The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Darwin’s Vigilantes, Richard Sternberg, and Conventional Pseudoscience
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I am sorry. I admit it: I am a bad person. I promise I will never write about this again. Well, sort of never. It’s just too much fun. Anyway, it’s not my fault. My childhood makes me do it. Maybe I ate lead paint.

Science is supposed to be objective study of nature, impelled by a willingness to follow the evidence impartially wherever it leads. For the most part it works this way. In the case of emotionally charged topics, it does not. For example, racial intelligence, cognitive differences between the sexes, and weaknesses in Darwinian evolution. Scientists who do perfectly good research in these fields, but arrive at forbidden conclusions, will be hounded out of their fields, fired from academic and research positions, blackballed from employment, and have their careers destroyed.

A prime example is Richard Sternberg, a Ph.D. in biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. He is not a lightweight. From 2001-2007 he was staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2001-2007 a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

Hell broke loose when he authorized in 2004 the publication, in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an organ of the Smithsonian Institution, of a peer-reviewed article, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher taxonomic Categories by Stephen Meyer. It dealt with the possibility of intelligent design as an explanation of aspects of Darwinism not explainable by the conventional theory. This is a serious no-no among the guardians of conventional Darwinism, the political correctness of science.

At the Smithsonian, he was demoted, denied access to specimens he needed in his work, transferred to work under a hostile supervisor, and lost his office space. In the ensuring storm of hatred, two separate federal investigations concluded that he had been made the target of malicious treatment.

Predictably, the establishment dismisses Meyer’s idea ass “pseudoscience”:

Wikipedia: The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the pseudo-scientific concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

Pseudoscience? Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence. For most readers this assertion will seem as delusional as saying that the sun revolves around the earth. This is because we have been indoctrinated since birth in the Darwinian myth. But look at the facts.

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans. Do we know of what those oceans consisted? (Know, not speculate, hope, it stands to reason, must have been, everybody says so). No, we do not. Do we know of what those oceans would have had to consist to bring about life? No. Do we even know what we think evolved? No. Has the chance appearance of life been replicated in the laboratory? No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No. Can the chance appearance be shown to be mathematically probable? No. Can Darwinism explain the existence of irreducibly complex structures? No. Does the fossil record, particularly of the Ediacaran and Cambrian, support Darwin? No.

Darwinism was a clever metaphysical idea formed when almost nothing was known about the matter, and imposed by impassioned supporters on a near-total lack of evidence. Should not intensely believing in something that you cannot support by observation or experiment be called pseudoscience?

The ardent of evolution, like Christians, base their creation myth from a sacred book, The Origin of Species, both resting on about as much evidence. Thereafter they assume what is to be proved. Since Darwinists posit the unchallengeable truth of their version of creation, no reason exists for questioning it. If you know it happened, then obviously it was mathematically possible. The math can be discovered later. If you know that life originated in ancient seas, then how it originated becomes a mere detail. If you know the theory is correct, then anyone who doubts must necessarily be at least wrong, and thus ignorable, and perhaps a crank or fool or lunatic.

A classic example of starting from certainty is Darwinism’s reaction to the apparent irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, though hundreds of others could be adduced. This is an immensely complex cellular organelle which would cease to function of any of its parts were removed. It could not have evolved by Darwin’s gradual changes. The Darwinians say, “Well, we aren’t sure just at the moment, but is possible that we will figure out later how it could have happened.” Yes, and it is possible that I will win three Irish Sweepstakes in a row. They are, again, saying that they know that Darwinism is correct, and therefore the evidence will be forthcoming. This is called “faith,” the belief in the unestablishable.

As a friend has written in another context, “When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction.”

Just so. A lot of highly credentialed researchers express doubts about doctrinaire Darwinism, asserting that it cannot explain many aspects of nature. What does explain them is a separate question. Why is wondering about this a firing offense?

A difficulty in conveying doubts about Neo-Darwinism (the correct name of the current theory) is that very few people, including the highly intelligent, know anything about the issue. The world is full of esoteric specialities from the decipherment of ancient Sumerian inscriptions to the neural anatomy of squids. Few will have chosen Darwin’s defects for careful study.

ORDER IT NOW

This is convenient for Darwinists as the dim will believe whatever they hear on television and the bright usually have other things to do with their brains. As the case of Mr. Sternberg shows, scientists who doubt Darwin–again, there are many–know better than to say anything.

The fury is telling. If the Darwinists could prove the many highly credentialed proponents of ID wrong, they would do so, and that would be that. If they could prove their own propositions correct, they would, and that would also be that. But they can’t (or they would have).

If you follow the controversy, you quickly see patterns. One is that the Darwinists are fiercely defensive, suggesying doubt of their own position. People seldom become infuriated at doubts of something that they believe with genuine certainty. If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.

Unfortunately for NeoDarwinism, the likelihood of confirmation diminishes with time. Year by year, the fossil record becomes less incomplete, and still the intermediates are not found. As molecular biology repidly advances, the failure to find a chemically possible chain of events that might produce life leads ever more convincingly to a simple concluseion: There isn’t one.

Publications by Richard Sternberg

 

The Fredian Occasional Latin Tour Guide!

America has some fifty-seven million residents of Latin-American descent, mostly citizens. Willy-nilly, they are part of America. Thinking that many Americans might want to know something about them, where they came from, what they do and have done, what manner of wights they be, the Occasional TourGuide will offer, occasionally, some glimpses. My purpose is not to suggest that Latin American countries are as advanced and well-governed as, say, Japan or Finland, or as dynamic as China. They are not remotely so. But neither are they the hellholes and bastions of primitivism that racilaist websites hope they are. So:

Cartagena, Colombia. I am not sure it compares unfavorably with Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and others among America’s crumbling cities. In any event, there are more things in heaven and Latin America than in all the web lout mutterings about Latin hell holes. A year or so ago Vi and I spent a month in Colombia, basing ourselves in the Candelaria district of Bogotá. This is the old city of widing alleys, backpackers (the best pople on earth), street crime, and superb restaurants: El Gato Gris, Las Brujas, One Step Up. The rest of the city has gone to sprawling parks, meseums, and skyscrapers.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 340 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rurik says:

    We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.

    how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.

    Do we know of what those oceans consisted?

    They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first ‘indigenous’ life form.

    Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

    But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

    Clue: it does.

    Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

    But where is he today?

    Exactly.

    Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

    And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a ‘scientist’.. to pretend to know how life got here..

    ..it’s just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded – to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

    We can’t know how life got here, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful “intelligent design’. That’s just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be ‘scientists’ as well.

    Science can’t ‘know’ anything that can’t be put to the test or experiment. And since it’s rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth’s environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can’t know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

    But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

    The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

    This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

    Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

    Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn’t so, doesn’t make it go away.

  2. nsa says:

    Someone named Sternberg with dual phDs from the two best known and most prestigious centers of higher knowledge and enlightenment in all of Christendom, Florida International and Binghamton U? Who could fail to be impressed?

    • Replies: @dkshaw
  3. bossel says:

    “Irreducible complexity” is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people it has to be concluded that you actually don’t care about probabilities & facts. So, it’s pretty useless trying to discuss with you.

    Orgel’s second rule applies.

    • Replies: @DH
    , @SputnikHQ
    , @GW
  4. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @DH
  5. Biff says:
    @Rurik

    Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here’s some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%.
    Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent. Ring a bell?

  6. Fred, after all these years thinking you were sane and smart as well as amusing I have to wonder because you keep on about some imagined Darwinism and avoid the key concept of natural selection whereby some variants of the living DNA bundles turn out to be more fertile than others in the given circumstances. That’s as near as you can get to having a logically necessary explanation for something we observe.

    Then you still want a place for a designer! Well make sense of that if you can.

    What do his/her/its designs tell you about the designer except that he/she isn’t any of the candidates yet invented? At least you could infer something about the Abrahamic chap, namely that YHWH didn’t like the Hebrews very much even if he was sorry that he had created the other lot at all.

  7. Okey-dokey, so evolution champs your bit? Fine, then intelligent design absolutely, positively, resolutely, undeniably, incontrovertibly must be how it was done.

    After you prove that — rather than exclaiming it must be true onaccounta because — rebuild and rewrite all biology, biochemistry, and zoology so that it conforms properly to the premise of intelligent design. Make sure the proof is rigorous, consistent, falsifiable, and that it explains everything better than evolutionary theory.

  8. @Biff

    The Hispanics are actually driving blacks out of California along with the Oakies, the Irish-Catholics, the Koreans, the Jews…and everyone else.

    No amount of territoriality helps if another race is willing to kill you.

    The problem is that just like Miami, the blacks have nowhere else to go. They are not as inclined to move to Utah.

    They are trapped and cannot learn Spanish.

    • Replies: @prusmc
    , @Biff
    , @Anon
  9. Ironically intelligent design theorists have conceded more to philosophical materialists than they realize. Philosophers since Descartes have argued that biology and machines operate according to the same principles. ID people just differ from Darwinian materialists about how biological machines came about; but they think about biology like materialists just the same.

    I don’t see what all this mental masturbation has to do with Christianity, however, because no Christian believes that machines have immaterial things in them which survive the machines’ destruction and exist forever in another realm.

    • Replies: @SamAdams
  10. utu says:

    If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.

