Intelligent Design / Evolution

[JoeyArnold]

Why do people die? Why does energy decrease over time?

 

[Cabal]

Matter decreases over time.

Nope, basic physics fail.

Mass-energy is a conserved quantity.

Actually learn about science before you dismiss it.

 

[Elendur]

Why do people die? Why does energy decrease over time?

Death is by no means equivalent to loss of energy.

 

[JoeyArnold]

There is a reason why I have to charge my phone.

 

[Cabal]

There is a reason why I have to charge my phone.

Yup.

Doesn't mean energy has decreased over time though.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Doesn't mean energy has decreased over time though.

Energy moves.

 

[Elendur]

Energy moves.

Can you please write a little more when you post? It's hard to understand what you're getting at, especially since you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Energy decreases.

Conservation of energy theory is obviously yet another evil evolutionist plot

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I doubt Joey is a native English speaker

 

[Elendur]

I doubt Joey is a native English speaker

Well, even if he isn't, he still should be able to write better.
I'm not native English, I haven't even visited an English speaking country.

Edit: And what I'm trying to say is that I'm at least trying to write coherent and explanatory (sometimes with the help or dictionaries).

 

[Cabal]

Energy moves.

Right. It moves from one form to another. The amount, however, does not go down.

Do you want to try and make your point again?



If you can....

 

[JoeyArnold]

Crazy I must be, Yoda you can call me.

 

[Cabal]

Crazy I must be, Yoda you can call me.

No, "Christian" will suffice. Poe's law, and all that.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Well, even if he isn't, he still should be able to write better.
I'm not native English, I haven't even visited an English speaking country.

Edit: And what I'm trying to say is that I'm at least trying to write coherent and explanatory (sometimes with the help or dictionaries).

Yeah, well I'm trying to be kind

 

[JoeyArnold]

I hope humans can evolve past sickness.

 

[Jro]

I hope humans can evolve past sickness.

Unfortunately the illnesses evolve with us

 

[KhaosTheory]

Unfortunately the illnesses evolve with us

and in fact much faster than us! Those < staff edit > can reproduce faster than we could ever hope to!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Do you realize it requires MORE faith to be an atheist then it does to be a Christian? Amazing

Do you realize it takes more effort to be a non-stamp collector than it does to collect stamps? Amazing.

 

[idscience]

it is a shame when hi-jacking a thread is the only answer to a failing hypthesis. Let's see, we can't rebut the points, so let's bury them with pages of one liner drivel having nothing to do with the thread.

Common ancestry has no answers, and that is why when the gaping holes are questioned, you get behavior like we see here. They don't have answers but they can't let their faith in evolution go unanswered, so they do the only thing they can do. Some have made some points but the last few pages have dramatically shown your out of answers, and its back of the class kids time.

 

[idscience]

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is the war cry of evolution. How can anyone disagree with the whole of the scientific community on this issue. Evolution is as much as a fact as gravity, as sure as the son rising in the morning and setting in the evening. So what is the deal? Are you just stupid, or blind? Because that is what someone has to be to oppose the mountain of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is, has, and does occur all over the earth today. If you sample the science magazines you will find dozens of headlines proclaiming evolution occurring before our very eyes.
Now, after an introduction to the conversation like that, most people would shut right down, and right up. This is part of the new "framing" campaign launched by the evolution lobby. On an earlier blog I went over "framing" and how the scientific community needs to change the course of dialog with the public. From presenting facts, to appealing to emotion, duty and conscience. Make the public believe there is so much evidence for evolution that you won't even have to present any. This tact is also very good at shutting down dissension, and debate. No body wants others to think they are stupid, rigid, and ignorant. What was that FAMOUS line by Dawkins?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."​

Ouch! The real question is, what is he really talking about? Well, it is hard to say but most evolutionists are talking about the fact of change in nature. But, before I get into that let's talk about the catch all word "EVOLUTION". What does that mean? Well, it means changes in living populations, adaptations, and variations of species due to natural selective environmental pressures. Mutations in genomes are a fact, and can produce changes in organisms. For example, drug resistant bacteria. The resistance is due to mutations. Most often, this is due to a loss of information, something breaking, that enables the bacteria to survive. I don't think there are many people alive who would disagree with, or dispute these kinds of changes. So, is that what evolutionist are talking about?
Those kins of changes are called micro-evolution. Changes, adaptations, and variations within a species. It is very clear this occurs and nobody is disputing it. The evolution party (I say that because has become so political, like the green party) implies that Intelligent Design theorists are disputing these very facts, when of course that is absurd. Framing tact #2. Promote to the public that Intelligent Design supporters are more stupid then they are. If this was all there was to evolution, we would all be one relatively happy community working well together. But of course there is much more to evolution. The controversial part. Now, you have probably heard there is not controversy among scientists regarding the fact of evolution occurring, only exactly how it is happening. You see evolution has been declared a fact, so the only thing left to do is find out how. What is not said, is that the facts all pertain to micro-evolution.

