The Evolution Myth

[jhnbrbr]

Hi Andrew
I was actually asking a much simpler question:

Do you share Robert's view that no species has ever become extinct in the whole history of the world?

Since you refer to extinction of species in your latest post, can I take it that you do not agree with Robert on this point?

Regards, John.

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Andrew
I was actually asking a much simpler question:

Do you share Robert's view that no species has ever become extinct in the whole history of the world?

Since you refer to extinction of species in your latest post, can I take it that you do not agree with Robert on this point?

Regards, John.

Hi John,

but I think I have actually answered this question. I don't see any reason why it can not happen, and I am sure that MAN CAN make the species extinct. If your question is - whether it had already ACTUALLY happen in the known history - then sorry , I don't know. In this case you will ask for the concrete examples , and as you have seen on the example of a pigeon, the case is not quite that simple. One will have to prove then, whether it was actually the species that was made extinct, or if it was only a certain population. The ( almost completely fulfilled ) extinction of a syberian ( ussurian ) tiger, for examle , does not mean the extinction of the species "tiger". I have read that in this case, there were plans to import tigers from India, which would then interbreed with the ussurian ( which are really only few now ) and so the population can be restored.

The fact, that there is a certain disagreement on - what can be actually defined as species - makes the matter not easier, right?

So, if you have an evidence of species which were already definitively and finally made extinct - fine, as mentioned, I don't see why this must be impossible. But I myself don't have any examples.

Regards,
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Hi there John and Andrew,

I notice that a front page article has appeared this month in the journal 'New Scientist'. You might be interested in its title. It's called, 'Why Darwin was wrong on the Tree of Life'. And, once again, it's an admission that evolution science, so-called, is in a state of total confusion on its own teachings. But instead of abandoning their theory that organic evolution MUST have happened they are now trying to make another version of the same theory. It's simply unthinkable to them that evolution has never actually happened. So they go round and round in circles, forever.

Certainly, the simplest and most obvious starting point is the species. Do species exist ? They do. They really exist. In fact, laws of nature apply to them. The laws of heredity. Now, this sober news that species really exist as objective realities has finally dawned on the evolutionist after decades of avoiding the obvious.

Since species exist we might look at the history of their definition. Early researchers such as Linnaeus and John Ray believed a species could cross only within its own species. And they based this on practical observation. After all species DO cross with others of the same species. But as time has passed it has become clear that, in fact, species can also cross with at least some species of the group to which they are genetically affiliated - the group today called the genus. And the genus really exists. It's not a man-made idea. These discoveries were flatly contradicted by Darwin and others who viewed species as mere labels of convenience.

All I am suggesting is that the genus is the context within which we finally arrive at a definition of species which is accurate. So accurate that we may eventually be able to know exactly how many species belong to a given genus. And may be able to know also the position within the genus which a given species actually occupies. Thus definining the species within the context of its genus, this being a dynamic group to which it belongs and from which the complex relationships and inter-relationships of species may be very accurately understood and even predicted.

So that 'every seed bringing forth after its own kind' is understood to mean that every species is able (and always was) to breed only according to rules which govern the genus (and never outside of it). Those rules being understood by recognising each species occupies and has always occupied a unique, fixed and permanent position within its genus, from which (and because of which) its unique breeding characteristics within the genus are explained and even predicted accurately.

So the genus is a delicate and dynamic living structure of inter-relationships whose members neither increase nor decrease since they are integral parts of a living, dynamic group of which they are all vital members. We cannot decrease their actual number any more than we can remove parts of a computer or an organism. For the genus itself is the context within which species are understood.

Seen in this way I doubt any species has been made extinct. And the closer we examine this subject the more we see evidence that although populations may suffer extinction the species itself (and its genus) survive such localised extinctions. And so the permanence of species (and the end of evolution theory) seems, to me, inevitable and, instead, we have a fuller, more accurate, and more wonderful understanding of the permanence of nature and the marvellous inter-relationships of all species within their genus. The final proof of which is that we can, as did Mendeleev with the Periodic Table of the Elements, know and even predict the existence and the characteristics of certain species which are not even yet discovered. As Mendeleev was able to predict (in advance of their discovery) chemical elements that still awaited discovery in his time.

So too the species. And, if correct, such an elegant and simple thing would represent the end of evolution theory, so-called.

Here is the above mentioned article -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...fe.html?page=1

Regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Robert,

thank you for enlightening the subject one more time!

I have thought a bit on this topic once again, so this post can be seen as an extention of my last one.

