Evolution, Evolution, Evolution

huggybear · #21 22nd June 2008, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Naraoia

Then what was your point? The fact that some claimed transitionals are fragmentary and some reconstructions are speculative in no way invalidates the rich collections of transitional fossils we do have.

:

I might understand if you told me why they are not "proven" (which science doesn't do) and how they are "heavily interpreted into" the theory. But I know for certain that one of them is the perfect example of a confirmed prediction. The kind of support every scientist would like to see for their theory.

Do you know how Tiktaalik was found?

Based on the predictions of common descent. The age, the type and the location of the fossiliferous layers where something similar would most likely be found; the sort of creature that they were looking for - these were all inferred from already known fish and early tetrapod finds. It took them years of searching, but they finally found exactly what they were looking for.

Peek into Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, he was one of the team that discovered the fishapod. If you can't be bothered to get the book, you can also find the story on Tiktaalik's homepage. It definitely isn't the case of finding something and then sticking a "transitional" label on it.

I understand that whole groups of fossil creatures, some of them more similar to group A and some of them more similar to group B, with clear A ---> B trends in similarity over time, are evidence for the theory of evolution. I also understand that transitionals aren't accepted as such just because some people want them to be so.

One of the greatest gaps in the fossil record is the one between single-celled organisms throughout the Precambrian and the rich animal life of the Cambrian. Yet perhaps one of the greatest controversies of palaeontology was/is the Ediacara biota, a bunch of creatures exactly from that gap. If what you suggest were the case then Ediacaran creatures would have been declared the ancestors of later animals without much hassle - not interpreted as everything from giant protists to lichens or even something completely different from modern kingdoms of life.

I can easily admit that. However, it's not a case of "a few features are similar". There is a trend in the similarities. A very systematic one. In the picture I linked to, the oldest creatures are at the bottom and the youngest ones at the top - and this isn't only true of the particular species or genera but the whole groups they belong to. Sphenacodonts precede the more mammal-like gorgonopsians, who in turn precede the even more mammal-like therocephalians and cynodonts. The earliest cynodonts are also the least similar to mammals. Show me a better explanation than these synapsids gradually evolving into mammals - until then, I'm staying with Darwin, thanks.

Exactly how much experience do you have with science? No, it is not easy to build any theory that explains the available evidence. There are rather a lot of facts theories have to fit (in the case of evolution, anything from snakes' vestigial hindlimbs to the prevalence of males in freshwater snails to the distribution of endogenous retroviruses in primates to the entire fossil record.) And they'd better be consistent with themselves as well.

Common descent makes countless predictions that are tested every single time someone sequences a genome, digs up a fossil or just looks at an organism in any detail. If you can make up another scientific theory (mind you: scientific! Intelligent design isn't science) that also explains the same data and would've similarly predicted Tiktaalik or the defunct centromere of our chromosome 2, I'd be totally excited to hear it.

Nah, nah, another very dramatic and totally unsupported claim. Because it doesn't. Goddidit, in terms of usefulness, is equivalent to "it just is that way": since God supposedly isn't bound by laws of nature (or laws of any kind), there is no reason other than his whims he would make something this way rather than that. Therefore there is no way "goddidit" can be used to explain or predict things about the world. No, it doesn't. "We don't know" is at least honest and definitely true. When have I said that? God may well have done it, I don't know and I don't think I can know. But it isn't an explanation. It's incredibly humble of you to act like an insider to my ideas. However, you are right in a sense: since I'm neither organic chemist nor physicist, any idea I have of these things is informal at best. But you are dreadfully wrong in another. Thanks to the scientists who are the things I'm not, I do have some informal idea of how life may have come from non-living chemicals (see for example nucleobases in meteorites, amino acids in the primordial soup, RNA polymerisation on clay, ribozymes, RNA world on ice... see, it's a monstrous big puzzle but we are far from clueless). It's admittedly very incomplete, but it's an idea. As for matter, "nothing" doesn't even exist if quantum mechanics is anywhere near right. And particles can pop out of "nothing" as far as I'm aware (but I'll leave that to the physicists).

BTW, both these questions are totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which I thought was the subject of this thread.

Creatio ex nihilo also isn't a scientific doctrine. It's a Christian one, to my best knowledge.