    You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Moi
    , @Rich
  11. Logan says:
    @Dana Thompson

    The Holmes quote is a fallacy. It assumes you have assembled all possibilities and that your analysis of their impossibility is without error.

    In reality neither of these is usually the case.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  12. Dr Jordan Peterson believes God exists …

    He also argues that humans have something very much in common with lobsters which he regards as evidence of evolution..

    Maybe the two positions are not mutually exclusive?

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  13. Thanks Fred. Your commenters underline your points. Notably, the ad hominems.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  14. Thomm says:

    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little renumeration.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing.

    • Troll: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @utu
    , @peterAUS
    , @Truth
  15. DH says:
    @bossel

    Irreducible complexity” is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people

    Links please…

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  16. I thought you people were all big “Science” Boosters!

    Oh, I get it. “Selective Science Boosters.” Only when it suits you.

  17. DH says:
    @Dana Thompson

    Your reasoning is somehow flawed.

  18. Oh. Sorry I get it. You really are science boosters. And you prove it by asserting real hard.

    News flash. However it works, ntelligent design does not cut it, it doesn’t work the way Darwin said, and it doesn’t work the way you think it does.

    Hint. Lamarck.

  19. DH says:
    @Biff

    And we share 50 per cent of our genes with bananas, which are known to be slippery almost Machiavellian creatures.

  20. Hoyle’s theory is that life is anywhere in the universe, that it begins in the universe, at the lowest possible temperature, under fierce ultraviolet radiation
    Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, ‘Life on Mars ?, The case for a Cosmic Heritage ?’, Bristol 1997
    Both chemical analysis done by Japanese on a comet, and by Philea, seem to support the theory, until now.
    Then there is the phenomenon that genetic material stores experience.
    Mice that had been trained to fear a certain smell transmitted this fear by sperm.
    Fish accidentally getting into a mid African lake changed at a speed that flabbergasted biologists.
    So, I’m inclined to think that life is anywhere in the universe, and that changes in species, the word evolution to me seems to be Darwin’s concession to christian thought, homo sapiens as the highest, whatever that may be, are not random, but occur on purpose.
    How this mechanism functions, if it exists, it will take some time before we find out.

    Latin Americans nor were, nor are, stupid.
    When Pizarro saw Mexico city, he was flabbergasted.
    Nowhere in Europe at the time existed so large a city, so clean, and so well organised.
    Medieval European cities at the time were dung heaps.
    The ground level of the Dutch city of Dordrecht rose seven metres trough throwing all garbage in the streets.
    Roman cities were well organised, sewers and clean water.
    Christianity saw the body as evil, so washing was not important.
    As a result epidemics.

    A very interesting book is
    Lynn White Jr., ‘Medieval Technology and Social Change’, Oxford 1962
    The role of iron in history is hardly realised.
    S America, Africa, and the Middle East hardly had any iron.
    In England it was found galore, near coal, with easy transport over water.
    Mines needed water pumps, a coal driven pump was the beginning of the steam engine, the industrial revolution could begin.

  21. Some of y’all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.

  22. j2 says:

    Fred, thanks for this article. You are again totally correct concerning darwinism. People who have not though about it deep enough confuse darwinism with evolution. Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism as you call the present evolution theory, is a proposed explanation of evolution. Evolution happens, the given explanation does not need to be correct. There are indeed many serious gaps and problems in all forms of darwinism. The birth of life from non-life is an open problem. I looked at a simpler problem, how new clearly different protein-coding parts of a gene (i.e., differs by many mutations) can be created by mutations and selection. The problem was that a protein stops working after very few random mutations, so it must become duplicated and a duplicate becomes a pseudo-gene that accumulates many mutations, but as it is pseudo-gene it is not under selection pressure, so this mutation-selection mechanism cannot work. It can make new alleles, i.e., genes differing by a few mutations only, and screen the best by selection. In that case the mutated gene does not need to become pseudo-gene (=gene that does not work).

  23. How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
    i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?
    Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
    Does the concept of “information” have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

    Do we even know what we think evolved? No

    This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word “think”. But let me try to answer it anyway….
    Yes – we do have some ideas about what first evolved, some backed with physical evidence.
    The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth’s history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between “pre-history” and “history”.

    So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is….
    gas-guzzling microbes:

    Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
    (Published 10 June 2013)
    Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
    [...]
    Abstract

    Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws. Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
    Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms,we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day. Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

    Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life. The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

    Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:

    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

    My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself.

    • Replies: @DanFromCT
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  24. utu says:

    The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @BamBam Rubble
    , @peterAUS
  25. CBTerry says:

    ‘Predictably, the establishment dismisses Meyer’s idea ass “pseudoscience”’

    Please don’t print this, just correct that typo!

  26. utu says:
    @Thomm

    Thomm, are you making progress in solving the toilet problem in your home country?

    Even Ducks Don’t Like Indians

    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/south-asians/east-indians/

    • Replies: @Thomm
  27. m___ says:

    No, Neo-Darwinism does not allow for replication experiments. Thus one could suggest it is an abstract idea, a suggestion, no more.

    That points to other thoughts, how does Neo-Darwinism scale as to the Bible, the Koran. Very well. How does Neo-Darwinism not allow for different suggestions to be judged only afterwards on their quality? It should allow for further suggestions at all means. Is intelligent design a better suggestion? Should scientists be discriminated upon being critical of Neo-Darwinism? Certainly not.

    Meaningful article as to mainstream openness of mind elaboration.

  28. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred hates America; thus, he pushes 2 themes:

    1. Mexican immigration.
    2. Anti-evolution. (because human bio-diversity, based on evolution, is the foundation of the alt-right’s anti-immigration policy.)

  29. tom says:

    Fred
    Quite correct. The essential darwinism and neo darwinism notions are based on a long time and incredible random mutations. A belief in a non-darwinistic view of how biological entites emerged suggests some type of teleology whether deistic or otherwise. This is absolutely unacceptable to darwinists. Modern evolutionary biology would rather believe in a random tooth fairy rather than teleology. They have the simplistic dualism that if you don’t accept the darwinism nonsense you must be a creationist fruitcake. End of discussion.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  30. Steve Hayes says: • Website

    Bringing up the origin of life on Earth is a logical fallacy and, as such, completely disingenuous. The theory of evolution does not say anything about how life arose. Its focus is on how species change over time, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.

  31. DanFromCT says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Compare with the talk by Rice University synthetic chemist James Tour, “Are Present Proposals on Chemical Evolutionary Mechanisms Accurately Pointing Toward First Life?” which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

    The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign we’ve won on the merits of our case. Beyond that what they’re demanding in the name of “but this is science!” turns out to be methodological just so-ism, a form of quasi-religious anti-science in which literally everything confirms Darwinism on the grounds that Darwinism explains everything.

    The irony about the bluster coming from these rabid Darwinians is that a quick check of their photos shows they’re almost always angry, emasculated little men, who if there were any truth in Darwinism might be kept under lock and key to perform some useful work but othwrwise excluded from the affairs of real men. This much should be obvious, so the real question becomes who are behind the publishing and media platforms allowing these social misfits to abuse science for socio-political reasons.

    After all, even if they’re atheists as almost all are, they would concede that the notion of God is the culturally collective conscience of a people—proving the hatred expressing itself in these scurrilous ad hominems exposes an embarrassing grandiosity characteristic of a paranoid hatred of their male betters in general and of Christian Americans in particular.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @BamBam Rubble
  32. utu says:
    @utu

    Jerry Fodor on evolutionary (just-so) stories in psychology, behavioral science and so on.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings

    The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They’re to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors.

    ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’

    ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’

    ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’.

    ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’

    ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’

    ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’

    ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’

    I’m not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it’s unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them ‘just so stories’); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn’t much reason to believe that any of them is true.

    Anyhow, for what it’s worth, I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don’t feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I’m not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  33. j2 says:
    @utu

    utu, you are completely right, I can tell it from personal experience, though not in Caltech, but it is the same in all respectable (thinking they are better) universities, I have been staff in two such.

  34. @tom

    There are two ways to address a mystery: as a detective or as a mystic.

    Darwinian evolution is the product of detective work, whereas teleology and religion are the products of mystics. Mystics don’t want mysteries solved, because they make a living from promoting ignorance as something important and valuable, worthy of awe, amazement, and worship rituals (including endless streams of money to sustain the parasitic priestly caste)

    Detectives want to solve mysteries because they want to understand causation.
    If you understand how something works, you no longer have a mystery.

    But a mystical life is contingent on the existence of a mystery. Mystics need mystery, and will preserve it at all costs. That’s why they hate Darwinian evolution, opposing it since 1859, despite all the oceans, mountains and forests filled with convergent evidence in support of the 2nd most successful theory in science.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Carroll Price
  35. Respect says:

    Darwinism is english Godless ” science ” . I don`t believe in evolution , but seeing so may darwinians I believe in involution , presently there is an involution of the human beings .

    Cartagena de Indias , present Colombia , is a beutiful city . In 1741 the British Navy invaded Cartagena with a fleet of more than 30.000 soldiers ( including yankee troops ) and more than 200 ships .

    Cartagena was defended by only 4000 hispanic monarchy troops and 6 ships commanded by Blas de Lezo . If you go to Cartagena go to see the Castle of San Felipe which was the center of the spanish military defense .