I go back to the example of an extinct species John has posted - it was the Passenger Pigeon. My zoological knowledge is of course only basical, but Passenger Pigeon still sounds more like a variation for me. Kinda like "siamese cat" and "persian cat". These animals are fully interbreedable with each other, can produce offspring etc., that is , they both represent the same species "cats". Right? Then, was the passenger pigeon interbreedable with other pigeons? If yes, we can talk, at best, of an extinction of a special variety of pigeons, or of a certain population. The species "pigeon" is obviously still there.

Let us, at last, define, how man can make the species extinct. Coala can be a good example. It is unique, exotic, it lives only in Australia and can not obviously migrate from there.

So, imagine the fur of coala was extremely valuable, and Australians would purposefully hunt down all coalas they could find. It would be a hard job, even if we know that coalas can't fly , can't escape extremely fast, would not likely hide themselves etc. Still, you would need to check out the whole bush to find out the last coala. Then, one have to kill all coalas in each and every one world zoo. Only after it one can speak of the full extinction of the species coala. As said, it is - theoretically - possible. Practically, I am not sure, if such an event had ever taken place.

Regards,
Andrew

[jhnbrbr]

Hi Andrew,

So, you are sticking with Robert on this one? Can you not both see how inconsistent your position is? To agree that at this particular moment in time a number of species do face a threat of extinction, but not to accept that in the long history of life on earth a significant number of other species must actually have succumbed to the threat. You both complain about the lack of a precise definition for "species", but isn't the truth of the matter that you rely heavily on this alleged lack of a definition? It is very convenient for you. Whatever example I may give you of an extinct creature -passenger pigeon, dodo, mammoth, brontosaurus - you will simply say "Ah yes, but enough research would show that it wasn't actually a species."

Now, I'm sure you are right when you say the interpretation of "species" is somewhat subjective. (I believe Darwin said as much himself, for which he was lampooned by Robert!) I can see a parallel between the word "species" and the word "invention". How does someone working at the patent office decide whether an idea is genuinely a new invention, or merely a variation on an old invention? It's hard to imagine such a process could ever be fully defined, it will always be subjective to some extent. The same must be true about deciding whether an organism is a new species or a variation on an old one. But if it comes to that, no word is ever fully defined because every word is defined in terms of other words. Words are defined by the way we collectively use them.

When Robert says a single species can exist in lots of different forms that is a gross exaggeration. A species can have variations, it is true, but generally uniformity is the very thing which makes a species a species! What sort of mad world would it be if we had systems of classifying things which took lots of different things and classified them as being the same?

Come along gentlemen! You can't have it both ways. If you wish to use the generally accepted (albeit slightly subjective) interpretation of "species" then you will have to accept that things like the passenger pigeon and the brontosaurus are regarded as species. If you have some private definition of "species" you should share it with us. (But it's no use saying something vague like "the species is a fixed position within the genus". You must instead explain how, if i were to bring you two organisms, you would decide whether they belonged to the same or different species.) Finally, if it is really your opinion that no adequate definition of "species" exists at the present time, then you must stop using the word, and admit that everything you have so far said on the subject is meaningless.

Regards, John

[Robert Newman]

John,

It's not good to argue merely for the sake of it. I accept the possibility that a million icebergs may arrive in Times Square, New York or in Trafalgar Square in London by tomorrow morning. Or any number of possibilities. But I do not believe this will happen because there is no evidence of it occuring. Since you are saying species extinction has already happened, many times, isn't the onus on you yourself to present a shred of evidence to us it has actually occurred ? Ever ?

Common sense says we cannot prove a negative. Again, the onus is on you to prove species extinction HAS happened. It's not on others to prove it has not. Isn't that true ? Can you not agree this IS the sensible approach ?

Thirdly, you already accept species ARE being defined subjectively and always have been, by none other than the teachers of evolution theory. Which is precisely the problem. Why not see the crucial importance of this fact and see where it leads you ?

You write -

'You must instead explain how, if I were to bring you two organisms, you would decide whether they belonged to the same or different species'

Well !! How simple ! We decide whether two organisms are of the same or different species first by their ability/inability to breed with other other members of the genus to which they belong. Genetics already shows us whether they are of the same genus. Isn't that true ?

Finally, it's definitely not my view no adequate definition of the species exists. The opposite is true. A definition was suggested here on species only yesterday.

A species is defined as a living organism which can be shown to occupy a fixed, permanent and unique position within the genus of which it is a member.

