpose, then death is an integral part of it, since the beetles are predators (some, as larvae, are parasitoids, gradually eating pupae of other beetles [Erwin 1967]), and their spray is a defense against other predators. Many creationists claim that death was not part of God's design. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

God sur do work in mysterious ways, don�t he?

quote:

J. C. Willis, a highly regarded British botanist in the mid-twentieth century, was well respected and internationally honored in spite of his lifelong hostility to the idea of natural selection. In his book The Course of Evolution, he provided several examples of conflict with the theory from the plant kingdom, which Alan Hayward here relays to us. �Willis also discusses many features of plants where no intermediate steps are possible. To give just one simple example, leaves are arranged on plant stems in two main ways. They may alternate as you go along the stem: left, right, left, right, and so on. Or they may be opposite each other in pairs. You cannot have a �half opposite, half alternate� arrangement. How, then, did one arrangement evolve into the other, when there cannot be any intermediate steps? And what possible survival value can one arrangement have over the other, anyway?"

Oh my God, is Hayward really being serious here? Who said there were no intermediate steps? Who says one evolved into another in the fucking first place? And why would an intermediate step necessitate a �half opposite, half alternate� arrangement?

Questions like these really demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge on evolution � the guy should really read a few more evolutionary biology journals for fuck�s sakes.

quote:

Again, Willis asks, why is it that so many arrangements in plants and their flowers are mathematically perfect? In the case of opposite leaves, for instance, they are always exactly opposite. Why is this?

Honestly I don�t know. My botany lacks quite a bit as well. But since I don�t know personally, I�ll just happily insert �godidit� wherever I don�t know something.
It�s just easier that way, don�t you think?

quote:

On climbing plants: �Climbers differ in two ways from their upright relatives: they have weak, flexible stems, and they have tendrils, or some other climbing device. Which evolved first? If the weak stems came first, how did the floppy-stemmed plants escape being smothered by other vegetation while their tendrils were evolving? And if the climbing organs evolved first, what made such organs evolve when they were not yet needed?�[10]

Again Hayward seems to have a severe lack of understanding about transitional novel features. This guy�s pretty damn dubious.

quote:

Natural selection, then, is perhaps not the indomitable fortress of an idea it has been presented as.

It seems this guy really fell in love with Hayward�s book without a little educating and reading of research on his own. Sad.

quote:

Again, Willis asks, why is it that so many arrangements in plants and their flowers are mathematically perfect? In the case of opposite leaves, for instance, they are always exactly opposite. Why is this?

I read the site but I must have missed this as I skimmed it.

So I supose if I create a crystal, which is mathmaticly perfect in terms of formation. Am I god? No it is just a formation following the path of least resistance, following the laws of physics (you can debate about someone making thouse laws if you like).

quote:

I don't believe I have. If intelligent design relies on chance, then, not only is it far from intelligent, it is not a design.

Well what you stated earlier was this:

quote:

But surely if design is dependant, or, design uses chance as a mechanism of implementation, then it is not design ?

What you�re implying is that something created via the evolutionary mechanisms, i.e. mutation and natural selection, is not �design�. I stated that evolutionary mechanisms explain things designed, or to be more precise, irreducibly complex, quite well. Take for instance the nylon bug:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Here we have a bacteria developing a complex novel feature � digesting nylon. This is explained quite well via the evolutionary mechanism.

So I believe you�re getting tripped up on the definition of �design�. It is merely a descriptive, more or less. The heart of the matter is whether or not that design was created deliberately via a Designer or Designer mechanism (which hasn�t been depicted in any way), or not-so-deliberately via mutation and natural selection. You continue to imply evolution as CHANCE only � what you are leaving out is its very own SELECTIVE engine � natural selection. Therefore, evolution is not just CHANCE alone.

I only state this to clarify some definitions before we go any further.

quote:

What I do believe is that the theory of evolution has evolved as science has advanced. We have come a long way from spontaneous generations and the �black box�. In my opinion, evolutionists move the goal posts as contradicting evidence emerges.