And finally, not so long ago we had no idea how the traits of organisms are inherited, or how something as complex as a mammal develops from a single cell. Look at genetics and developmental biology today. Based on the history of science I wouldn't bet on a god of the gaps.

Which loaded misconceptions? I'd be grateful if you debated with facts rather than empty vagueries. No, it doesn't make perfect sense if you dig deeper than the surface. Something with all these attributes is also incalculably complex. So where does that come from? And if it doesn't come from anything, what is the logical reason that allows this for a god but not for a universe?

I'm fairly intelligent. You can expect me to understand most things if explained adequately. So go ahead and tell me how evolution fails to "answer countless systems, structures and things" (for a starter, you could mention a few examples).

And again, please stay with evolution if you're discussing evolution. Natural selection only applies to competing imperfect replicators. It has nothing to do with, say, the formation of quasars.

Do you really not understand the difference between survival and reproductive success? And exactly what claim have I justified? (I distinctly remember I mentioned genetic drift, which can, for example, preserve newly duplicated genes, which then may evolve new functions. So there is at least one mechanism that isn't natural selection but contributes to the complexity of life)

Do I? Where have I said that?Again, where have I said that? I'd be grateful if you didn't presume to know what I believe better than I do.Again, totally irrelevant to evolution. I suggest you go to the physicists if you want an explanation. As I've said, I'm in another trade.Since you've demonstrated you don't actually know what I believe this claim is not only empty but completely baseless as well. If you perhaps cared to show how my (real) beliefs defy all logic?

Apparently better than some on this board.

thanks for your reply, and yes i think we got a bit off topic, as i stated in the first post that i believe that there is some reason to believe in common descent, but that it has not been proven to beyond a doubt, on these points we will have to agree to disagree ,i dont have the time to continue this thread but thought i would post to thankyou for your reply, thanks

Naraoia · #22 22nd June 2008, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by huggybear

thanks for your reply, and yes i think we got a bit off topic, as i stated in the first post that i believe that there is some reason to believe in common descent, but that it has not been proven to beyond a doubt, on these points we will have to agree to disagree ,i dont have the time to continue this thread but thought i would post to thankyou for your reply, thanks

You're welcome. When I take the time (sometimes hours) it takes to construct a reply this long, I usually enjoy it in the end

And hopefully someone will learn something or at least get to think about something while reading it.

However, I would still like to see your (reasonable) doubts in somewhat more concrete form than "this is all just biased interpretation". If nothing else, it would help me think about my own views in a little bit more depth.

Zone · #23 13th December 2008, 03:07 PM

Scientifically & mathematically evolution has already been proven 100% incorrect & can not be validated, substantiated, etc, but on the other hand the Anthropic Principle has already been proven 100% correct & has been validated, substantiated, etc, yet evolutionists & Darwinians hopelessly cling to the delusions of Darwin.

Note: There is not one student, etc of evolution &, or Darwinism on this planet that can scientifically &, or mathematically validated, substantiated, evolution &, or Darwinism.

Naraoia · #24 13th December 2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Zone

Scientifically & mathematically evolution has already been proven 100% incorrect & can not be validated, substantiated, etc, but on the other hand the Anthropic Principle has already been proven 100% correct & has been validated, substantiated, etc, yet evolutionists & Darwinians hopelessly cling to the delusions of Darwin.

Note: There is not one student, etc of evolution &, or Darwinism on this planet that can scientifically &, or mathematically validated, substantiated, evolution &, or Darwinism.

... Wow.

What does evolution even have to do with the anthropic principle?

Anyway, as far as I understand, the AP is a tautology. We couldn't contemplate the universe if the universe couldn't produce us. Of course it's 100% correct, but it doesn't tell you all that much interesting, does it?

By the way, I am a student of evolution

, and I'd just love to see your detailed arguments proving evolution 100% wrong.

Hmm, actually, first I'd like to see your definition of evolution.

(And no, I don't expect an answer.)

Zone · #25 15th December 2008, 05:19 AM

Evolution is proven to be 100% scientific & mathematical falsities &, or fables.

Example: Monkeys are still reproducing monkeys, Alligators are still reproducing alligators, Ants are still reproducing ants, Cats are still reproducing cats, Dogs are still reproducing dogs, Humans are still reproducing humans, etc.