The failure to define species with accuracy is that of evolutionists themselves as has been proved over and over here on this thread. They (evolutionists) are the ones who are highly subjective on species and who have confused themselves on this basic and fundamental issue. Read the statements of Darwin on species definition to see this fact proved. Shall I post them here again ?


Regards

Robert

[jhnbrbr]

Robert

You're right - it isn't good to argue merely for the sake of it, but nor is it good to let error go unchallenged! I've done my utmost to convince you that your position on extinction is not logical, but I don't seem to be making much headway! We shall have to agree to differ, as this must be my last post for a while as I must do some real work to avoid financial extinction. However, I shall allow myself the luxury of firing a few parting shots before I go ...

(i) You are mixing up possibility and probability. It is possible but highly improbable that a million icebergs will arrive in Times Square. It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

(ii) Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

(iii) You claim that modern genetics discredits evolutionary theory, but in the New Scientist article you referred to in which various experts on molecular genetics express their opinion, the debate is only about the precise patterns in which genetic information has been distributed. There is no suggestion that evolution itself is discredited, nor that the history of life on earth was not characterised by constant change.

(Andrew - I think you will find that you need to refer to the latin name, rather than the common name, to determine the species!)

I must go. Goodbye.

[Robert Newman]

Robert

You're right - it isn't good to argue merely for the sake of it, but nor is it good to let error go unchallenged! I've done my utmost to convince you that your position on extinction is not logical, but I don't seem to be making much headway! We shall have to agree to differ, as this must be my last post for a while as I must do some real work to avoid financial extinction. However, I shall allow myself the luxury of firing a few parting shots before I go ...

(i) You are mixing up possibility and probability. It is possible but highly improbable that a million icebergs will arrive in Times Square. It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

(ii) Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

(iii) You claim that modern genetics discredits evolutionary theory, but in the New Scientist article you referred to in which various experts on molecular genetics express their opinion, the debate is only about the precise patterns in which genetic information has been distributed. There is no suggestion that evolution itself is discredited, nor that the history of life on earth was not characterised by constant change.

(Andrew - I think you will find that you need to refer to the latin name, rather than the common name, to determine the species!)

I must go. Goodbye.

Well, thank you John. Since your letter is in 3 parts so is my reply. In Part 1 you write on species extinction -

It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

Great. Can you please demonstrate this fact to us ? With some evidence able to survive cross-examination ? We are still waiting and I note that, so far, none has been presented so far. Especially since you say it is 'more than probable'.

In Part 2 you write -

Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

It is true some species only reproduce asexually. But in such a case we already know they are species. Don't we ? And we already know they are members of a genus. Unless, of course, you think differently ?

In Part 3 you describe the contents of the article in 'New Scientist'. Yes, it clearly illustrates the dogma that 'evolution must have happened, therefore we are still looking for the mechanism by which it happened'. If this does not reveal the circular argument of 'evolution science' what does ?

How about questioning the assumption on which the entire theory itself is based ? Seeing, after all, the actual evidence we have of species is that their existence is and always was regulated by none other than the laws of heredity. And seeing that, to date, Darwinism has spectacularly failed to prove its case, over and over again.

We've surely reached a point where one must ask, 'Can evolutionists think beyond their own dogmas to arrive at an understanding that is truly consistent with the discoveries of science' ? The evidence of the past century and more is one of constant and embarrasing retreat from their own dogmas. Punctuated by baseless and often fraudulent claims.

Let's start with species. Which side is being objective and which is not on them as real things in living nature? Which side is accepting the discoveries of science on them instead of imposing on the subject assumptions for which there is no evidence and for which there never has been ?

I think you have an answer. Frankly, it's the 'RIRO' syndrome - 'Rubbish In, Rubbish Out'. But that is not honest. And this lack of academic integrity is a striking characteristic of 'evolution science'.

It doesn't matter how long it takes for evolutionary geneticists and zoologists, botanists and other researchers to finally realise and appreciate the phenomenal stability and permanence of all species in nature and for bankrupt and uselessly subjective definitions on species to be consigned to the dustbin of failed ideas. Nor did it matter to Mendel that his discoveries of fundamental laws were shameful suppressed and ignored for decades, by evolutionists themselves, worldwide. The catastrophic collapse of Darwinism has happened in a steady series of failures and is now a plain fact. Admitted even by pro-evolutionary scientific journals.