    The english pirates were soundly defeated , they lost 1500 cannons out of the 2000 of the fleet , and about 90% of the soldiers . Spain lost about 1000 men and the 6 ships . Suck it darwinian pirates !!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

  36. Anonymous[908] • Disclaimer says:
    @DanFromCT

    Irrelevant ad hominems: “Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.”

    The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign evolutionists have won on the merits of our case.

    And we thank you for your support, Dan.

    • Replies: @DanFromCT
  37. @Stevelancs

    Dr Jordan Peterson believes God exists …

    So what? My neighbor with the two dachshunds believes God exists. He’s at church right now. My grandmother believed God exists, and now she’s dead.

  38. @DH

    Links please…

    WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? “Irreducible complexity” has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don’t know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown.

    • Replies: @DH
  39. @DH

    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

    Your reasoning is somehow flawed.

    Convert it to the form of a syllogism. It asserts that what is true relies on proof that all other possibilities are impossible, therefore failing by infinite regression.

  40. @The Alarmist

    Some of y’all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.

    LOL. And “intelligent design” explains it? Essaplaina me some more, Luc-eee.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  41. @utu

    For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

    What an idiotic statement (and series of preceding statements). The TofE is the best explanation that is based on evidence and scientific method. If you reject rules of evidence and scientific method, you are free to believe any theory you like. The Theory of Continuing Instantaneous Creation, i.e. that the entire Universe was created by your god of choice, one nanosecond in the past, is the best damn theory for your method of reasoning. Jesus too … one nanosecond ago … no Jesus, then instant Jesus already 2000 years in the instant past.

    Fellow, you either like to work with scientific method, and you do what you can with it, or you don’t. Your choice.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Nicholas Stix
  42. @DanFromCT

    which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

    Ah, agenda raises its hoary head, right there in your first sentence.

  43. AaronB says:

    Intelligent Design must be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

    Science is supposed to give humans control – if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must share power, humans have less control than they thought.

    That goes against the whole Point of Science.

    Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science – if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

    Evolutionary Theory has resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us – we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

    It hardly matters that all of this is false – that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

    Science must prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

    Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it – it is not just another scientific theory.

    How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

    Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  44. @Rurik

    The best theory I have heard on the evolution of man. As Lloyd Pye points out, Darwin “was a blowed up peckerwood”.

    • Replies: @Biff
  45. nsa says:

    There is a fairly decent fossil record of human evolution. “The Fossil Trail” by Tattersall provides an overview of this fossil record. Note that fossils are not bones but rather mineralized bones, and can only form within a very narrow set of conditions. Actual bones rarely last a month or two in nature…….let alone millions of years.

  46. Once again Fred is ahead of the game with his great insight.

  47. AaronB says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    You make an interesting point.

    There are two theories about what leads to maximum human flourishing and well being and security.

    One is that we maximize our control of the environment we find ourselves in. The dream of science. This requires psychologically cutting ourselves off from nature, seeing ourselves as separate from it and in opposition to it, and trying to dominate it.

    Supposedly we will turn discover the laws that lead to our maximum emotional, psychological, and physical well being. Security and well being depend on us maximizing our power and control.

    The alternative, what you call mystic, suggests that human flourishing depends on relinquishing power and control, an utterly radical perspective from the pov of science. The mystic theory says that we flourish best by collaborating with other forces in the universe, cooperating and living in accordance with them, that our security and well being depends on our not cutting ourselves off from the larger whole in order to dominate it.

    In the mystic system, not understanding some things is a necessary part of relinquishing control – simply because the faculty of discursive understanding is a limited tool that cuts us off from collaborating with the forces we need to be a part of in order to flourish. Mystery is thus a basic truth. Understanding is good, but limited.

    The modern scientific approach seems to have failed to deliver on its promise of making us psychologically, emotionally, or physically flourish. By cutting ourselves off from the whole, our emotional and psychological life seems to have become stunted, narrow and empty, and mostly about conflict and strife. Anxiety is at record highs. And physically, we are less robust than ever, prey to a host of diseases our ancestors knew nothing about, and increasingly obese.

    It seems seeing ourselves as independent fragments in opposition to the whole has not worked out.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  48. pB says:

    “huh this looks interesting”

    *reads intently

    “im sure this will be a long and detailed post full of things to spend the day looking up”

    oh wait, its just fred reed trying again to convince me to throw open the borders to the south…

  49. nickels says:

    The goal of the whole enlightenment project was to remove all moral constraints on appetite. To do so, it was necessary to destroy God, and all of the natural law, from which morality can be argued.
    Science denied Aristotle’s forms and teleology, reducing the world to a simple mechanical device, devoid of purpose and meaning (the Western paradigm anyway).
    Now man was free!!! The Aristocrats could rule with an iron fist, the sodomites could run free, the adulterers and usurers were free to scheme and debase themselves.
    Hobbes and Adam Smith took up where Newton clockworks left off, deriving from this mechanical system the further ideas that individual vice is actually societal bliss, and that feelings alone determine what is moral.
    But God was hard to get rid of and there was always a nagging doubt. How did humanity arise, if not by a creator? And the possibility of a creator meant the possibility of sin and condemnation.
    Enter the final puzzle piece in the picture of pure nihilistic meaningless, Darwin. He was not the originator of this ancient idea, but he laid out evolution at the right time and place.
    Now the God of reason and sanity was dead, and the God of endless appetite ruled forever! All was molecules, because science said so!
    Never mind that the materialistic viewpoint killed the very possibility of reason, as chemical reactions that form the brain cannot reason-they can only react. And so the whole chain of chemical reactions in the mind which led to this viewoint had no rational basis.
    Next enter the unfortunate disaster of the discovery of DNA, and the ability to actually study the ideas of evolution in a scientific manner.
    And the result? It doesn’t even begin to add up.
    But the God of appetite won’t be slayed so easily. There is too much to lose. The conclusion is sacred to the nihilist and the argument shifts ever to new ground to maintain the field.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  50. I’ve found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. Not surprising since they’re defending a British pseudo-scientist (Darwin was a theologian by training) whose main activity during his college education was collecting beetles. Also interesting: despite their aggressive defense of Evolution and primordial soup, the Brits also commonly believe in alien life. L. Ron Hubbard set up his world HQ in Britain for a reason. British taxi driver George King also created a UFO religion out of whole cloth that now has 58 branches worldwide, most in the UK. I don’t know how you square On the Origin of Species with little green men from Mars, but the Brits have found a way.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @CanSpeccy
  51. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence.

    Fred back to his evolution bollocks, a subject about which he knows nothing except what is not the case. For a corrective, may I suggest:

    Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  52. DanFromCT says:
    @Anonymous

    At least you’ve got some sense of humor about the ad hominem thing, which is more than can be said for most atheists—or am wrong about most atheists being unmanly, socio-sexually dysfunctional losers?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  53. I think its fair to say that there are 3 essential, and largely independent, elements to “the” theory of evolution:

    (1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

    (2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

    (3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

    For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with “evolution”) is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

    Pasteur, after all, is heralded for having refuted the “traditional” theory of spontaneous generation, but it seems that in the primordial soup normal rules don’t apply.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  54. @BamBam Rubble

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  55. @utu

    ‘…Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are…’

    This may be tangential to your point, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s often not so much a matter of some trait or practice being there because it serves a purpose but of it being there because there’s no particular reason for it not to continue being there.

    We have an appendix, not because we need it, but because not having it wouldn’t confer any striking advantage. It doesn’t usually turn poisonous, and if it does, likely as not we’ve already sired children anyway.

    Things can be like the old trampoline in the basement. They’re often there, not because they’re needed, but because there’s no compelling reason to get rid of them. If a society practices female clitorectomies, for example, it’ll likely go on practising female clitorectomies even if no purpose is served — just so long as female life expectancy and fertility isn’t dramatically affected. If a dog has a tail, it’s not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won’t benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  56. Respect says:

    ” the survival of the fittest ”

    Darwinism is the father of nazism , or arian supremacism

    Of course darwin meant that the fittest were the anglogermanics ….. with darwin`s bioangloshit anglos felt legitimated to plunder and bomb the globe , and germans to kill all the slavs to steal their land

    chutzpahhhhhhhhhhhhh

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  57. log says:

    Dear Mr. Reed,

    Darwinism begins with the twin assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions, and they cannot be proven by the nature of their claims. From these assumptions, Darwinism, or something functionally identical to it, must be true as a matter of logical deduction from observational reality. As one of its proponents put it, Darwinism “is the only game in town.” This is so because of these two assumptions, which are not value neutral.

    These two assumptions – naturalism (there exists nought but particles, forces, and the void) and uniformitarianism (the rules that we deduce govern the interaction of matter have been, are, and always shall be, the same everywhere) – are the philosophical foundation upon which all of scientific modernity is built. This philosophical foundation rules out any deity who might make a difference in observational reality.

    Design theory (aka “Intelligent Design”) is simply the consistent application of statistical rationality to claims. When applied to the claims of evolutionary biology, statistics concludes that “it most likely didn’t happen the way it must have if naturalism and uniformitarianism are true.” By its nature, however, statistics can’t make absolute claims, but only comparative claims of likelihoods. Thus statistics cannot disprove the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It can only undermine it. And that undermining – the parting of mind and heart – creates madness for those whose philosophies are built upon the foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism. But also rejecting statistics is to depart from that foundation as well, which also is madness.