Interesting.... (analytically) tell me, Naraoia the reason(s) other than the Anthropic Principle, why the human species (logically) have not evolved (mutated / merged) genetically into another intelligent species, which is capable of analyzing & operating, etc on the level that we can &, or do?

Note: Analytically it will require a God-like faith &, or trust for any truly intelligent individual(s) to believe & put your eternal life in anyone &, or anything that is not correct & it is illogical to accept as fact(s) & base their intellect(s), career(s), etc on the scientifically & mathematical falsities &, or fables below:

Evolution • Darwinism • Natural Selection • Mutually Exclusive • Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

Note: Logically the below physics laws(s) scientifically & mathematically proves 100% that the above so-called proven fact(s) is actually compilation(s) of the deception(s):

Random Variable • Equiprobable • Probability • Probability Theory • Posterior Probability • Probability Interpretations • Realization Probability • Epistemic Probability • Principle of Indifference
PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION

OBSERVATION - Steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins). In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (Gould).

EXPERIMENTATION - The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter (Dobzhansky).

REPRODUCTION - Impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky).

FALSIFICATION - Cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science (Ehrlich).

RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION

ORIGINS - The chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle).

DEVELOPMENT - To produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox).

STASIS - Enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton).

GEOLOGIC COLUMN - Out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss).

DESIGN - Irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe).

DNA REPAIR

The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, Nobel Prize for Chemistry

CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES

Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species & the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt

MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL

Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.000000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human & his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least (48,000,000) 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

The Fossil Record - Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock / life / time over the earth is therefore a fantastic & imaginative contrivance. The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation".

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

The Global Flood - The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark & Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation & periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

Population Statistics - World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10⁸⁹ Obviously, the universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

Radio Halos - Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column... Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere - Physicist Melvin Cook, found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Expansion of Space Fabric - Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

Design in Living Systems - A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination & defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .

Design in the Human Brain - The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

Zone · #26 15th December 2008, 05:45 AM

The Life Science Prize Challenge

To date, those evolutionists individually and by organization invited to contend are more than 363,000, and none will contend because they have no scientific evidence to support their insulting public statements. For modern times, they are premier examples of anti-scientists because of all their so-called evidence is either superstitions (12%), frauds (74%), or forgeries (14%). This list is kept by public school creationist, Mr. Karl Priest (kcpriest@aol.com).

1. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci. Atheist and science professor, Tennessee University. (3-11-02)

2. Mr. Andre H. Artus. Atheist. No credentials provided.

3. Mr. Lee Bowen. Atheist. No credentials provided.

4. Dr. Angela Ridgel. Geneticist, Case Western Reserve University.

5. Mr. Dan Radmacher. Editorial page editor, Charleston Gazette.

6. Dr. James Paulson. Biochemist, University of Wisconsin.

7. Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Physicist, Case Western University.

8. Dr. Dennis D. Hirsch. Law professor, Capital University.

9. Mr. John Rennie. Editor, Scientific American. Author of ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

10. Dr. Barbara Forrest. Professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana. This "expert" witness for evolution has no scientific evidence.

11. Dr. Steve Rissing. Professor in the Department of Evolution at Ohio State University.

12. Dr. Eugenie Scott. Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Evolution Indoctrination.

13. Dr. Michael Shermer. Founder/director of the Skeptics Society.

14. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Oxford University, Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Possibly the world's foremost propagandist for evolution possesses not one iota of scientific evidence.

15. Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Professor of Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of California, Irvine.

16. Dr. Joe Meert, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida.

17. Dr. Kenneth R. Miller. Professor of Biology, Brown University. This textbook author and "expert" witness to support evolution for the Dover trial has no scientific evidence.

18. Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner. Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, California State University, Long Beach, author of Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, which was published in 2000 by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (http://www.edexcellence.net).
19. Dr. Adrian L. Melott. Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Fellow, American Physical Society.

20. Dr. Stephen W. Hawking. Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University.

21. Marilyn vos Savant. Listed in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for " Highest IQ."

22. Dr. Douglas Theobald, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado at Boulder, claims to have "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" which establishes "The Scientific Case for Common Descent."

