When did evolution begin?

[lucaspa]

I guess we would have to know what you consider major creationists. What is a major creationist? There are plenty of creationists that agree with evolutionary processes and even common descent. Genesis 1 doesn't state that God created by separate independent creations. Where in Genesis does it state that the life listed was created independently?

Creationists who write books, give lectures, host websites, etc. So, where are your quotes? Where in Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) does it even hint that all creations are linked? That there are common ancestors of "kinds"? I listed the quote of Gish about "kinds".

""The oft-repeated statement, however, that God's creatures brought forth progeny 'after their kind' would strongly indicate that plants and animals which can interbreed and produce offspring would be of the same 'kind'. A corollary conclusion would then be that production of offspring from matings between two different kinds would be impossible." (Hilbert Siegler, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1978

"These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely-established lines of demarcation." Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 66

"Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning " https://www.icr.org/article/168/

The True Origins definition of 'kind' is given as follows:
" kind n.
the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms."

Notice that "discontinuities".

As I said, if you have quotes from creationists -- books, lectures, websites, etc. -- expounding a view that baramin are not independent creations, please let us know.

Genesis 1:20-27 (interpreted literally) talks about separate creations. Read literally, what else would you call
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ... And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." ?

Where is there any hint of ancestor-descendant relationship? Remember, the ancestors of whales created on Day 5 are the land animals created on Day 6. So whales have to be independent creations of any land animals. If you do not agree, please provide your reasoning.

 

[lucaspa]

Hello Paul, Long time no see. I thought that by now you would have figured out that there is but ONE story of the Creation. Those who see two are admitting that they cannot understand Genesis.

In Love,
Aman

Wow. Nice ad hominen, there. Notice you didn't answer any of my points, but simply went for insult: "admitting that they cannot understand Genesis". It's a little hypocritical, don't you think, that after insulting me, you go for "In Love" in the signature?

No, the longer I look at the stories the more it is obvious that there are 2 stories in Genesis 1-3 and that they come from different traditions within ancient Israel. Starting with the identifier for God, the order of creation, the timing of creation, and the method of creation all indicate 2 different stories. You, of course, can try to refute that. Good luck. Looking at curricula at all the major theological seminaries, I find they agree with the idea there are 2 creation stories.

Does kind of screw up Biblical literalism, but I'm OK with that. The lessons that come out of reading the 2 creation stories the way they are meant to be read (and not abusing them trying to make one) are much more enlightening and religiously powerful than the result of abusing them.

 

[AV1611VET]

You, of course, can try to refute that. Good luck.

Thank you.

How many times does God place Adam into the garden in Genesis 2? once or twice?[VERSE=Genesis 2:8,KJV]And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.[/VERSE][VERSE=Genesis 2:15,KJV]And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.[/VERSE]

 

[lucaspa]

Where is the evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a claim?

Go to Pubmed -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?myncbishare=nymclib&dr=citation -- enter "evolution" as your search term, and start reading. BTW, that is the Library of Medicine database only back to 1963. So it lacks a lot of the evidence. I suggest you read Douglas Futuyma's book Evolutionary Biology. It's a textbook, but everything is backed by scientific evidence that is referenced. A shorter book is What Evolution IS by Ernst Mayr. The scientific evidence is still referenced.

Yes, mutations are proven by the scientific method. Not true for random mutations creating both a pine tree and elephant.

That's a strawman. No evolutionary biologist claims "random mutations" alone for evolution of pine trees and elephants. Evolution is much more complicated than "random mutations". First, "random" here means only random with respect to the needs of the population or the individual. In a climate growing warmer, just as many deer will be born with longer fur as shorter fur.

Selection, OTOH, is not random. It is determinism. Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation (of which mutations are one source of variation)
2. Selection

You can't legitimately separate the steps. Both are needed.

This isn't offering any evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of the creation of a pine tree and elephant from a single life form of long ago.