Let's move on from such a disastrous record. Let's start with an accurate and verifiable definition of species - something resisted at every step by evolutionists themselves. And by nobody else.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hello gentlemen!

well, it seems that another courageous one is facing the truth! kidding. hang on, jhnbrbr, if you like to bang your head.

i wanted to let you all know that i didn't feel bad at all when i quit this thread some days ago or bitter either in any way. just a little scared. despite the sometimes quite condescending notes, i really have learned many things. i agree that when one has been interested and studying in a certain field, he likes to share his knowledge, as solid as it can be, with anyone who wants to get started with it. sometimes i myself have the greatest difficulties not to "lecture" youngest people anout music or any other matter of which i'm fond.

Corno: if i had to go back to school, which one would you suggest i choose? any french university? no, they will tell me lies only. maybe i'll have to buy a ticket for the undoubtedly beautiful Kansas State. i'm only half-kidding here because i'm very attracted by the united states, as a great country to visit.


what follows is a little recapitulating text written by a clearly "anti-creationist" (not me, then).
i find it is a good sumup, though it won't give you all the answers and facts you are fond of. at least, some concepts are explained and detailed. this one guy is too categoric for my taste but i nevertheless and generally agree with what he says.

"People who think creationism is true because that's what the Bible says.
Before I go any further I would like to ask the reader to consider the following questions:
Do you believe that the earth is flat? ( Daniel 4:7-8 )
Do you believe that the sun and all of the other planets and stars orbit the Earth? ( Psalms. 19:1-6; Joshua 10:12-14 )
Do you support slavery? ( Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44)
Do you kill people who eat shellfish? ( Leviticus 11:10)
Do you kill people who work on Sunday? ( Exodus 35:2)
Do you stone your children to death if they disobey you? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21 )
If you answered “no” to any of these questions, then it is clear that you do not believe in everything the Bible has to say. You are admitting that the Bible can be wrong. If the Bible can be wrong about so many things, then how do you know that the Bible isn't wrong about creationism?
The Bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time where knowledge and society were completely different from these of today. It is only logical that as our knowledge of science has improved, scientific beliefs once held as true are disproved. Any attempts to support creationism using Biblical quotes are pure hypocrisy.
If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.
People who don't know science
Arguments from people who don't know science often attack evolution using one of the following statements:
“But it's just a theory …”
“It cannot be proven …”
“It requires just as much faith as religion …”
“Evolution is a religion …”
The first two arguments reflect a lack of knowledge of basic scientific terms. The non-scientific definition of the term ‘theory' is that of an unproven, untested idea. In science, this is known as a hypothesis. Only when the hypothesis has been supported by numerous, repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments can it be called a Theory. The argument, “It's just a theory”, if accepted against evolution, could be accepted in claiming that the Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Electromagnetic Waves, the Theory of Limits and the Germ Theory of Disease are all also false.
Anyone using this argument is either ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The claim that “It can't be proven” also reflects a lack of knowledge in basic scientific principles. There are only two areas of knowledge where a definite “proof” is attainable. Those areas are Mathematics and Logic. Evolution is neither a mathematical concept nor is it a product of strict symbolic logic. Therefore it isn't possible to “prove” evolution; however, the same applies to all other areas of science. No science can ever be proven. Just because it has not been proven doesn't mean that there is a lack of supporting evidence. As I will discuss below, countless experiments executed and repeated worldwide have provided much supporting evidence to the hypotheses made by evolution. Evolution can even be seen in action through short term experiments (with fruit flies), short term observations (the peppered moth), long term observations (analogous structures, the biochemistry link between humans and primates) and direct digital simulation (Avida and other evolutionary algorithms).
Once again, the claim that “Evolution can't be proved” can only be supported by those ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The last two arguments are ridiculous in both their inspiration and execution. Their idea is that in order to believe in evolution you also need faith, so evolution is similar in its support to creationism. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Remember that Creationism has no evidence whatsoever, and relies exclusively on faith. In contrast the theory of evolution was based strictly on observed evidence. There is no aspect of evolution that is not supported extensively by scientific observation. The basic premise of all science is that only ideas which are supported by fact, rather than faith, can be considered a theory.
Any attempt to claim that faith is required to accept evolution is a desperate attempt to discredit evolution by those without the most cursory knowledge of the scientific method.
People who don't know evolution
There is a myriad of arguments against evolution that are based on a fallacious understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is or false scientific knowledge. I will not attempt to summarize them all here but will examine them one by one.
Argument 1:
Because we haven't found any transitional fossils (“missing-links” to the uninformed) the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
This argument is wrong in two separate ways. First is the claim that no transitional fossils have been found. In fact, 21 cases of transitional fossils have been found. Any individual pushing this sort of “argument” is conveniently ignoring an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Secondly the deduction that the entire Theory of Evolution is based on the finding of missing-link fossils is one based on an incredulous lack of knowledge about paleontology and the theory of evolution. According to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, change is not gradual. Rather, it happens in bursts, with entire new species forming in time period of perhaps 100 generations. Now the fossil record is clearly incomplete; only 7 tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been found, and this species existed for approximately 20 million years. Therefore it is only logical that there are many transitional species that didn't exist long enough to form fossils. In fact the presence of the transitional fossils that we have found indicates that transitional species are actually extremely common.
Argument 2:
Microevolution is different from macroevolution
This is the standard type of argument made after dogma has been ripped to shreds by both logic and scientific evidence. In effect, this argument attempts to draw a mysterious line between “micro” and “macro” evolution, claiming that microevolution is true but rejecting macroevolution. This argument is a classic example of the ad hoc fallacy where an argument is added in order to explain obvious mistakes in an original argument. In this case the original argument is that evolution doesn't happen at all. As it became painfully obvious that evolution does happen, this ad-hoc explanation was added. Even so, this ad-hoc argument still fails the test of logic and science.