23. Dr. Keith Carmichael. Chemical Engineer-DOW (retired).

24. Dr. Daniel C. Dennett. Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University.

25. Dr. Peter Atkins. Chemistry, Oxford University, England.

26. Dr. Michael Ruse. Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University. This "expert" witness for evolution has no scientific evidence.

27. Dr. Steven W. Squyres. Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University, and leading NASA
scientist in the search for extra-terrestrial life.

28. Dr. Wilfred A. Elders. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of California, Riverside.

29. Mr. Bill Nye. The Science Guy.

30. Dr. William Provine. Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University.

31. Mr. Ed Brayton. Internet evolutionism activist.

32. Dr. Marshall Berman. Former New Mexico SBE member and Sandia physicist.

33. Ms. Amanda Chesworth. Former president of Internet Infidels, leader of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Young Skeptics, CSICOPYS, and crusader for establishing a Darwin Day.

34. Dr. Michael Zimmerman. Dean of the College of Letters and Science, Professor of Biology, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, ecologist, newspaper columnist, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

35. Mrs.Sharon Begley. Science Editor of the The Wall Street Journal, formerly Senior Editor at Newsweek magazine for 25 years.

36. Dr. Brian Leiter. Joseph D. Jamail Centennial Chair in Law, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Law & Philosophy Program, University of Texas.

37. Dr. John H. Marburger, III. Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

38. Chairman Professor Urban Ungerstedt, Deputy Chairman Professor Sten Grillner, Secretary Professor Hans Jornvall. Nobel Prize Assembly, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

39. Dr. Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus. Harvard University.

40. Mr. Richard Carrier. Secular Web editor, Ph. D. candidate. Columbia University.

41. Dr. Edward O. Wilson. Pellegrino University Research Professor. Harvard University.

42. Dr. John F. Haught. Thomas Healey Professor of Theology. Georgetown University. "Expert" witness to support evolution for the Dover trial has no scientific evidence.

43. Dr. John S. Lemberger, University of Wisconsin Madison, Graduate Program Coordinator, Science/Environmental Education

44. Dr. Richard G. Colling. Science Professor, Olivet Nazarene University, Author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator. (Theistic evolutionist).

45. Dr. Darrel R. Falk. Science Professor, Point Loma Nazarene University, Author of Coming to Peace With Science. (Theistic evolutionist)

46. Rev. Barry W. Lynn. Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Led the evolutionists in the William Buckley Firing Line Debate on Creation vs Evolution, December 19, 1997.

47. Dr. Wesley R. Elsberry. Information Project Director and a featured speaker for the National Center for Science Education, misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Indoctrination.

48. Mr. Eric Hildeman. Author of Creationism: The Bible Says No!, which he claims " marks the beginning of the end for creationism in America".

49. Rev. Lenny Flank. Creator of "Creation 'Science' Debunked"
http://www.geocities.com/lflank. He claims that Creation Scientists represent "the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the United States today."

50. Dr. Greg Forbes. Course Director for the National Science Foundation's Chautauqua course on evolution & evolution education for college & university professors. He also serves on the Editorial Board of Skeptic Magazine.

51. Counselor Pedro L. Irigonegaray. Kansas attorney for the evolutionists on the Kansas State Board of Education. In court in Topeka, Kansas, from May 5 to 7, 2005, 17 Ph.D.’s testified that scientific evidence supported Intelligent Design whereas the evolutionists completely defaulted because, like their attorney, they had no scientific evidence.

52. Edward T. Babinski. B. S. biology. His website is, "From Young Earth Creationist to Evolutionist: Your friendly neighborhood "anti-christian's" intellectual journey.”

53. Dr. Larry Mai. Assistant Professor Anthropology and Biology, California State University, Long Beach.

54. Dr. Richard Benson. Academic Dean, St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo, CA.

55. James Randi. Educational foundation expert on paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural, except as they apply to evolution.

56. Barry Hearn. Junk Science blogger.

57. Bishop John Shelby Spong. Christianity for the Third Millennium.

58. Dr. David R. Liu. Harvard University. Spokesman for the "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative''.