Now let's get into macro-evolution. This is micro's much much older, big brother. Without getting into the "definition" just yet, it simply means that over millions, and billions of years, major changes have occurred in living organisms. Changes that can be traced back to one common ancestor. From cell to Sally, sort "o" speak. After life got going (evolution doesn't address the origin of life) random mutations acted on by natural selection, slowly changed one cell, into many cells, then into every plant and animal we see today. These major changes from one species into another is what led to the definition of macro-evolution. "Changes above the species level". What does that mean? It means that there is a minimal criteria, or macro threshold if you will, that needs to be met to be able to claim macro-evolution has occurred. Who developed this definition? The guys who get to decide if that rock in their hands is a new or existing species. What evolutionists don't tell you is that there is a raging debate over what constitutes a species, but I will leave that for another blog.
Today, evolution theory is very happy to gather all of evolution under the one umbrella, "EVOLUTION". Why have to explain two things when one will do. Why have to prove two things when one will do. Evolutionists now very happily say that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on Valium. Because small changes are evident in nature, why not just say with more time they will turn into major changes. By taking this tact (framing #3) all the evidence that supports one theory can be used to support the hypothesis. It's pure genius, from a movie of the week point of view. From a strictly scientific perspective, it's a major leap of faith.
Some would conclude that the observed changes within a species would produce enumerable varieties of species, not completely different animals. The former, is an inference supported by data, but changing wolves into whales? That is where the faith comes in. With billions of years and millions of species to work with, is it any wonder anybody can come up with similarities between species? I was on a forum the other day and in answer to the question, "present a couple transitional fossils", the response from one evolutionist was, "they are all transitional fossils, every one of them". Isn't that convenient? Macro-evolution is so vague, and ambiguous scientists can make an argument for just about anything. Who is going to say they are wrong? Maybe that is why they change their minds so often. Have a look at my "Whale of a Tale" and "Bias = Poor Science" blogs.

So where are we? Oh Yeh! The 99.99% of the "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" you hear so much about is of the minor change kind. The variation, and adaptation kind. The rest of the evidence that speaks to the major change variety, is inference, conjecture, and best guess, not the scientific method kind. Evolution has homology going for it. Look at the definition from Biology online;

• "Having similar structure and anatomical position (but not necessarily the same function) in different organisms suggesting a common ancestry or evolutionary origin (e.g. wings of bats and arms of humans are homologous)"

I posit it could also support common design. This is a pretty wide door isn't it? An ancestor could be declared from similar teeth, or thick bones, or anything else that can be made to work. But, it is all inference. Fossils don't come with a serial number that tells us where they were manufactured. The whole world of species and relationships are derived from evolutionary scientists who have a preexisting belief common ancestry is a fact, and all they have to do is sort out what belongs to what. Homology didn't lead to descent with modification, Darwin's book did, then homology was used to support the hypothesis, and not in an unbiased way. Scientists looked for the evidence to support their belief. They did not follow the evidence or use it as the guide. Darwin's book was the guide and the evidence had to follow suite. Could it be that is why Mendel's theory of genetics took decades to be accepted, as it conflicted with Darwin's own theory and Mendel was not in the common descent camp?

Evolution is rife with mistakes in regard to the major changes. How many missing links have been discarded over the years out of zealousness to prove a point. How many scientists have been embarrassed and reversed after big headlines in the news papers?
If an engineer/designer were involved with life, would we find similar programing and DNA in all life. Would we find similar systems for similar function across the fabric of life. Does it make sense that evolutionists in their zeal for a tree of descent are chasing their tails trying to sort out what seems to be a web like thicket of interconnecting organisms? Maybe the only connection is design, and that is why everything seems connected. Genetics is showing that single organisms are on different trees depending on RNA, DNA or morphology. It's a mess.

To nail things down on in regard to "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" in relation to macro-evolution (big changes, body plan changes) we find that it is more 'OVERWHELMING OPTIMISM", not evidence. Overwhelming inference, not prof as described by the scientific method. How do you prove something happened millions of years ago? Let's look.

• Comparative physiology (morphology), infers similar anatomical and physiological features are related. What is really weird is, organisms are not alike, and are dissimilar, are evidence for common ancestry. The logic here is the less alike, the further down the tree, and the more distant the organisms are? What? How can you argue intelligently with someone who believes both similarity and dissimilarity proves their position? I can't see how it can be done successfully. How can you falsify opinion? You can't.
• Genetic homology, infers similar DNA and dissimilar DNA both infer a common connection. One close relationship, the other distant relationship. That's right, no way to falsify that one either. Ok, that is two of the pillars of common ancestry evolution presents as evidence. Inference, and opinion. Is it a wonder, it changes so often? Could this be the reason evolution have no organisms at the branching points of the trees. The only thing we hear about are the years from divergence, which changes like the seasons. For example; chimps and hominids have a common ancestor, what is it? We never hear about those, only how many years divergent everything else is.
• We see changes in nature today before our very eyes. Yes, we discussed that earlier. A reasonable person would be inclined to agree that those changes could produce enumerable species but there is no evidence we see today that goes beyond small adaptive changes within the species line.
• Fossil record? This shows stasis, not gradualistic changes that Darwin said must fill the valleys and lake beds of the world. A second problem is examination of the fossils again, is inference, and opinion, not comparable facts.

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Ok, so what do you do now that the evidence is in opposition to the hypothesis? Gould continues;
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

So, nobody is disputing the fossil record does not show a gradual transition of life. In fact, another theory that has sprung from this stasis is a that evolution has long states of stasis followed by rapid speciation events that are too fast to have been recorded in the fossil record. Now we have the lack of evidence being used as evidence.​

• Experimentation, has produced micro changes not major changes. Decades of work has produced little in the way of any changes. You will always hear the poster children, resistant bacteria, finch beaks, and moth color being used to support the major change faction, but in reality, they are only adaptive changes. After decades of fruit fly experiments science has only produced healthy normal fruit flies, sick abnormal fruit flies, and dead ones. There simply is no experimental evidence for anything other than micro-evolution. This includes the flavor of the month, nylon eating bacteria, which doesn't eat nylon but breaks down nylon contaminated water. For those who are unfamiliar with nylon, it was modeled on the chemistry structure of a natural protein very close to what this particular bacteria eats. The ability to digest it shows a degrading of its genome not new information.

There you have it. All the "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" that makes you stupid not to believe you and that carrot you are eating came from the same ancestor.