Perhaps I�m a bit na�ve, but when has evolution ever included spontaneous generation? Regardless, how exactly has evolution �moved the goal posts�? Has the theory modified itself as evidence accumulates? Of course � this is the strength of any scientific theory. You certainly wouldn�t want to apply Newton�s Theory of Gravity to cosmic events, would you? It�s the very reason why Einstein�s Theory of Relativity explains gravity and Mercury�s orbit more correctly. Theories evolve, as evidence accumulates. The core postulates of evolution, however, have not changed.

quote:

I use the term circumstantial because that�s exactly what it is. If I state that the Big Bang proves creation and there is irrefutable proof, one would never accept it as �concrete� evidence.

But one accepts the wide body of scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory, and one would hardly believe such evidence is merely �circumstantial�.

But like evolution or any other theory, it�s just a theory � one supported by a lotta evidence. It can be completely be knocked off it�s perch at any time by any other alternative theory that is better supported by evidence. One just hasn�t come around yet, nor will it be knocked off by any �circumstantial� evidence that is not verifiable, unobservable, untestable, and unfalsifiable.

quote:

If that's the case, then evolution must be able to explain the birth of life. Also, I find it incredibly difficult to accept that design - perfection, stems from randomness - chance.

Well as I pointed out earlier, there�s a ton of organisms and novel features out there that are just as irreducibly complex but are hardly �perfect� by anyone�s standards, let alone an all-encompassing Designer.

And no, evolution does not have to explain the birth of life, because it�s theory is not concerned with things that are not biological � and abiogenesis which is the explanation of non-life to life, is not concerned with biological evolution. Sorry, but you can�t pin this on evolution. If you�re going to discuss the beginning starting point of life, then the topic of evolution becomes irrelevant. My following statement:

quote:

I think you mean whether or not the design is deliberate or not. If it is or was deliberate, one has to be able to tell the difference somehow. If one cannot, then there's absolutely no difference between evolutionary mechanisms creating design and that of an all-encompassing Designer doing the exact same. Either way, evolution explains it.

Refers to life as it has already developed, NOT before this point. What happens before this point is irrelevant to evolution, and to this discussion for that matter. And if you�re confused with my quote, I�ll explain it again in the form of a question � if one cannot discern the difference somehow or someway between an organism or novel feature arising via mutation and natural selection and one arising via some deliberate mechanism somehow (and IDers seemingly still don�t know how), then how would one differentiate between whether that organism or novel feature has arisen via evolution or deliberate design by some sort of Designer?

I'd just like to take a moment to point out that here we tend to be quite "robust" when we debate. Basicly because we like to explore issues so if we seem to disagree it can be to just get a better understanding. And sometimes we'll take a side just to explore an issue better. And if someone isn't insulting we'll always respect thier beliefs.

Anyway as the mouse trap example in that article stated how do you get over irreducible complexity as it puts it Opus? (for the non evolutionary side).

Also for the previous "there are only 23 characters" thing the point is it wouldn't matter how many characters there are. (sorry never noticed it before)

If you have an infinatly long number it will contain within it imencly complex but finite patterns. When applied to somthing like a system such as the universe. These random but complex paterns would take the form of complex molecule formation and so on. Entropy I think is the proper term but I might be using it loosly.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Anyway as the mouse trap example in that article stated how do you get over irreducible complexity as it puts it Opus? (for the non evolutionary side).

By aptly demonstrating that the mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, or to be more specific - the parts composing the mousetrap could be created into something else:

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Or, as H. Allen Orr states:

quote:

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required. The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong. http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

IOW, Behe and the IDers tend to think of evolution as some sort of a straight, linear progression of one mutation after another slowly adding novel features, one on top of another. But this is hardly what evolution does, though this linear process isn't entirely excluded. Instead of a linear progression, evolution is more like a growing bush that has an addition of parts, deletion of parts, addition of multiple parts via duplication, addition of a second function to a part, and a gradual modification of those transitional or intermediary parts. More supporting research can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

So again, when it comes to the mousetrap analogy, the parts of the mousetrap can serve entirely different purposes, but still eventually becoming a true mousetrap. Or what�s more, the parts can be reduced down to something entirely different altogether.

And finally, the other real problem is the basic fallacy by analogy. Now of course many scientists use analogies as a tool to explain their concepts, but the analogy has to be a good and sound parallel to their concept. In this case, the mousetrap � a deliberate human-designed contraption, is not a very good example of any biological organism, at least none that I know of.