59. Dr. Robert Schuller. Pastor of the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA.

60. Professor and Chairman Neal Simon, Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

61. Professor Barry Bean, Cell Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

62. Assistant Professor R. Michael Burger, Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

63. Assistant Professor Maria Bykhovskaia, Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

64. Professor Lynne Cassimeris, Cell Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

65. Professor David Cundall, Functional Morphology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

66. Assistant Professor Matthias M. Falk, Cell Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

67. Professor Murray Itzkowitz, Behavioral Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

68. Assistant Professor M. Kathy Iovine, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

69. Professor Steven Krawiec, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

70. Associate Professor Michael Kuchka, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

71. Professor and Associate Chairman Linda J. Lowe-Krentz, Biochemistry, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

72. Assistant Professor Stefan Maas, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

73. Professor of Practice Jutta Marzillier, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

74. Assistant Professor Tamra Mendelson, Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

75. Professor John Nyby, Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

76. Assistant Professor Colin J. Saldanha, Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

77. Assistant Professor Colin J. Saldanha, Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

78. Professor Jeffrey A. Sands, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

79. Professor Jill Schneider, Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

80. Associate Professor Robert Skibbens, Cell Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

81. Associate Professor Jennifer Swann, Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

82. Associate Professor Vassie C. Ware, Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

83. President Timothy P. White. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

84. Professor James R. Hofman. Liberal Studies, California State University, Fullerton.

85. Professor Craig Nelson. Liberal Studies & Department of Comparative Religion, California State University, Fullerton.

86. Professor Bruce H. Weber. Biochemistry, California State University, Fullerton.

87. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti. Director, Vatican Project on Science, Theology and Ontological Quest (STOQ).

88. George F. Will. Syndicated columnist writing for more than 460 newspapers and Newsweek magazine; professor; television commentator; winner of Pulitzer Prize in 1976.

89. Dr. George V. Coyne, S.J. Director of the Vatican Observatory.

90. Dr. Gary E. Belovsky. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame.

91. Dr. Raymond Pierotti, Associate Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Kansas.

92. Dr. Leonard Krishtalka. Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Kansas.

93. George F. Will. Syndicated columnist writing for more than 460 newspapers and Newsweek magazine; professor; television commentator; winner of Pulitzer Prize in 1976. (Mr. Will wrote that the Dover, PA School Board tried "to insinuate religion, in the guise of 'intelligent design'' theory, into high school biology classes".)

94. Dr. James D. Watson. Credited, with Francis Crick, for describing the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA.

95. Dr. Niles Eldredge. Curator, Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History and author of The Triumph of Evolution...And The Failure of Creationism.

96. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, Director, Vatican Project on Science, Theology and Ontological Quest (STOQ).

97. Dr. Seth Shostak. Senior Astronomer, author of "SETI and Intelligent Design." (SETI is Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.)

98. Dr. Lynn Margulis. Distinguished University Professor at the University of Massachusetts. The first wife of Carl Sagan. Received from William J. Clinton the Presidential Medal of Science in 1999. Also acknowledged for her contribution to James E. Lovelock’s Gaia concept.

99.Brahama D. Sharma, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life). Life fellow (chemistry) of the Royal Society. He corresponded on behalf of the Royal Society and confirmed that none of them had any scientific evidence in support of evolution in spite of the fact that the Royal Society stated publicly on 11 April 2006 that evolution is “recognized as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world." Evidently, the Royal Society is an ethically incompetent mouthpiece for worldwide evolutionist propaganda.

100. Dr. Patricia Princehouse. Lecturer in Philosophy and Evolutionary biology at Case Western Reserve University. Recipient of the 2006 Hugh M.

Note: I only posted a partial-list of 100 names, but the full list of more than 363,000 names (which also includes theoretical physicist: Stephen William Hawking) can be obtained via Mr. Karl Priest.

Zone · #27 15th December 2008, 05:48 AM

Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life

Naraoia · #28 15th December 2008, 07:47 AM

Holy crap

Naraoia · #29 15th December 2008, 07:47 AM

double post

Naraoia · #30 15th December 2008, 11:10 AM

Ok, here's a more substantial reply...

Part I.

Originally Posted by Zone

Example: Monkeys are still reproducing monkeys, Alligators are still reproducing alligators, Ants are still reproducing ants, Cats are still reproducing cats, Dogs are still reproducing dogs, Humans are still reproducing humans, etc.