The phylogenetic evidence is that such evolution happened. So is the Linnean classification system. That system is a nested hierarchy with both elephants and pine trees belonging to the Kingdom Eukaryota. You can't make a nested hierarchy with manufactured objects; only an evolutionary process with common ancestry will yield that. Think of the classification of minerals

You're attempting to change the focus to the argument for a common ancestor. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the 'how', with evidence based on the scientific method.

By "how" do you mean the mechanisms of evolution? Or do you mean the specific evolutionary pathways that led to both elephants and pine trees? The first set of mechanisms -- with scientific evidence -- can be read in Origin of Species. Darwin gives evidence from his own experiments and from the experiments of others. Evolutionary Biology will go into the mechanisms in more detail, including the mathematical equations that describe the processes.

If you mean the particular evolutionary pathways, there are books and papers dealing with the evolution of plants and animals, then there are many, many publications about that. Here is a summary of one researcher's look at the evolution of animals (including elephants): http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/king.html. This blog looks at the divergence in development from the common ancestor: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/17/plant-and-animal-development-c/ You might look at this paper estimating the time since the last common ancestor based on DNA sequences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf

Here we have a living organism that has characteristics of both plants and animals: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm

 

[lucaspa]

Thank you.

How many times does God place Adam into the garden in Genesis 2? once or twice?[VERSE=Genesis 2:8,KJV]And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.[/VERSE][VERSE=Genesis 2:15,KJV]And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.[/VERSE]

And what does this have to do with anything? How does it address all those other points about identifier of God, order of creation, etc? If you can't address the points, AV, I guess you go with a red herring.

Basically, AV, the story tells us it was only once. In Genesis 2:8, we have just been told how God made Dirt. Then the intervening verses (which somehow you forgot to mention) talks about the rivers running out of Eden. After that digression, the story goes back to God putting Dirt into the garden and the purpose for doing so.

I guess you want to misrepresent the Bible here so that you can misrepresent it in other areas? Now, this talks about the same action in the same place. However, it doesn't explain why Genesis 2:7 has God forming a single man from dirt, while Genesis 1:27 God makes men and women (both plural in the Hebrew) together and does so the same way He has made everything else: speaking "Let us make".

BTW, AV, the verses you left out -- about the rivers -- refutes any creationist notion that the Flood was violent enough to form all sedimentary rock. Notice that the location of Eden is identified by post-Flood rivers. For the Bible to be literally true, then the geography could not change in the Flood.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Genesis 1 can be (and should be) interpreted as repudiation of the Babylonian gods. The question remains why you decide Genesis 1 talks about "real" creation but Genesis 2 only about "Spiritual creation". Genesis 2 describes the physical creation of animals and 2 humans. It also talks about the creation of the earth, sun, stars, and planets (heavens). "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Of course, it says God made everything that Genesis 1 spreads out over 3 days in a single day. But "heavens and earth" are physical objects, are they not?

Genesis 2:19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; "

So what is the "Spiritual" about that?

Why in the world should it be interpreted as repudiation of the Babylonian gods? Why would you think the writers felt the need to do two creation narratives of the physical aspects of the universe?

Out of the ground Lord God "formed" every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. We are talking about two views of creation... I think it is obvious in that there are two different narratives that tell two views of the same Creation but with man spirituality being center stage.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

BTW, AV, the verses you left out -- about the rivers -- refutes any creationist notion that the Flood was violent enough to form all sedimentary rock. Notice that the location of Eden is identified by post-Flood rivers. For the Bible to be literally true, then the geography could not change in the Flood.

Haven't they discovered ancient riverbeds that lay beneath those present day rivers using ground-penetrating radar?

Actually the riverbeds could change dramatically and the river would still be the same river.

Natural drainage paths rarely change, however the actual course of a river or stream within a drainage can change quite a bit.

I don't believe the flood was violent overall. The 40 days of rain would effectively eliminate any wave-causing winds, and the speed of the incoming water was about that of ocean tides. It would have been a slow but inexorable inundation, like a tide that keeps coming. Terrifying.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creationists who write books, give lectures, host websites, etc. So, where are your quotes? Where in Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) does it even hint that all creations are linked? That there are common ancestors of "kinds"? I listed the quote of Gish about "kinds".