    Therefore those who use statistics to test the claims of evolutionary biology against observational reality must be done away with, using the time-honored methods of ostracism, reviling, deplatforming, and so on. Their claims cannot be refuted without abandoning statistical rationality, which is self-defeating. So their claims must not be substantively addressed. Pointing fingers and mocking will suffice, for who wants to be mocked and scorned? Is the pursuit of truth worth the social cost it incurs?

    But consider – if statistics does undermine confidence in Darwinism, and if Darwinism is entailed by the joint combination of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and observational reality – then what is really being undermined is the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. And if there might exist more than simply particles, forces, and the void, and if the rules governing the interactions of matter are not uniform across reality, then we have no grounds for saying the Bible presents a false view of reality. There may indeed be a God who does things we can observe, a God of miracles, and Jesus Christ may indeed be real. The prospect of living forever in their society cannot be rejected on first principles if we are statistically rational, and so that prospect might cause us to revise our cost estimate of the pursuit of truth – and a great many other things.

    Jared Livesey

  58. Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  59. When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

    Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term “natural selection” differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another’s way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the “fence-sitters” would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

    In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the “happiness” of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

    Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one’s own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and “necessary” concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

    The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that—for many people today and almost the entirety of the “educated” classes—it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as “democracy” forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a “Darwin Award.”

    Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @peterAUS
  60. Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  61. @The Alarmist

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

    It doesn’t even get close to a Hail Mary. It is a desperate play from theist ignorance.

    There is scientific method. There is logic. They provide many answers — so many answers … all well-founded, all verifiable, all directly observable through at least one method.

    Intelligent Design is silliness. Life is a product of Intelligent Design, you say? What about water, essential to life? Intelligent Design created hydrogen and oxygen, and the water molecule, right? Else, Intelligent Design … she no work for “life”, yanno? Get to positing bullshit like “Intelligent Design”, and you put yourself in an epistemological fix, all the way back to the presumed beginning of time. Intelligent Design provides all 47 elements crucial to human life — hydrogen and oxygen being just a start on THAT issue. Intelligent Design provides an environment where life can survive and continue. Intelligent Design provides a planet just close enough to, and just far enough from good ol’ Sol. And, damn, Intelligent Design provides that Sun, that moon, those stars, that galaxy, that Universe.

    All to justify and substantiate bullshit claims as to the origin of life.

    Enough nonsense. Bring forth a true modern age, and end superstition and ignorance.

  62. @WorkingClass

    Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours.

    Don’t be ridiculous. Intelligent Design requires the fiat power to create and perpetuate that which is Designed.

    Proving the existence of that fiat-capable thing is a real bitch.

  63. @Colin Wright

    If a dog has a tail, it’s not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won’t benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

    It’s because the tail does not prevent reproduction. The key to evolution is the survival of those fit to survive and reproduce. It is that simple.

    Every May, 10 billion mayflies hatch. Most die. One million survive to lay 10 billion eggs, which hatch the following May. Survival and continued existence of mayflies is that simple.

    “Fittest” was the wrong choice of word. “Fit” is correct.

    “Good enough” works every time.

  64. @jilles dykstra

    Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

    Worse, much worse. If anything puts Xtians in a murderous mood, it’s Creation Denial.

    How come there’s a gold stripe around your comment? Some kind of merit badge manifestation?

  65. @Intelligent Dasein

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

  66. prusmc says: • Website
    @Jeff Stryker

    I really don’t think the people of Utah want them. Of course this has not stopped the Fed’s and the religion base-federally funded parasite organizations : Lutherin, Methodist, Episcopal, Jewish and Catholic chairities from moving Congolese into Wyoming, Somalians into Maine and various Muslim refugees into Burlington, Vermont. Bernie does not need their votes he has more than enough.

  67. @CanSpeccy

    Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

    Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but chacun a son gout.

    How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  68. ‘…No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No…’

    It’s worth pointing out that this is just a variation on the reason God — and gods — were traditionally believed in.

    Do we understand how thunder works? If you’re an eighth century Viking, of course you don’t. Ergo, there’s a thunder god.

    I’m not convinced that that we cannot explain a given datum is sufficient evidence to conclude God exists. My dog probably would have been at a loss to explain how a car worked — most people would. It doesn’t follow that there’s a God and he made cars.

  69. @The Alarmist

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution…

    I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

    I’m guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I’ve already said.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @BamBam Rubble
  70. Agent76 says:

    Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God

    Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world’s top universities.

    • Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
    • Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
    • PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
    • Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

    A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin’s finches and Lenski’s bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method—observable evidence from the minds of experts. Prepare to have your faith shaken.

  71. Agent76 says:

    This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk’s need to view and know.

    Nov 14, 2011 Conception to birth — visualized

    Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond.

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  72. AaronB says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

    I think this needs to be the key point.

    At this late date, it hardly needs refuting anymore. We should try and understand what modern need it fills.

  73. @Intelligent Dasein

    I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle.

    LOL. Yeah, “refuted” via thundering declaration of phlogiston-stuff.

    Or something analogous. You theists have pontificated BS for centuries. After all, what else could it be BUT Yahweh, right?

  74. Lurker says:
    @Bragadocious

    You have proof there is no alien life, why has this been kept secret?

    Btw I’m in the UK, I’ve never heard of George King or his religion.

    Just looked him up. Nope, doesn’t ring a bell at all.

  75. peterAUS says:
    @utu

    Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism.

    Yup.

  76. peterAUS says:
    @AaronB

    Have to say…..very good post.
    Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

    That science/mystic approach to…life/existence…..thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
  77. peterAUS says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Agree with

    …while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and “necessary” concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

    and

    Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted

    as for

    ….and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune.Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

    not quite sure about “never” and “boredom”.

  78. Thomm says:
    @utu

    While I am not Indian (only a preposterously stupid person would think I am), remember that your face was deemed as a suitable solution to this problem.

    Everybody wins, especially you, since you receive what you crave.

    Your face. Remember that, so that you don’t have to pose the same question ten times (given your low IQ of 70).

    Heh heh heh heh

  79. Moi says:
    @utu

    Challenging Netanyahoo is a bigger no-no and graver sin–also a heck of a lot more dangerous.

  80. “America has some fifty-seven million residents of Latin-American descent, mostly citizens. Willy-nilly, they are part of America. Thinking that many Americans might want to know something about them, where they came from, what they do and have done,”

    No Fred. We know approximately 22 million are illegals and will have to go back. The remaining 37 million will be divided along IQ/race and black Hispanics will have to go back. Puerto Rico has to be declared independent.

    Just because you married a Mexican woman, does not entitle you to bring in Latin America to make her happy.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  81. Rich says:
    @utu

    Funny thing is, Einstein didn’t discover the Theory of Relativity. It was published 2 years earlier by an Italian scientist named Olento De Pretto. Whether Einstein stole the idea or arrived at it independently is disputed.

  82. AaronB says:
    @peterAUS

    Thanks, I’m glad you found something to appreciate in it.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  83. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    Re: Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

    Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.

    Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

    As for,

    How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

    Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  84. @peterAUS

    Hear! Hear! Indeed.

    Fred’s really at his best when he tells us niggra stories.

  85. Cyrano says:

    How do you call people that “believe” in evolution? – Evolutionaries. How do you call people that don’t believe in evolution, who instead believe in one stupid religion or another? – Contra-evolutionaries.

    I think that evolution makes a lot of sense. Evolution is basically competition and favoritism by mother nature – which wants only her good designs to succeed. To bash evolution because it can’t accurately describe how life begun is ridiculous. No conta-evolutionary has ever been successful at providing meaningful explanation of how life started either, that hasn’t stop anybody from believing in hundreds of useless religions.

  86. @Agent76

    Thanks, Agent 76 for posting this incredible video. Regardless what one thinks about abortion, the fact that millions of these complex structures called fetuses have been terminated before birth makes me feel that it would be infinitely better to prevent conception in the first place.

    • Replies: @Agent76
  87. Anonymous[428] • Disclaimer says:

    The brainless boomer strikes again!

  88. @CanSpeccy

    Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

    Sorry, poor word-choice on my part. How many commenters here are capable of accepting what you wrote?

  89. KenH says:
    @Rurik

    The white race is becoming the contemporary dodo bird.

  90. Major1 says:

    Haha Fred, and those that link to him, sure know how to get the clicks, don’t they?
    Fred thinks that his “take no prisoners” style of writing frees him from the responsibility of making sense. If challenged on the stupid shit he says, he and his defenders hide behind the “That’s just Fred bein’ Fred” defense.
    Anyone who posits that ID and the TOE are equivalent because neither has all the answers is scientifically illiterate, or just a diehard apologist for religious creation myths.
    And anyone who uses the phrase “irreducible complexity” in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else. And is probably a recalcitrant pedant.
    Same old thing. Creationists, because they don’t know how science works, assail the TOE as faulty or untrue because every single gap in the evolutionary record hasn’t yet been filled in, or the exact mechanism of every facet of evolution hasn’t yet been elucidated. While offering zero proof of their own dogma. Where, exactly, are the state of the art laboratories where scientists are toiling to prove that ID is true and how it happened? Where are the landmark papers from these scientists? There is a difference between proposing, defending and proving your own theory and just unceasingly attacking someone else’s. Especially with the same tired, shabby arguments. Actual scientists know this. Ken Ham and Michael Behe do not. Fred sure doesn’t.
    And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It’s creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig’s neck but it’s still a pig.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @DH
  91. @Major1

    And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It’s creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig’s neck but it’s still a pig.