If one uses the biological term describing macroevolution then this argument is patently false. Biologists define macroevolution as being a synonym with speciation, that is, the evolution of a new species. Speciation has been documented hundreds of times in the past 100 years. If a single century of scientific observation can show hundreds of new species evolving then it is absurd to claim that the diversity of life we see today cannot be the product of billions of years of evolution.
In order to avoid the obvious error highlighted above creationists have came up with their own definition of the word macroevolution. This definition works out to be evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. Even if the clear ad-hoc nature of this argument is ignored, there is still a clear logical reason why massive evolutionary changes have yet to be observed: Evolution takes time. It makes no sense to expect dramatic changes (creation of entirely new orders of species) in a few hundred years of modern scientific observation. But it makes perfect sense to take the current evidence and conclude that large scale changes have happened in the past. Small changes have been observed, and there is absolutely no reason, logical or scientific, why small changes accmulated over time cannot become large changes. Secondly, analysis of the fossil record, physiology, biochemistry and DNA all point to the same nested tree hierarchy of species that is exactly as evolution predicts.
This list could get a lot longer, but there really is no point to pointing out the same errors in logic and scientific evidence again and again. Any more arguments for creationism or against evolution that are emailed to me will be posted, along with my response.
People who think creationism is science
Ever since the 1960's, there has been a surge in support for so called “creation science” or “intelligent design theory”. I will attack these mockeries of science in two manners. First I will discuss the general validity of calling any form of creationism as science. Then I will examine particular claims made by proponents of both ideas.
For those who believe that creation science or intelligence design theory is not just religion given a false coating of science, I ask you to consider the following list of facts:
• No scientific evidence for creation science or intelligent design theory has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
• All “creation-scientists” happen be Christian
• All organizations supporting creation-science are Christian organizations
• Those same organizations force all of their members to sign pledges that say they will believe in Biblical creationism even if the evidence is against them.
So, creation-science has never had a scientific article published and all “creation-scientists” happen to be Christians working for Christian organizations. It doesn't take a great mind to conclude that creation-science is really no science at all. Instead it is a covert attempt to hide religious beliefs as science. Further more creationism cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed occurances through a process using natural laws that can make positive predictions supported by evidence. Creationism does not explain using natural laws, nor does it make any positive predictions. Therefore it cannot be considered a scientific theory.
Although it is quite clear that the whole idea of “Creation-Science” is ridiculous I will examine several of their arguments for creationism and against evolution in detail:
Argument:
“Humans are fundamentally different from other animals”
Again, this argument is wrong in multiple ways. I will look at the claim of human “uniqueness” in three different ways; the descent from apes, the mental capacity of humans and the morality aspect.
Claim 1
It is ridiculous to believe that humans, who are so different from other animals could have descended from a common animal ancestor.
Not only is this argument a text-book example of the argument from incredulity fallacy it is also entirely incorrect. Humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 98.4% of our DNA with gorillas. The entire difference in genetic code is accounted for by the functional parts of our DNA. The non-functional pairs of our DNA segments are exactly the same. The only way that this similarity could exist is if all three species share a common ancestor.
Claim 2:
Humans are the only species capable of language, tool-using, self-awareness, creativity, etc.
There is only one word that describes this claim:
WRONG
I'll go through each of the components of the claim individually and point out the error:
Language: chimpanzees and gorillas are both capable of learning the English language. However, their vocal ability is limited and so they communicate through either sign-language or the arrangement of letters and words on a computer screen or magnetic board. However they demonstrate full understanding of grammar and composition and even teach language to their children.
Tool-using: In the wild, chimpanzees use a complicated technique involving shaped twigs to catch termites. This behavior is not instinctive, and is in fact taught by parents to children in the wild. Secondly, chimpanzees have been taught to construct stone tools and use them to cut ropes.
Self-awareness: All language using primates are self-aware and can identify themselves in photographs and categorize themselves separately from all others of the same species.
Creativity: Chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants all show clear elements of creativity through their paintings. In particular, gorillas paint differently based on their mood and are capable of painting landscapes that are products of their imaginations.
Claim 3:
Humans are the only species on Earth capable of morality.
Again this claim completely ignores a wide body of scientific evidence. There is much evidence to show that other species, especially primates do in fact have morality. In one experiment chimps were given a task, then rewarded with a cucumber slice. However, if they witnessed another chimp doing the same task but getting a grape instead (a better treat) they would refuse the cucumber slice and even throw the cucumber at the researchers. In another experiment a group of young chimps held up the feeding of the whole pack of chimps. The next day, that group was attacked by the rest of the pack, in apparent retribution. Morality is a trait that is evolutionarily advantageous for any social animal, because it allows members of a group to co-operate more effectively. Therefore it is only logical that such morality has evolved over time in a variety of species.
Argument:
The odds of life forming randomly are 1 in 10^(50,000) . Based on this number, a Creator must be involved.
In these types of calculations there are often elementary errors. Some common ones are:
• Assuming that the simplest life today (bacteria) are identical to the very first life. This is ridiculous, bacteria today are products of billions of years of evolution. A similar analogy would be examining a modern day fighter jet, claiming that its too complicated to be designed all at one time and then claiming that its miraculous appearance could only be attributed to divine intervention.
• Assuming that the current form of life is the only form of life. An example of this sort of calculation is someone claims that to form a 20 amino-acid protein the odds of forming it are one in 20^20 . While the odds of forming a particular sequence are in fact 1 in 20^20, this has no relation at all to the odds of life forming. There are many different arrangements of amino acids that would result in a functional protein.
Conclusion
Creationism is not science. It is not supported by evidence. It is not supported by logic.
Evolution is the product of the scientific process that has ushered in our current age of information and discovery. Evolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence. Evolution is the logical outcome of open-minded thinking.
People who insist on supporting creationism despite all the evidence against it are those who are left blind and ignorant by their religious beliefs.
I'd love to hear any arguments for or against evolution and/or creationism. (theeyeoftruth@gmail.com)