Gish is YEC. I really don't care what Gish thinks is a Kind. We don't even know what a kind is. We know that there were kinds of prior to the kinds in the narrative. After its kind gives us no other information about kinds and what makes a kind.

""The oft-repeated statement, however, that God's creatures brought forth progeny 'after their kind' would strongly indicate that plants and animals which can interbreed and produce offspring would be of the same 'kind'. A corollary conclusion would then be that production of offspring from matings between two different kinds would be impossible." (Hilbert Siegler, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1978

Matings between different kinds might be impossible just as we see in nature. Only closely related species can interbreed, so why is this a problem?

"These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely-established lines of demarcation." Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 66

I don't think we can assume that.

"Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning " https://www.icr.org/article/168/

There is nothing Biblical that makes that claim.

The True Origins definition of 'kind' is given as follows:
" kind n.
the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms."

Perhaps, we don't know what I believe is Bara...created and min which seems to describe a broad general term for all sorts of groups of living things including vegetation. Baramin is again not something we can actually know the definition for.

Notice that "discontinuities".

As I said, if you have quotes from creationists -- books, lectures, websites, etc. -- expounding a view that baramin are not independent creations, please let us know.

I believe that this information I am remembering is from a article on the site Biologos. I will look it up and see if I can find a link to it.

Genesis 1:20-27 (interpreted literally) talks about separate creations. Read literally, what else would you call
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ... And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." ?

Where is there any hint of ancestor-descendant relationship? Remember, the ancestors of whales created on Day 5 are the land animals created on Day 6. So whales have to be independent creations of any land animals. If you do not agree, please provide your reasoning.

Whales are not even mentioned in the original Hebrew and is a poor translation for sea monsters.

 

[justlookinla]

Go to Pubmed -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?myncbishare=nymclib&dr=citation -- enter "evolution" as your search term, and start reading. BTW, that is the Library of Medicine database only back to 1963. So it lacks a lot of the evidence. I suggest you read Douglas Futuyma's book Evolutionary Biology. It's a textbook, but everything is backed by scientific evidence that is referenced. A shorter book is What Evolution IS by Ernst Mayr. The scientific evidence is still referenced.

No, I'm not going to search for an alleged needle in a haystack. Either you can provide evidene for how a pine tree and elephant was produced from a single life form or you can't. Simply referencing a wall of text isn't evidence.

That's a strawman. No evolutionary biologist claims "random mutations" alone for evolution of pine trees and elephants. Evolution is much more complicated than "random mutations". First, "random" here means only random with respect to the needs of the population or the individual. In a climate growing warmer, just as many deer will be born with longer fur as shorter fur.

Are you suggesting that a warmer climate changes the DNA of deer to produce longer or shorter fur? And of course deer are still deer are still deer in that scenario.

Selection

, OTOH, is not random. It is determinism. Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation (of which mutations are one source of variation)
2. Selection

You can't legitimately separate the steps. Both are needed.

Selection only acts on an existing life form and creates no new life form. Only one impetus creates new life forms on which natural selection acts.....random mutation.

The phylogenetic evidence is that such evolution happened. So is the Linnean classification system. That system is a nested hierarchy with both elephants and pine trees belonging to the Kingdom Eukaryota. You can't make a nested hierarchy with manufactured objects; only an evolutionary process with common ancestry will yield that. Think of the classification of minerals

Address the 'how'.

By "how" do you mean the mechanisms of evolution? Or do you mean the specific evolutionary pathways that led to both elephants and pine trees? The first set of mechanisms -- with scientific evidence -- can be read in Origin of Species. Darwin gives evidence from his own experiments and from the experiments of others. Evolutionary Biology will go into the mechanisms in more detail, including the mathematical equations that describe the processes.

If you mean the particular evolutionary pathways, there are books and papers dealing with the evolution of plants and animals, then there are many, many publications about that. Here is a summary of one researcher's look at the evolution of animals (including elephants): http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/king.html. This blog looks at the divergence in development from the common ancestor: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/17/plant-and-animal-development-c/ You might look at this paper estimating the time since the last common ancestor based on DNA sequences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf

Here we have a living organism that has characteristics of both plants and animals: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm

Quote, from the links above (links aren't evidence) the process, supported by the scientific method (not interested in guesses and suppositions) whereby pine trees and elephants were created from an alleged single life form. Simply throwing out links with thousands of words and telling someone to find it doesn't work.