Where does evolution say they shouldn't?

Interesting.... (analytically) tell me, Naraoia the reason(s) other than the Anthropic Principle, why the human species (logically) have not evolved (mutated / merged) genetically into another intelligent species, which is capable of analyzing & operating, etc on the level that we can &, or do?

Huh, wut? "Analytically" (what do you even mean by that) I can tell you the human species is (1) young, (2) has a very long generation time, and, lately, (3) a massive and thoroughly interconnected population, which is likely to swamp out new variation unless it's very advantageous.

Speciation takes time, so all other conditions being equal, the longer a species is around, the more likely it is to give rise to a new species. H. sapiens, if we take the oldest known fossils as an estimate (although species boundaries become somewhat arbitrary when you are dealing with a time series), is about 200 000 years old. The average fossil mammal species persists for 1 million years (according to my ecology notes and pbs.org), and the average fossil mammal doesn't have a generation time of 20 years. We have plenty of time, thanks.

Note: Analytically it will require a God-like faith &, or trust for any truly intelligent individual(s) to believe & put your eternal life in anyone &, or anything that is not correct & it is illogical to accept as fact(s) & base their intellect(s), career(s), etc on the scientifically & mathematical falsities &, or fables below:

Uh, scare tactics? Argumentum ad baculum ain't a valid argument.

Note

: Logically the below physics laws(s) scientifically & mathematically proves 100% that the above so-called proven fact(s) is actually compilation(s) of the deception(s):

Random Variable • Equiprobable • Probability • Probability Theory • Posterior Probability • Probability Interpretations • Realization Probability • Epistemic Probability • Principle of Indifference

Where the heck did you get this random list of irrelevant concepts from?

PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION

I'm myopic but not this myopic. I can read normal-sized letters. Thanks.

OBSERVATION

- Steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins). In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (Gould).

Misrepresenting people galore. Gould argued (hope I don't misrepresent him) that we don't observe small-scale evolution in the fossil record because things like speciation usually take place rapidly (geologically speaking, mind you!) and in small isolated populations. I don't think he ever said that you can't observe transitions in the fossil record at all; and in any case, large-scale transitions are aplenty (see here for vertebrate examples). As for Stebbins, where did he say that, and in what context? If it's this GL Stebbins, he doesn't seem like he would say something like that without qualifications. So citation, please.

What individual people say is irrelevant anyway, as evolution is observed in labs, hospitals and the field all the freakin' time. I'm sure you've heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, maybe you've even heard of the changing beaks of Galápagos finches, but if you were in any doubt, here's some nice documented examples for you (including new metabolic pathways and multicellularity evolving right under scientists' nose).

And, of course, no list of observed evolutionary events would be complete without the Lenski group's gorgeous evolution experiment. These people have been growing descendants of the same bacteria for 20 years (tens of thousands of bacterial generations!), and observed the little creatures' adaptation to their growth environment (manifested in increasing growth rate relative to the first generations, summary here) and the appearance of a novelty (the ability to digest citrate). If anyone's interested, Lenski's website has a collection of all relevant papers.

EXPERIMENTATION

- The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter (Dobzhansky).

What process? Yes, new phyla don't evolve in a day. But "evolution" per se most certainly is observable in a human lifetime (see above).

REPRODUCTION

- Impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky).

See above.

FALSIFICATION

- Cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science (Ehrlich).

Instead of quote-mining without proper citation, why don't you tell me what it is about evolution that can't (or couldn't have been) falsified? Remember, the fact that something hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it couldn't.

(1) hereditary variation - well, I hope you agree this exists, but if organisms didn't resemble their parents, or new variation never arose (as the examples of beneficial mutations link demonstrates, it does), evolution would be screwed.

(2) selection - observed, documented, accepted, but it could have been shown that selection doesn't result in change over time. Or, in fact, we probably wouldn't be thinking about evolution at all, as the entirety of agriculture and husbandry, thus the entirety of civilisation, depends on selection.

(3) common descent - the classic Precambrian rabbit or feathered mammal would throw serious monkey wrenches in this hypothesis. Yes, there are instances of horizontal gene transfer, and organisms sometimes turn out to have fossils from much earlier than we thought, but not that
much earlier.