PEACE, take care, whatever you think.

[jhnbrbr]

Welcome back, Sunwaiter!

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

Since you live in Paris I doubt that you would thrive in Kansas. If you're serious about studying a Life Science such as Biology, Microbiology, Genetics or another suitable discipline in a very cosmopolitain yet beautiful setting, I would heartily recommend this University in the following link:

http://www.washington.edu/discovery/about.html

If you can matriculate into the Seattle campus of this University you would undoubtedly thrive very well. Their Music Department is one of the better in the Nation. Of course, there are other excellent Schools like University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore but the gentler weather climate in Seattle might be more appealing to you.

Yes, they do get alot of rain in Seattle. The University of Texas in Austin is a premier research School. Then of course there are the Ivy Leagues like Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown and others.

Choices, choices, choices...Oh which one to pick?! Take some time to read up on some that I have mentioned. I'm sure there are chat forums where you can read and dialogue with graduates who share about their experiences at different Universities.

What? You couldn't see yourself studying at the Sorbonne or how about the University in Grenoble?

Cheerio,

CD

[sunwaiter]

so you're really willing to save me from the evilutionist propanganda... because france is lost already! no matter which university we're talking about. you would talk about a "consensus" on genetics, despite all the research that is currently made.

this very university for which i work ( versailles-saint-quentin) provides genetics lessons and research, and the man who's in charge of the genetics sector is the one i quoted earlier, Jean Louis Serre.

and unfortunately plane tickets are way too expensive. discovering the truth has a cost. and i also have to try to keep my job here... but, yeah, there is internet, i'm already using it. thanks for the informations. you sure know what i was heading to when i asked what university to choose. maybe i will be an immatriculated student when i'm an old man.

i know it is wise to look elsewhere to find good counterpoints to what we already have, and i will keep my eyes, ears and mind open wide, but sometimes we have to use what Robert once called "common sense".