 

[As I was saying]

Correction: Liberals and modernists might accept the lies of evolution but Bible believing born again Christians will not. Amen?

A LOUD AMEN!

 

[As I was saying]

What you showed was not that step-wise evolutionary processes could produce those very things. While you are presupposing the steps towards a simple adaptation the cell in that organism is a working factory with such complexity it makes what you are showing as an example almost humorous. Take that change that you are using to show "just how this step by step" process and reduce it down to the very minute cell and then tell me how that was accomplished step by step. Then please supply the needed information about how the order for the process began. How did evolution begin? What gave evolution the laws and structure in which it works? Evolution didn't evolve.

And while he is at it perhaps he can tell us how life began?? I am not holding my breath.

 

[As I was saying]

To 'As I was saying'

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

Here we go again.Up from 13.5 billion (Christopher Hitchens) to 15 billion. Any advance on 15 billion? Going once, going twice, gone. Sold to those with a vivid imagination.

As for the rest, a nice bit of cut and past but no proof given, just parroting the so called experts. Did you know that an expert is only an unknown drip under pressure? X = unknown; spurt = drip under pressure.

 

[As I was saying]

Abiogenesis or Magical Chemical Generation is just another excuse for believing the lies of evolutionism. Evolutionists have many lies to teach our babies. Amen?

Once again Amen and Amen. Abiogenesis is a hoax as this comment shows.....Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions

 

[dad]

BTW, AV, the verses you left out -- about the rivers -- refutes any creationist notion that the Flood was violent enough to form all sedimentary rock. Notice that the location of Eden is identified by post-Flood rivers. For the Bible to be literally true, then the geography could not change in the Flood.

I think it did change, if not in the flood, then shortly after. Therfore one cannot identify the location of Eden by present rivers, or what remains of them.

 

[dad]

No, the longer I look at the stories the more it is obvious that there are 2 stories in Genesis 1-3 and that they come from different traditions within ancient Israel. Starting with the identifier for God, the order of creation, the timing of creation, and the method of creation all indicate 2 different stories. ...

Not true at all. The order of creation is in chapter one, it was all done by the time chapter 2 starts. It was not different traditions at all, but a different look at what was done.

 

[As I was saying]

Actually you have both. "Monkeys" is not a monophyletic term. Since the split between Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys predated the split of our ancestors from the line cladistically we are monkeys.



I could find nothing that indicated that he was ever an atheist. I have seen many Christians that went from weak belief to strong belief classify themselves as "atheists" but most never were atheists from my observations. And his opinion on whether your god exists or not is not germane to the issue. Most Christians accept the theory of evolution worldwide. The fact that the theory of evolution is correct does not disprove Christianity as a whole, just the beliefs of literalists.



You have yet to support any of your claims on this man, or to show what he has to do with the argument at hand.



What "pejorative language"? And no, I am not the ignorant one here. What question of yours do you think that I did not answer?

I have both? When did you meet my children pray tell me? I have known them from birth and in all that time they have only ever been humans as my eight grandchildren are. It is obvious that you are good at inventing fairy stories to substantiate your...fairy stories.

You could find nothing....? Definitely looking in all the wrong places. Not only did I know him personally for about 30 years but I have loads of books written by him one of which is his life story. I have been in meetings where he has said from the platform that he was an atheist. What don't you understand about all that? I guess when an atheist pronounces their deficient ability to find out the facts, what another experiences and hears and says is irrelevant.

As for the "most christian accept evolution..." ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, and so on and so on. And your evidence is? You know that stuff you keep demanding of everyone else.

The question I am still waiting for any atheist to answer is...HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? So far, zip, zilch, zero and nothing. A few attempts at guesswork but NO FACTS. if you can't answer the question you ARE the ignorant one.