This is precisely why I do not get involved in these discussions. Look at the carnage. LOOK AT THE CARNAGE I TELL YOU!!!

quote:

The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

The problem as I see it is that something wouldn't just sprout into a part. A mutation would be that, just a mutation. Not a part. I don't see how you could randomly create a whole new organ, perhaps parts of an organ I dunno how that would aid the animal, and thus make this highly improbable freak of nature (which has the start of a new organ) more likely to survive.

I know there must be an explaination, it's just I don't know it and I haven't seen somthing yet which I belive explains it properly yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish The problem as I see it is that something wouldn't just sprout into a part. A mutation would be that, just a mutation. Not a part. I don't see how you could randomly create a whole new organ, perhaps parts of an organ I dunno how that would aid the animal, and thus make this highly improbable freak of nature (which has the start of a new organ) more likely to survive. I know there must be an explaination, it's just I don't know it and I haven't seen somthing yet which I belive explains it properly yet.

Well yes, there is an explanation - a mutation can indeed create new, novel features, as well as add, subtract, or duplicate already existing ones. It's entirely up to natural selection, however, to divy up the ones that are more or less advantageous to that organism and passes that down to generations with the ones that are more or less harmful to that organism where consequently they do not get passed down. The nylon bacterial bug, for example, produced a brand new novel feature that did not exist within the bacterial organism before. Or, take a mutation that increases both the bone length and density:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513

That would certainly qualify, would it not?

Here's some more papers worth looking up on PubMed:

quote:

Copley, S. D. (2000). �Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.� Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265. PubMed Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). ��Antifreeze� glycoproteins from polar fish.� Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392. PubMed Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). �Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.� J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232. PubMed Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). �The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.� Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). �Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.� Science 291(5501): 128-130. PubMed Patthy, L. (2003). �Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.� Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231. PubMed Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). �Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.� Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2. PubMed Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). �Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.� Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244. PubMed Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). �Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.� Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753. PubMed Ganfornina M. D., Sanchez D. 1999. �Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift.� Bioessays. 21(5):432-9. PubMed Mayr, E. 1960. �The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties.� in Evolution After Darwin: Volume 1: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History, and Future, Sol Tax, ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp. 349-380. Pellmyr, O. and Krenn, H. W., 2002. �Origin of a complex key innovation in an obligate insect-plant mutualism.� PNAS. 99(8):5498-5502. PubMed Prum, R. O. and Brush, A. H., 2002. �The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers.� Q Rev Biol. 77 (3), 261-295. PubMed True, J. R. and Carroll, S. B., 2002. �Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution.� Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 18, 53-80. PubMed

There's literally thousands of examples of mutations giving rise to brand new novel features.

One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not. The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other.

You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ? The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power. How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ? You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

for old times sake, i believe in creationism

anybody know the basic foundation of science??

the scientific method. can u use it to prove evolution? or creationism for that matter? let us see.

quote:

What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

For evolution...

1. Cannot be observed because scientists were not around then.
2. Have certainly done that.
3. Have done that.
4. Cannot be done, because we cannot create the climate of conditions of the earth when it was formed/created. We cannot recreate the events that happened during the beginning.
5. Evolution has come about as a theory even though there are discrepancies in it.

Conclusion on my part: With the impossibility to use the Scientific Method "to the book" for either evolution or creationism, both are still based on faith, for every scientific law and theory starts out by faith. first you have an idea, then u put your faith in that it is true, and so you carry out the scientific method. but where the scientific method cant be used fully, faith is and will be the flame behind the "idea". faith in darwinism or faith in creationism.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not. The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other. You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ? The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power. How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ? You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

yes i agree.

how can chaos turn into order??

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: for old times sake, i believe in creationism anybody know the basic foundation of science?? the scientific method. can u use it to prove evolution? or creationism for that matter? let us see. For evolution... 1. Cannot be observed because scientists were not around then.

Incorrect. First of all, evolution is not something that happened millions of years ago. It is still happening, and mutations on genes are observable. Secondly, there is numerous indirect evidence, mostly the fossil record. Finally, the observed rate at which mutations occur is precisely the one needed for the time it takes the species to diverge based on the fossil record. Overall, such an interaction can hardly be a circumstance.

quote:

2. Have certainly done that. 3. Have done that.

Yes.

quote:

4. Cannot be done, because we cannot create the climate of conditions of the earth when it was formed/created. We cannot recreate the events that happened during the beginning.