    Not to mention that, from a “design” standpoint, very little of it is “intelligent”.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  92. Biff says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    When I mentioned territorial I ment war in general and the need for flags, but I guess you can throw in beaners with colors and drug turf as well. Migrants are a different story.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  93. Che Guava says:

    Am always enjoying Mr. Reed’s articles on ID, although this one goes on an irrelevant tangent at the end.

    One of the fun facts is that, if life evolved on Earth, photosynthetic forms poisoned the place for the earlier ones

    Free oxygen is an unnatural state, unless photosynthesizers are making it.

    I agree with Fred’s quibbles, have read Darwin, Dawkins (I find the prnse in A Pilgrim’s Tale cloying at times, but return to it because of the many accounts of interesting life-forms), others, and see that evolution does exist (from their and other examples, from germs developing multi-antibiotic drug resistance, fruitfly experiments, etc.)..

    However, I agree with Fred, both the totally mysterious origin and many of the transitions of higher forms are not logically explicable by Darwinian evolution, sure many are.

    How did RNA and then DNA (the sequence I would favour from study of chem.) self-organise from the oxygen-free primordial slime? How did RNA create the much more elaborate DNA?

    Some transitions and creation of phyla, genera and species make no sense in a Darwinian sense, many do, some most certainly do not.

    Anybody who is well-read on the topic will have considered these many vastly improbable steps.

    Of course, geological time frames, so I love birds, and accept that they are the remnant of the dinosaurs, but they were starting from an established base.

    So many of the basic developments of new organs and abilities are so improbable , even in geological time spans.

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    Any people who are intellectually honest will recognise the problems of standard evolution.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  94. @Che Guava

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    There’s no mystery. God made it. Nothing made God. God just is, always has been, by necessity. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is intellectually dishonest. How can anything exist unless it was created? And, what could create all this? Only God. Therefore, there is a God, and He (note sexual orientation) has always existed. Eternal, immanent, etc. Only fools deny this truth.

    Any people who are intellectually honest will recognise the problems of standard evolution.

    I had no idea there was a non-standard evolution. Thanks for the tip.

    Any one who is intellectually honest might want to study the Wiki mini-series on evolution. Although, of course, any intellectually honest person knows it to be complete malarky. But, knowing what it is, how it is derived, how it is substantiated, demonstrated, and verified, will provide ample ammunition for the intellectually honest person to refute any sleazy, low-down, double-dealing evolutionists at parties, carnivals, beer bashes, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  95. @Biff

    The Caribbeans did it to blacks in Miami and the Italians did it in New York in the early 20th century.

    Its nothing new.

  96. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    Not to mention that, from a “design” standpoint, very little of it is “intelligent.”

    cf. Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body.

  97. peterAUS says:
    @AaronB

    I did.

    The key in all this is really just one simple thing: BALANCE.
    Something we, humans, appear to be incapable of.

    It’s all or nothing, always.
    And, the most passionate (neurotic….?) take over the stage.

    To be honest (balance…) we have evolved in some way.
    Heretics, before, would get burned at stake (among other even more exotic ways of suffering).
    Today they simply lose their jobs.
    Better.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  98. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    Which in no way refutes the theory of Darwinian evolution. As I have pointed out in a critique of Fred’s previous gibbering about evolution, Darwin acknowledged that the origin of life was a problem entirely beyond the scope of his theory of evolution, which was concerned with the transition of life forms over the course of geological time, not the creation of life.

    Thus, Darwin wrote in the third edition of The Origin:

    It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence of origin of life (b).

    And in a letter dated March 29, 1863 to Joseph Hooker he wrote:

    it is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life, one might as well think of origin of matter (b).

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Che Guava
  99. @Logan

    You don’t think she was seriously defending evolution do you?

  100. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @nickels

    Enter the final puzzle piece in the picture of pure nihilistic meaningless[ness], Darwin. He was not the originator of this ancient idea, but he laid out evolution at the right time and place.

    Darwin was not a nihilist. He had originally expected to become a minister of the Anglican church. His theory of evolution was not, as you say, new. And indeed the mechanism of evolution that Darwin postulated, natural selection, was not new. Adam Smith, for example, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, talks of the consequences of behavioral traits or reproductive success.

    Darwin’s great contribution was as a naturalist of extraordinarily wide knowledge, who related this knowledge of biological diversity to 19th century advances in geology, thereby making the theory of evolution compelling.

  101. @DH

    Oh dear! She caught you too.

  102. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bragadocious

    I’ve found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. … the Brits also commonly believe in alien life.

    Yes, as you are no doubt aware, Darwin was a great UFO-ologist and the founder of Scientology, to which church most British scientists belong — also Theresa May, and Tony Blair.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  103. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @for-the-record

    (1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

    (2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

    (3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

    For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with “evolution”) is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

    As I have already pointed out, your Point (1) has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin explicitly acknowledged total ignorance of the origin of life.

    As for (2), there’s nothing miraculous about this. It’s actually been observed and carefully documented in nature.

    As for (3) it is, with (2) trivial or not it, the postulated mechanism of evolution. I guess the force of gravity, or the mass warping of space, might be called trivial, yet it is a key to the evolution of the universe. In fact, most of science, perhaps all, is pretty trivial once you understand it. It’s appreciating how “trivial” facts have amazing consequences that makes science so potent.

  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far.

    Your comment is based on a ridiculous assumption that we know that there is no life in the universe except on earth. Of course we know no such thing. We don’t even know if there is life on Mars, although Martian meteriorites contain traces of what may be microbial life. Beyond our solar system, we have no clue and will not likely have any clue unless they radio in a message about themselves.

  105. AaronB says:
    @peterAUS

    I do agree in my own way.

    But balance is far more profound than we give it credit.

    In my own way, I am some sort of Buddhist (although I don’t know what kind).

    And true detachment means neither rejecting nor pursuing, neither suppressing nor developing. Balance. The Middle Way.

    But apparently it isn’t easy – it requires not taking the world all that seriously.

  106. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Respect

    ” the survival of the fittest ”

    Darwinism is the father of nazism , or arian supremacism

    Yes, Darwin was actually Hitler’s father.

    But this notion of the survival of the fittest (did Darwin actually use that phrase?) is no more than a tautology. The actual mechanism is, to quote myself:

    Like begets like: cats have kittens, hens have chicks. However, due to various mechanisms, including, as we now know, mutation, chromosome abnormalities, and the happy intervention of sex, like begets like—but with some variation. Thus, in a litter of Dutch rabbits, nine are of a uniform and official chocolate brown, but the tenth may have a white lightning streak upon his nose.

    Here then is a basis for selection. In any particular environment, some individuals will possess a characteristic, sharper teeth, faster reflexes, better hearing, greater disease resistance, greater sex appeal, that results in their raising to adulthood more progeny than the rest of the litter. But because of the principle of “like begets like,” the characteristics of the most successful breeders will be at least slightly more common in the succeeding generation than in the parental generation.

    And so it goes, from generation to generation, the prevalent characteristics of a population tends to change. The rate of change depends on many factors: the mating preferences of the species; the availability of resources, food, water, nesting places, etc.; the prevalence of predators or disease. Moreover, when populations become divided into separate breeding groups, for example, by migration to separate islands, then depending on local conditions the course of evolutionary change will vary. On one Galapagos Island, the main food supply may be small seeds, for example, in which case small birds with small beaks will prosper, whereas on another island where the main food supply consists in large nuts, only birds with large and powerful beaks will prevail.

    Even if, as you seem to be asserting, recognition of that process led to the Jewish Holocaust, it is nevertheless how life actually evolves.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  107. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @WorkingClass

    Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God.

    Don’t worry about having to make the choice. As noted above, Darwin explicitly denied any knowledge of the origin of life.

  108. @attilathehen

    You know…fifty seven minus twenty two isn’t thirty seven.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  109. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory.

    No, the theory is simple-minded and ancient. Darwin’s contribution was to provide the proof. He was the world’s greatest naturalist who was also well versed in the then-new science of geology. He put the two things together, to show that life had changed radically over the course of geological time. After that, one had to accept either that God was a hoaxer who salted the earth with misleading fossils, or that organic evolution had occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

  110. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    ….Darwin acknowledged that the origin of life was a problem entirely beyond the scope of his theory of evolution, which was concerned with the transition of life forms over the course of geological time, not the creation of life.

    I am not quite sure that “Darwinists”, we know, got that memo.

    Any chance we can get a list of well known “Darwinists” agreeing with that viewpoint?
    You know, the guys who get paid by being “Darwinists”. Academia and such.

    Like, a tenured professor on elite university teaching evolution (or subject closely related) and acknowledging that God, Intelligent Design, or SOMETHING intelligent, created life on Earth.

    Say…..five of those we can check/take a peek at/read about?