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

If you were to matriculate as a foreign student at an American University, you can get a job on campus and a dorm room, you can get scholarships and grants. There are foreign students from probably even more humble circumstances than you who are studying at American Universities. Most American Universities fall all over themselves to provide educational and financial incentives to foreign students who see themselves as economically blocked from attending. The Universities dictum: no economic hardship is too difficult to accomodate.

Cheerio,

CD

Ps: To seek and ask about educational and tuition assistance at an American University is free - you'll be overwhelmingly surprised at the opportunities available.

Of course, you can also study at the University in St. Petersburg or in Moscow. They have excellent programs - Many students arrive from the poorer parts of Africa to avail themselves of the educational opportunities.

[Andrew Roussak]

Dear Sunwaiter,

I am glad to see you here once again.

I was also happy to notice this:

what follows is a little recapitulating text written by a clearly "anti-creationist" (not me, then).

because I would hate it , to know that you could be so narrow minded as the "anti-creationist" you have quoted. I would be, still , very interested to know, which / how much of his views do you share. One does not necessary need to copy / paste literally everything which is out there in Internet.

I would also advice you to read the following - the link was posted just today by Robert, I guess you did not notice it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...fe.html?page=1

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATIONISM - it is only the state of affairs of ET for today, 23/01/2009. Please read and understand what does it mean. If the evolution is not being seen as a tree ( as for today ) , then , obviously , the entire trend upwards is not being supported BY THE OFFICIAL ET anymore, as far as I can understand it. It looks like many want-to-be-evolutionists are still defending the bastion, long abandoned by the leading scientists themselves.

I have from the very beggining said - my point is not that everything what ID says should be definitely right. My point is, the official ET doctrine is wrong. I have once posted here the link to the theory of the Mitochondrial Eve - it is an evolutionary theory, not creational. But it shows, how close do the evolutionists come sometimes to the creationists' views, even without acknowledging it.

Well, I have of course no idea, which points of the quotated "anti-creationist" do you , personally, support - I hope, at least, not all of them.

Still I want to comment some actually funny episodes.

So, creation-science has never had a scientific article published and all “creation-scientists” happen to be Christians working for Christian organizations.

I hope this "anti-evolutionist" lives in Europe ( or in US ) , so he has to know at least the basics of the European history. The science itself was born in medieval closters. All somewhat important European Universities were founded and sponsored by Church. Up to the Darwin's era, the science was predominantly Christian ( go Wikipedia , check out the bios of Newton, Leibniz, Dekart, Galileo etc. ). The freedom of speech itself is a virtue of the European Christian culture. Imagine a discussion like this one in a Soviet Union or in Hitlers' Germany. Imagine the buses with "There is possibly no God.." on the streets of Cairo or Abu-Dhabi. If you don't have any respect for this culture, please at least acknowledge the facts.

• All “creation-scientists” happen be Christian
• All organizations supporting creation-science are Christian organizations

Thís is a damn deep observation. Both thumbs up!! If these people were born and grown up in USA and Europe, which confession should they have then? Should they be buddhists? What about the evolutionist scientists, who are they? Where do they - to their most part - come from?

Hey!! Maybe this guy is simply an undercover Al-Kaeda agent?

First is the claim that no transitional fossils have been found. In fact, 21 cases of transitional fossils have been found.

I would like to have a couple of names posted here. If one of these 21 fossils is called "Archaeopterix", then you should speak about 20, not 21. Btw - 21 is not pretty much, concerning there are about 2 mln species out there?

• Assuming that the simplest life today (bacteria) are identical to the very first life. This is ridiculous, bacteria today are products of billions of years of evolution. A similar analogy would be examining a modern day fighter jet, claiming that its too complicated to be designed all at one time and then claiming that its miraculous appearance could only be attributed to divine intervention.

I have read that exactly the fossils of bacteria look pretty identical to the bacteria being observed now. But, the poster supposes the "proto-bacteria" was a pretty simple thing - back to the spoon of jelly ( Haeckel )? Why had the Miller-Urey-53 experiment failed then? If the "proto-bacteria" was obviously that simple, what was the need for the PANSPERMIA and Life Law theory ?
For the jet-analogy ( FUNNY!!!!!!! FUNNY!!!!! ) - that is, a modern fighter jet can create itself through a multi-step process without any participation of intellect ( OMG, Sunwaiter, WHERE ON EARTH HAVE YOU FOUND HIM????? ))))?

Again, this argument is wrong in multiple ways. I will look at the claim of human “uniqueness” in three different ways; the descent from apes, the mental capacity of humans and the morality aspect.