Partially correct, I agree. The historical evolution is an extrapolation of observed phenomena and recovered fossil record. We can not use evolution to predict every single species divergion or the exact way in which some species will evolve, but the general underlying principle so far seems to be correct. Especially since there is no other theory that is as good in describing what we see.

quote:

5. Evolution has come about as a theory even though there are discrepancies in it.

Which discrepancies?

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not.

Your argument from incredulity doesn't hold much validity, I'm afraid.

quote:

The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other.

Well again you're confusing "design" with that of "deliberate" design. As I've argued and demonstrated, evolution creates plenty of design as well - it's just not a deliberate one set for by some Designer. I'll let this minor point go since you seem to dismiss it. Regardless, I do understand your argument - the problem is you have neither shown the weakness of evolution showing design, or any evidence of a deliberate design from a Designer of sorts.

quote:

You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ?

If this is what the evidence clearly shows, and there's a great deal of evidence for it, then yes, we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process - mutation, combined with a non-random process - natural selection.

quote:

The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power.

It's never a good thing to have a computer, a man-made product that works on known man-made circuitry, to a biological organism. This is something that a great many skeptical engineers tend to do over and over. Keep these two concepts separate. In some ways this analogy is okay, but in most it's a bit erroneous.

And in regards to probabilities, the problem with most IDers here is they tend to forget about the natural selection filter, and apply the probabilities to the "chance alone" part of evolution - mutation. Taken as a whole with natural selection, those probabilities shrink drastically. I addressed this here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=2

quote:

How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ?

When it's not implausible in the first place, the equation merely becomes plausible->plausible.

quote:

You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

Well there's nothing about selection that's random. That's a bit of an oxymoron and also a fallacious statement to make.

In any case, again I don't deny that chance, or mutation is part of the equation. I'm sorry if this troubles you in any way, but the evidence simply supports this coupled with natural selection. That's not to say that an alternative theory or mechanism is possible - we just haven't seen one yet that's tested, retested, observed, verified, and falsified.

quote:

Well again you're confusing "design" with that of "deliberate" design. As I've argued and demonstrated, evolution creates plenty of design as well - it's just not a deliberate one set for by some Designer.

Tell me, if it is not deliberate, then what is it ? The weakness of evolution is that it is based on a 'random' process - chance.

quote:

If this is what the evidence clearly shows, and there's a great deal of evidence for it, then yes, we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process - mutation, combined with a non-random process - natural selection.

This is where I disagree with you. If design (which is always deliberate) relies on chance, then it cannot be a design. The evidence we observe may well be an aspect of 'deliberate' design (not chance) which we have yet to comprehend. Remember, around 70 yrs ago scientists were adamant that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. This supposed fact was taught in schools. Point being, that science has been wrong in the past, and as you say, given time, fresher evidence emerges in anticipation that we, as the human race, may understand the truth (fact) one day.

quote:

When it's not implausible in the first place, the equation merely becomes plausible->plausible.

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. The probabilities of sustaining simple life exceed the realms of plausibility and enter absurdity. I used the machine example to illustrate the sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with.

quote:

Well there's nothing about selection that's random. That's a bit of an oxymoron and also a fallacious statement to make.

Then why call it 'random' selection ? Why do the text books (certainly the ones I have read) refer to evolution as a process of random selection ? Unless of course this is an example of how the theory of evolution is evolving.


I can accept a model which permits intelligent design to adapt to dynamic surroundings, merely because the system in question is designed to do so. One may argue that evolution (random selection/chance) plays an active role in the process of adaptation based on observable evidence. We are misunderstood, perhaps. There is that chance.

Either way, there is a fundamental and crucial difference between the two methodologies. Chance is probability, where as design is certainty.

PS : No need to apologise about your view. You are entitled to it and users should respect that.

quote:

Incorrect. First of all, evolution is not something that happened millions of years ago. It is still happening, and mutations on genes are observable. Secondly, there is numerous indirect evidence, mostly the fossil record. Finally, the observed rate at which mutations occur is precisely the one needed for the time it takes the species to diverge based on the fossil record. Overall, such an interaction can hardly be a circumstance.

Biogeography is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.

Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as maps of living species' habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on the basis of geographical area.

When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the "fundamental" living categories of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.

In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense.

If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about "if this living thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing is found there then it must have evolved there," and instead scientifically document their own responses to the question of how living things came into being in the first place.

The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection their claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.