  111. DH says:
    @Major1

    And anyone who uses the phrase “irreducible complexity” in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else.

    Links please…

  112. Let’s suppose that humans are the result of a special act of creation. We still have to explain all of the biological diversity that has developed in our species since that act of creation. If we look at physical traits, that diversity is much greater than what we normally see between sibling species. And why would this diversity be less for psychological traits? Most of them are just as heritable.

    So Fred’s journey into creationism has come to a dead end. Is cognitive ability lower, on average, among Mexicans than among white Americans? Perhaps it is. Perhaps not. That is another debate, and it’s irrelevant to the debate of special creation versus evolution. Fred should do a bit of soul searching about what he’s trying to prove and why.

    Do I have to spell out the sequence of events?

    1. White American man gets disillusioned with white American women. He marries a Mexican and moves to Mexico.

    2. Since his cultural background stresses not only honor but also abstract national loyalty, he feels honor-bound to defend not only his wife but also his newly adopted kinsmen, including the 57 million now resident in the United States.

    3. He thus feels personally insulted when Americans don’t feel the sort of solidarity with Latinos that he now feels. He especially feels insulted when some Americans bring up differences in cognitive performance between the two groups.

    4. So he looks willy-nilly for a counter-argument, and this search takes him to … creationism.

    Ironically, most Mexican Americans don’t feel the degree of solidarity with other Latinos that Fred feels honor-bound to have. Their main loyalty is to their families and immediate kin. Look at the last U.S. election. Most of them didn’t vote or they voted for Trump. Loyalty to abstract ideals, like national solidarity, is an Anglo thing.

    • LOL: AaronB
    • Replies: @DH
    , @KenH
  113. Of Darwinism, Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science has said

    I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can ‘explain’ why it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance, with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the available time (as in Boltzmann’s explanation), then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to ‘explain’ almost everything. (Karl Popper, ‘Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Program,’)

    And further

    I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. . . .
    Yet there is more to it: I also regard Darwinism as an application of what I call ‘situational logic.’ Darwinism as situational logic can be understood as follows:
    Let there be a world, a framework of limited constancy, in which there are entities of limited variability. Then some of the entities produced by variation (those which ‘fit’ into the conditions of the framework) may ‘survive’ while others (those which clash with the conditions) may be eliminated.
    Add to this the assumption of the existence of a special framework—a set of perhaps rare and highly individual conditions—in which there can be life or, more especially, self-reproducing but nevertheless variable bodies. Then a situation is given in which the idea of trial and error-elimination, or of Darwinism, becomes not merely applicable, but almost logically necessary. There may be a framework in which life would be possible, but in which the trial which leads to life has not occurred, or in which all those trials which lead to life were eliminated. . . . What is meant is that if a life-permitting situation occurs, and if life originates, then this total situation makes the Darwinian idea one of situational logic. (Karl Popper, ‘Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Program,’)

  114. allis says:

    Three propositions:
    A people’s religion expresses the people’s culture.
    The ancient Greeks had an admirable culture.
    The religion of the ancient Greeks was primitive and foolish.

    One of the above statements must be false; I nominate the last one.
    The Greeks identified those who spoke the Greek Language as Greek.
    Languages are a social cement for human societies, acting like pheromones in insect and animal societies.
    Perhaps religions (or any other belief system) serve purposes similar to languages, and, like them are neither objectively true nor false.

    What deities, beliefs and rituals define our religion? What give us a sense of belonging? What inspires us? What gives our lives meaning? What is the organizing principle of our culture?

    I often wonder if it is not Money, which seems to function like deities did in former times. Like other deities, Money has no tangible “real” existence, but, also like other deities, Money also exists as a social reality.

    A new trinity of Money, Science, and Rationality seems to be the current religion, the expression of our culture. An appropriate dogma for such a religion would be The Theory of Evolution.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @BamBam Rubble
  115. DH says:
    @Peter Frost

    Let’s suppose that humans are the result of a special act of creation. We still have to explain all of the biological diversity that has developed in our species since that act of creation.

    Sure. But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown. A completely different issue is how oak trees, bacteria, whales and humans came to be. Evolutionism is not even close in explaining the latter.

  116. @CanSpeccy

    Darwin did use the phrase “survival of the fittest” in title to chapter 4:
    Natural Selection; or The Survival of the Fittest

    Clearly he didn’t believe that it should be philosophy applied to human society in general. Let me prove that:

    In 1849, Anne [Darwin, 10 year old dauther of Charles] caught scarlet fever along with her two sisters, and her health thereafter declined; some authorities believe that she suffered from tuberculosis. In vain pursuit of help from Gully’s water cure, Charles Darwin took his daughter to the Worcestershire spa town, Great Malvern. She died in Montreal House on the Worcester Road, aged ten, and was buried in the Great Malvern Priory churchyard.

    In any case, evolution works not as a function of mere survival, but via differential reproductive success of organisms best fitted to their environments. In other words, organisms with even a slight reproductive advantage will in short course dominate the gene pool of their kind.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  117. @Macon Richardson

    Abiognesis is NOT explained by the algorithm of evolution. Evolution explains organic diversity, not the origin of the first replicator.
    Your entire redundant post merely demonstrates your unwillingness to engage with what people have already stated dozens of times in comments on this page.

    But that’s how anti-evolutionists operate: by ignoring logic, reason, and evidence.

    Not one anti-evolutionist on this page has answered the question:
    who designed your hypothetical designer?

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  118. I’m 75 & over 60 years ago, I told my Science teacher, that Darwinism was bullshit & that Darwin was a moron ??
    Shocked my teacher ?? Teacher got really nasty with me, then I told him that his nastiness must be descended from Darwinian monkey, & I’m not as upset at him, because I’m descendant from Homo Sapiens.. Man the Wise & a wise man doesn’t get upset at an inferior intellect ??
    Surprised, But he did really shut the f*** up ??

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  119. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fran Macadam

    Ad hominems…like calling people who accept natural selection “vigilantes,” amirite?

  120. @Mr Reynard

    “The teacher got really nasty when I called Darwin a moron“, said the nasty little class clown. When an English teacher subsequently tried to explain what a question mark was for, the clown unleashed another torrent of abuse.

    roundworms:

    lovingly fashioned by skydaddy for the edification of creationists

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  121. j2 says:
    @for-the-record

    I add one more:

    (4) origin of consciousness.

    We can build robots and they do not have consciousness. Physics does not need consciousness in any of its formulae, but we know that we have it, all mammals have it, and probably also all birds. Birth of something we cannot repeat or explain and what is not needed is problematic. It suggests that our consciousness may not be the only one in the universe and removes the need to explain the origin of life with a mechanisms that does not require consciousness, because why, if there are some conscious beings, why cannot there be more of them. And they have intentions, goals. Goal-oriented actions much simplify the problem of reaching anything complicated and still working by non-goal-oriented actions such as a random walk. Consciousness actually implies that there is something more to the reality than is described in the formulae of physics.

  122. Anonymous[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @allis

    But money is the answer to everything.

    “Money is the answer for everything!” Ecclesiastes 10:19

    And as far as Evolution goes…

    “It is all decided by chance.” Ecclesiastes 9:11

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  123. Anonymous[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Yuck! Just like this guys says, “There are organisms all over this planet whose only mission is to dig a hole inside of you and to eat your fucking brains. Don’t talk to me how balanced, brilliant and purposeful and niche-ey all the crap is; that’s not a legitimate niche.” Of course, he’s critiquing atheists who paint a happy face on evolution.

    Gladiator War (Graphic Content)
    Philosophy of Inmendham

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

  124. teofila says:

    You simply haven’t yet read enough on the subject which is why you cling to this ridiculous notion of “intelligent design” you might try “The God delusion” by Richard Dawkins for starters.The facts as they are beat any hokey religious twaddle any day. But if you want to play that game of – we don’t know yet so some unseen god must have done, it that’s your privelage – so long as you don’t still want to burn us at the stake as you used to

  125. Avalanche says:
    @Rurik

    “The dodo bird is no more” Extinction =/= evolution.

    IF evolution works (and I’m not yet convinced it doesn’t, but the questions — and the FRAUDS — are mounting up by the day!), then should not another species should have evolved to take the niche of the dodo — or any of literally thousands of extinct but apparently not evolved, species?

    Questioning Neo-Dawinian evolution =/= accepting intelligent design.

    You remind me of the folks who refuse to accept that the govt is lying its @ss off about 9/11 because no one can explain where the passengers ended up… “If you can’t say what happened to the passengers, then the govt’s whole theory must be true!” The flaws already present IN the “explanations” make it CLEAR those “explanations” are wrong/based on no evidence.

    I’ve just struggled my way (against my own deep knowledge and wholehearted acceptance of Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE); these books were great reads, although horrifically challenging to what I know “for sure”!) through “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design” and then “Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong” (as well as beginning his second: “Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. OMG. Just OMG. (Oh, and I do NOT believe in god!) Both these books make it abundantly clear that NDE CANNOT work.

    (And oh fer cryin’ out loud — have you looked into cladistics as the “new” theory for organizing speciation? They’re actually postulating that a ‘flying dino’ (don’t remember which) is an evolutionary forebear of archaeopteryx, EVEN THOUGH this dino lived several million years AFTER archaeopteryx. They are ACTUALLY suggesting this!!)