 

[Shemjaza]

Where is the evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a claim?

Okay. I'm not sure about the problem you are having.

Hypothesis:
Pine Tree and Elephant share a common ancestor. Random mutation and natural selection is responsible for the divergence.

Evidence:
They are consistent in structure and genetics with diverting from a common ancestor.
They are affected by random mutations.
There are no structures in their body that prevent random mutations being responsible for the difference between the two organisms.
There is fossil evidence that their ancestors were more similar then the organisms are now.

There... This what you are after?

You're attempting to change the focus to the argument for a common ancestor. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the 'how', with evidence based on the scientific method.

Evidence for a common ancestor shows it happened.
Random mutations is the proposed mechanism.

The presence of random mutations and natural selection, and lack of evidence for any other significant factors, leaves the scientific conclusion from the evidence that they evolved apart.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Aphrodite, Biblical literalists "get all up in arms" about evolution. Christians do not.

And yes, for Biblical literalists, the big sticking point is that humans evolved from a previous species. Creationists (Duane Gish for example) are willing to allow huge amounts of evolution as long as humans are specially created. You can see this as Gish tries to define "kind". H. sapiens is the only single species that is a "kind".

"In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a basic kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes amphibians reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind." Duane T. Gish, The Fossils Say NO!, 1973, pp 34-35.

Notice the nested heirarchy. You can't have a "basic kind" within another "kind". After all, chimpanzees have to be "derived from a single stock". They cannot be in another "single stock" of apes.

Okay, thank you.

The main thing the bible is saying about kind is that the seed is going to bear 'after' its kind, whether that is a plant with seed or a tree bearing fruit or animals. The immediate importance is that the child is like its parent. It doesn't say that a plant or tree or animal will bear seed after the FIRST kind, which it easily could have said. After all, we were talking about the Beginning, about the First man and woman, and the word for first had already been used and could have been used again, etc.

I think this omission (if you will) or choice of words is an important and key element for the fact that evolution from one kind to another can and does occur over long enough periods of time. What the Bible lingo omits IS AS IMPORTANT (or even more so) than what it states.

That is in the first creation story in Genesis 1. In the second creation story in Genesis 2, a man -- Dirt -- was made before all the animals. So what makes you focus on Genesis 1 here and ignore Genesis 2?

I am a fledgling bible scholar, a brand new theologian. I translated and exegeted this part of Genesis a while back and how I made the two stories reconcile-my understanding-was that while God provided for plants and animals to exist, they were not yet alive due to Him withholding the rain in reverence for Adam's impending creation. I thought perhaps the seed was in the ground but not yet fertile.

So once ADM was formed in Gen 2, he worked the ground, which is the word "Adamah" (ah being feminine). So Adam was piercing the ground and the seed within it, with rain from God, became fertile and conceived life. Once plants were born, animals became named. I believe they existed before Adam (as they actually did), but were not really considered important because Adam had not named them yet.

God made animals for us. He made everything on earth for us essentially, because we are at the top of the hierarchy here on earth; this is our dominion. The sun rules the earth, but man rules life on earth. God stepped back and allowed Adam to name life on earth, even Eve! This act of naming implies ownership, as God named Day and Night and the Earth and the seas.

I do not ignore Genesis 2 at all. As it was brought to my understanding recently by another member, this event of Adam taking rule over his dominion (which literally preceded him, and was waiting for him) could perhaps better be thought of as a spiritual re-awakening in the Messiah, or as we call it, being born-again.

 

[Loudmouth]

The judge has no training or education in biology.

Neither do you. I guess we can ignore your statements from here on.

Educated and trained biologists all observe design.

They observe the appearance of design. Not the same thing.

All you can do is deny it is objective evidence but the evidence speaks for itself.

How can I deny what you haven't presented?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Neither do you. I guess we can ignore your statements from here on.

Really? Are you ominescent now? You have no idea what my educational background is.

They observe the appearance of design. Not the same thing.

Really, give the evidence that shows the appearance is false.

How can I deny what you haven't presented?

It has been presented. The fact that you even deny that speaks volumes.