People who say that the humans are nothing more than advanced apes do always make me laugh! There are lots of remarkable stuff in this post I simply don't want to comment. Still, this one:

Language: chimpanzees and gorillas are both capable of learning the English language. However, their vocal ability is limited and so they communicate through either sign-language or the arrangement of letters and words on a computer screen or magnetic board. However they demonstrate full understanding of grammar and composition and even teach language to their children.

I can post a quotation from A Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins claims the science will never be able to explain the mystery of a human language. No matter what the poster may think of Dawkins - I believe, a professor of biology can be somewhat responsible for his own words, especially concerning the position he takes among the evolutionists.

Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say?

Microevolution is different from macroevolution

Exactly. He still has the moments of enlightment sometimes.

According to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, change is not gradual. Rather, it happens in bursts, with entire new species forming in time period of perhaps 100 generations

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought out to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and the abscence of the observable acts of evolution presently. This theory is being attacked by the "gradual" evolutionists like Dawkins no less than by the creationists. Which means there is no unity among the evolutionists also. Both gradual and punctual models do not provide the mechanism of evolution ( this is the question which Dawkins failed to answer on the video posted by Robert ).

Awww, feel myself tired....Sunwaiter, thanks for the interesting reading, hope you are being open-minded enough and critical not only to what Robert and your humble servant are saying Please don't forget to answer my question - why do we humans wear the clothes?

Best regards, have a great weekend!
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Thanks for your long message Sunwaiter.

It must have taken some courage to take on the bible ! But it's a shame you do this without actually understanding what it teaches ! Why, you don't even know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, it seems !

You write -

If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.

In reply -

I don't believe the bible is wrong in any way. Nor have you shown otherwise. But you clearly believe so, Sunwaiter. In fact you want us to believe you know more of the cosmos and of life's history than the Author of the Bible. The very Creator of the Universe. At least, that's what you want us to believe. Isn't it ?

You also say -

Any attempt to support creationism using Biblical quotes are pure hypocrisy.

In reply -

Any attempt to support evolution theory using Darwin's 'Evolution of Species' (1859) is not hypocrisy but amazing ignorance of the actual discoveries of modern science. Belief in creation is a product of faith. Haven't your heard this fact before ? The simple truth is the findings of modern science do not support 'evolution theory'. This has been repeatedly said to you all of your life. And it will be said to you all of the rest of your life also.

The simple truth is the vast majority of major discoveries made throughout the entire history of science (in virtually every single field) were made by men who DID believe in the accuracy and reliability of the bible. Isn't that fact important ? Time for you to realise 'evolution science' hasn't even survived its own absurdities. So much for your version of 'modern science'. Darwinism has collapsed.

But such is the state of your 'education' you say -

'No science can ever be proven'.

What !!!!!

OK Sunwaiter, let's see. It is scientifically proved the heart pumps blood around the body. Isn't it ? Please tell us if you disagree. Humans need oxygen, water and food to live. That's a proven fact too. I am also guilty of saying it's a scientific fact (proved by science) that fire burns hair. And that we cannot naturally breathe underwater. This too is an indisputable fact. Water consists of molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This too is a plain and proven scientific fact. And it's a fact Charles Darwin knew less of species (let alone their history) than the average modern high school biology student. All these things are true and they have in common the fact they are all scientifically proved. Any comment ?

So where does that leave your bizzare idea that no science can be proved ?

I'll move quickly on from this display of your real lack of education to your statement that -

'All creation scientists happen to be Christian'.

No. Not so. Albert Einstein believed in creation also. He was not a Christian. But yes, the greatest scientists of the past centuries have been Christians. Let's name a few. Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Kepler, well, the list is virtually endless. Please give names of major scientists over the past 500 years or so who didn't believe in creation ? Just a few. Any suggestions ? You are frankly showing a real lack of education in saying such things. 'Evolution science', however, is nothing but a game for delinquent grown ups and should never be confused with science. It's leading exponents are sponsoring atheist campaigns and can't answer simple questions on their own theory. Why, even its own journals are openly admitting its failure.

But why argue with something already as clear as daylight ?

Of course I respect your right to believe as you please. You can believe things a Christian person laughs at because they learned them also at kindergarten and have learned better as they became adults. But if you ever wish to make a real contribution in science may I suggest you first learn to humble yourself to truths greater even than your own understanding. For, as Shakespeare (and many others) have said -

'There are more things in heaven and in earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy'.

Regards

Robert