    So, questioning evolution is NECESSARY for evolution to be science. That sentence alone should be 100% acceptable to anyone who holds himself out as using science. (“Believing science” is a worrisome phrasing, no?) Reacting — as the NDE-”believers” do — with shrieks of horror and screams of “burn the witc… er.. the unbeleiv… er … the pseudoscientist!” makes them NON-scientists!

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Rurik
  126. @Biff

    What is even more interesting is that Orangutans have less DNA in common with Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas than the latter three have with each other. Yet among the primates, Orangutans are considered to be 2nd in intelligence only to Humans.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  127. Xando says:

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to say about DNA. The concept of DNA was entirely unknown to him.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  128. If humans were created, the question is from what?

    Is Fred suggesting that life was created ex nihilo (from nothing).

    Or does intelligent design imply genetic manipulation?

    Do you have to be God to do that?

  129. KenH says:

    Oh, Freddy. It should be obvious that Fred believes that an omnipotent Gawd created the earth and the heavens, fauna and flora. And maybe he did, but there’s no evidence other than blind faith.

    No one said the theory of evolution is airtight. That’s why it’s a theory but IMO it’s the most plausible explanation for life and how it came to be. The prehistoric, historical and paleontological record is littered with peoples and specious that once thrived but who are now extinct for failing to adapt to changing environmental conditions or by being supplanted by fitter life forms.

    But if an omnipotent deity created us all then he clearly is no equalitarian and favors some and disfavors others. You must play by his rules which is survival at any cost. He only grants living things one chance to prove their worth and if they blow it then they end up in the dustbin of history.

    This deity did not put Fred’s beloved Mestizos or Mexico anywhere near the top of the human food chain.

  130. KenH says:
    @Peter Frost

    Look at the last U.S. election. Most of them didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.

    I don’t have the exact figures handy, but nearly 70% voted for Hillary and they vote Democrat in approximately these percentages since the mid 80′s.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  131. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, as you are no doubt aware, Darwin was a great UFO-ologist and the founder of Scientology, to which church most British scientists belong — also Theresa May, and Tony Blair.

    Let’s not gloss-over such critical facts. Darwin was taken up in a giant UFO — beamed aboard from the HMS Beagle, in fact — and underwent a direct brain-implant of evolutionary theory as understood by the doglike beings from the fourth planet orbiting Sirius. That’s why it’s so wrong — it’s all about alien dogs.

    Upon his return, in addition to The Origin of the Species, he penned the core religious documents of Scientology, buried them in the glacier next to the Iceman, to be found later by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard being a Scientologist, he took credit for everything Darwin wrote.

  132. @Macon Richardson

    Nossa Senhora! Karl Popper, you say? Bring on some Kant! Let’s hear Immanuel disrespect Darwin. Let’s have REAL expertise, by yiminy!

  133. @allis

    Three propositions:
    A people’s religion expresses the people’s culture.
    The ancient Greeks had an admirable culture.
    The religion of the ancient Greeks was primitive and foolish.

    All three premises are false.

    1. Social and group behavior expresses culture. Religion is not a behavior; religious expression is a behavior.
    2. Some people admire Greek culture. (Nuff said)
    3. The religion of the ancient Greeks, while primitive, was no more foolish than contemporary religions. Of contemporary religions, perhaps Taoism is the only one which is not foolish.

  134. @DH

    Sure. But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown. A completely different issue is how oak trees, bacteria, whales and humans came to be. Evolutionism is not even close in explaining the latter.

    LOL. Thus spake Zarathrustramoron. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Certainly, in these environs, you are rewarded for claiming the most ridiculous bullshit imaginable. I’m sure that feels good, but it’s still bullshit.

  135. @AlreadyPublished

    In any case, evolution works not as a function of mere survival, but via differential reproductive success of organisms best fitted to their environments. In other words, organisms with even a slight reproductive advantage will in short course dominate the gene pool of their kind.

    No, they will not. Or, more correctly, they do not. Reproductive success is a cycle. Producing more offspring does not necessarily lead to more of those offspring surviving to themselves reproduce. There are other factors — predators, carnivores being prime examples.

    Think about what you say — think it through — before you shoot off your mouth.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  136. @Avalanche

    IF evolution works, then should not another species should have evolved to take the niche of the dodo — or any of literally thousands of extinct but apparently not evolved, species?

    No, you idiot. Evolution is not a driving force, not an active force, not a force at all. Species adapt; evolution doesn’t make them adapt.

    • Replies: @Avalanche
  137. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:

    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

    Interesting page. Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of first life so this fits right in.

  138. @Hapalong Cassidy

    What is even more interesting is that Orangutans have less DNA in common with Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas than the latter three have with each other. Yet among the primates, Orangutans are considered to be 2nd in intelligence only to Humans.

    Some scientists are so heretical they believe Neandertals were more intelligent than homo sapiens sapiens. Not as physically robust as the main line, they were absorbed into sapiens.

  139. GW says:
    @bossel

    Go away moron, the adults are speaking.

  140. @Si1ver1ock

    If humans were created, the question is from what?

    If a “creator” can create humans, do you have any difficulty recognizing that this “creator” would have no difficulty creating stuff to make humans with?

  141. @KenH

    I don’t have the exact figures handy, but nearly 70% voted for Hillary and they vote Democrat in approximately these percentages since the mid 80′s.

    Horse puckey.

    Trump votes = 62,984,828
    Hillary votes = 65,853,514 (3 million illegal California Mexicans voted)
    Trump Percentage= 46.1%
    Hillary Percentage = 48.2%

    Why would you invent such nonsense figures?

    • Replies: @KenH
  142. Nephre says:
    @Rurik

    Funny – feel the hysteria? The author wrote of it brilliantly. The _hatred_ exhibited by those who can’t stand anyone criticizing _their_ religion of Darwin. I say this quite without prejudice. I don’t have a religion. I don’t want one. I do have spiritual beliefs, but those kept in a box just as they should be. After all, I don’t “believe” in gravity, but then again, there it is. I don’t have to believe in it. The author puts you to shame. You cannot respond except with the virulence of your emotions boiling over the top with an intellectual’s version of “rage.” It’s funny. :). Lol. Preposterous jerks.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Rurik
  143. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Xando

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to say about DNA. The concept of DNA was entirely unknown to him.

    Correct, but the discovery of DNA and the understanding of how it works is the proof of evolution. Evolution is not “Darwin’s theory”, but it arose from some of his works. The Voyage of the Beagle and On the Origin of Species are still highly regarded.

    The term “Darwinism” comes to us from Herbert Spencer, an older contemporary of Darwin. Spencer was not a scientist, but a philosopher who felt that survival of the fittest was the answer to everything. His books far outsold Darwin’s. In an effort to make money Darwin wrote a potboiler The Descent of Man which played to the prejudices of European readers.

    Spencer is nearly forgotten, but Darwin’s work bore fruit long after he died. To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  144. Che Guava says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    I would withdraw my ‘agree’ if it were possible, you are clearly a very dull doctrinaire smart arse, without an inquisithve cluster in your jellyfish-like brain and personality .

  145. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Anonymous

    LOL

    Acts 17:24-25

    “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;”

    “Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;”

    Does that mean we are not supposed to go to church?

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Anonymous
  146. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Macon Richardson

    Of Darwinism, Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science has said

    I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life.

    Shows that Karl Popper was an pontificating idiot. Darwin, never claimed to explain the origin of life and, as the Darwin quotes I have given above indicate, Darwin thought it pointless, in the then state of knowledge, to even to attempt to explain the origin of life.

  147. Che Guava says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes,i have read it (Darwin) before. Since I was making no such claim re. Darwin, your reply is totally irrelevant.

  148. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Nephre

    Funny – feel the hysteria?

    I think the hysteria you are feeling must be your own. Certainly nothing hysterical about Rurik’s comment to which you refer.

    • Replies: @Nephre
  149. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Well. I have three of four (admittedly non-human microbiology, not so much, only from having an intererest to read). So, even there, above 90th percentile in this thread.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  150. @Che Guava

    I would withdraw my ‘agree’ if it were possible, you are clearly a very dull doctrinaire smart arse, without an inquisithve cluster in your jellyfish-like brain and personality .

    LOL. Love it. So disdainful, so haughty. Shit like that cracks me up. Like any of Unz’ denizens are highly-educated products of breeding and good taste.

    What? You want I should hurl insults? I should try to top “jellyfish-like”, even “inquisithve”? ROFLMAO.

    Don’t take yourself so seriously, d00d.

  151. @Hu Mi Yu

    Does that mean we are not supposed to go to church?

    Obviously, you are incapable of perceiving the philosophical and profoundly religious exhortation inherent in Paul’s worshipful scriptural rendition of “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”

    It’s like a metaphor, sorta. A metaphor on top of a simile, kinda. Had it a trifling bit of onomatopoeia, you’d be singing a different tune.

    Go to church, hands or no hands.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  152. >Rurik says: But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

    Your argument that evolution has happened in the past and is happening all around us is that species have gone extinct and are going extinct? That’s it? Do you even know what evolution is?

  153. Agent76 says:
    @Simply Simon

    Thank you for your time viewing and commenting. I whole heartedly agree with you. The title of this should have been if I am not a baby what am I then?

  154. buckwheat says:

    Damn I miss the old Fred. I fear he has become pussy whipped, and this Darwin nonsense confirms it.

  155. Nephre says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well, some of us are undiscerning. the fact that you can’t perceive the obvious doesn’t make the obvious go away. The malice is palpable. Maybe your own intellectual farts and psychiatric disorders smell the same as his. That wouldn’t surprise me.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  156. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Nephre

    The malice is palpable. Maybe your own intellectual farts and psychiatric disorders

    Yes, well we certainly feel your malice.

  157. I’m starting to suspect that many people’s faith in big-E Evolution begins to falter after exposure to just how aggressively obnoxious so many of its self-appointed defenders are.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  158. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.

    One should not underestimate the understanding of autodidacts, but certainly a college training in the life sciences equips one to more readily understand the mechanism of organic evolution.

    The machinery of inheritance is both incredibly complex and subject to all manner of errors. Thus it is not that the basic forms of life are subject to change that is surprising, but that reproduction without variation from the original pattern is achieved so often.

    And given the inevitability of genetic variation, evolution itself must be inevitable, since the accidental genetic variants that arise may differ from the original stock in reproductive success: better looks (or worse), for example, the better (or worse) to win the female heart, or grab the dominant male’s attention; faster legs to pursue the game on which survival depends, etc.

    That evolution has occurred is evident from the fossil record (unless we’re assuming that the Lord is joker who planted the fossil record to fool us).

    That evolution must occur is evident from what is now known about the delicacy, and hence imperfect fidelity, of the mechanism of inheritance, and the consequences of the resultant genetic variation for the reproductive success of the variants.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  159. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    In fact, the need to revise religious doctrine in the light of advancing knowledge is inherent in the idea that Holy scripture represents the word of God. The word of God cannot be false. Therefore, where it clashes with our scientific understanding it must be our understanding of the word of God that needs revision, not God’s words.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  160. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    Well. I have three of four (admittedly non-human microbiology, not so much, only from having an intererest to read). So, even there, above 90th percentile in this thread

    Well then show us where evolution claims to explain the creation of the first cell, as Fred seems to think it does. The opening summary in a biology class I took recently was: All life evolved from earlier forms of life. The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @j2
    , @Che Guava
  161. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.”

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park? It was the mathematician who understood the fundamental problem. The fundamental problems, two of the three hard ones, in the evolution theory are mathematical in nature. Knowledge from the fields that you list gives the ability to see the similarity between lifeforms and the mechanisms of procreation and DNA, but nothing of that kind touches the probabilistic problems in creation of life from non-life (before anything existed in the scope of any of the fields you mention) and the creation of completely new species, or say, development through random mutations and selection of the phenotype of protein-coding DNA sections that differ by many mutations. The first fundamental problem is so hard that I even do not know how to attack it by anything but elementary probability theory (with the result that it is unbelievably improbable to put the first cell together), the second is a purely mathematical problem and can be addressed, but I get the result that evolution by the proposed mechanisms cannot work.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  162. @DH

    But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown.

    Over 90% of humans have black hair, and there is good genetic evidence that black hair was the original hair color of humans. So Adam and Eve must have had black hair (as well as brown skin and brown eyes).

    Are you suggesting that Europeans are the product of a special act of creation? If that’s not your suggestion, what exactly are you suggesting?

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  163. @AlreadyPublished

    Who designed your hypothetical designer?”
    Doesn’t your question relate directly to the question scientists ask about the origin of the Big Bang? The singularity I believe they call it. Another one of the mysteries that may never be answered.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  164. hrk says:

    Whats funny is that the Darwin is ignored when it comes to the human species. So they will push it all day long but as soon as you bring up racial or sex based disparities (in the human species), biology, evolution, Darwin etc. ceases to be a topic and the other side instantly goes into World War II mode. Gee…I wonder why? :)

  165. @j2

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park? It was the mathematician who understood the fundamental problem.

    Well, I know that I, personally, base my understanding of evolution on what I learned watching Jurassic Park.

  166. @CanSpeccy

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    Not at all. I avoid exegeses like the plague. Religion is pure invention; science is a process that relies on observed, verifiable information.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  167. @Peter Frost

    Over 90% of humans have black hair, and there is good genetic evidence that black hair was the original hair color of humans. So Adam and Eve must have had black hair (as well as brown skin and brown eyes).

    Eve bit that apple, and ran off for two weeks in Hawaii with a red-headed Neandertal.

  168. @Hu Mi Yu

    The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.

    Nah. Simon is correct — it all comes down to whether that singularity was created, or was the eternal infinitesimal mote that is the basis of all existence, sans creation, sans myth, sans mysticism.

  169. @Che Guava

    Bam bam is the manochurch/Dillon Sweeney/ a-few-others troll who changes his name every couple days and spams all discussions related to evolution, mostly by using the airtight argument of “You’re stupid because I don’t agree with you”.

    Ignore him. At least EliteCommie and Corvinus use the same name so readers can ignore them on sight.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  170. peterAUS says:
    @Buster Keaton’s Stunt Double

    I’m starting to suspect that many people’s faith in big-E Evolution begins to falter after exposure to just how aggressively obnoxious so many of its self-appointed defenders are.

    Pretty much.
    Although it goes above simply “aggressively obnoxious”. As making a person lose his/her job, career…ability to make a living.
    A next, serious level of dealing with “non-believers”.

  171. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Well then show us where evolution claims to explain the creation of the first cell, as Fred seems to think it does. The opening summary in a biology class I took recently was: All life evolved from earlier forms of life. The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.”

    Darwin did suggest that life started in warm ponds. Life being born out of non-life is an essential part of darwinism, which is an ideology disguised as a scientific theory claiming that natural mechanisms have created the multitude of life around us. The idea that all life is created from earlier life is actually an antithesis to darwinism. The idea that life can only be born out of life was something else, like that flies are born of maggots, not from rotting meat. Darwinism certainly allows life to be born out of non-life and one argument of the critics is that it cannot happen in reality.

    To say that life has evolved from previous life is not yet evolution theory. The evolution theory says more, it says that life has evolved from previous life through the mechanisms of the evolution theory, a small set of natural mechanisms like natural selection and mutations, not for instance by inheriting acquired properties. Creationism indeed does oppose the idea that life evolved from earlier forms of life, but most critics of the evolution theory accept this idea, but question the mechanisms.

    Darwin claimed, as the title of his book shows, that all species have developed through the mechanism of selection, natural or sexual or even human selection as he thought a dog was bred from many ancestral species by humans. Later mutations and some other mechanisms have been added and the result is neo-darwinism. But all these mechanisms are still a very small set. Most critics against darwinism say that the proposed mechanisms of evolution are not sufficient to explain the origin of species. That means, to explain it sufficiently well.

    With the exception of some creationists everybody agrees that the proposed mechanisms do change existing species and can create small changes. That was known long before Darwin, as it had been used in breeding for some thousands of years.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  172. @CanSpeccy

    That evolution has occurred is evident from the fossil record (unless we’re assuming that the Lord is joker who planted the fossil record to fool us).

    That is ridiculous. There is no better refutation of the theory of evolution than the fossil record which, rather than displaying a haphazard chaos of forms supposedly left over from the struggle for existence, instead reveals that the basic taxa appear suddenly and endure unaltered throughout long ages. The persistence of forms has necessitated “punctuated equilibrium” and other such ad hoc hypotheses that attempt to square evolution with the contradictory evidence deriving from the fossil record. All this really means is that the theory is in disarray and increasingly desperate attempts must be made to salvage it.

    That evolution must occur is evident from what is now known about the delicacy, and hence imperfect fidelity, of the mechanism of inheritance, and the consequences of the resultant genetic variation for the reproductive success of the variants.

    This is the tautological approach once again. Evolution must occur because some individuals must be better at reproducing than others, etc.

    What evolutionists do not seem to acknowledge is that, supposing that such selective pressures do in fact exist, they would be operating in every direction, in every degree, at every level, in every manner, and at all times. This would result only in a Brownian motion of selective pressures that would produce no net direction and no additive change whatsoever. If anything, they would serve to compress the species into its established mold and to round off any exaggerations and eccentricities that might perchance appear. Logic dictates that to the extent natural selection operates, it must be a conservative force.

    At the individual level, the survival or lack thereof of any creature is dependent on a never-ending train of random incidents that have nothing to do with its reproductive fitness. Every night my porch light draws hundreds of midges. Some of them invariably end up caught in the spider webs that keep reappearing there no matter how often I wipe them off. Others crawl into the glass bulb and perish of dehydration and exhaustion. Dozens more fall to the ground dead of no apparent reason. Did any of these have any inheritable genetic variation that made them more death-prone than their cousins who survived the night? No, they are all very much the same. And neither has evolution operated on them, for the same midges keep recurring each year, each decade, each century, each millennium. There is no Darwinian “signal” in the “noise” of constant death to which all creatures are exposed. All we see is the same actualization in the same forms, again and again. Thus does the will to live manifest itself, and no other evidence do we have.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  173. Rurik says:
    @Avalanche

    Questioning Neo-Dawinian evolution =/= accepting intelligent design.

    tell it to Fred

    I already pointed out that there’s no evidence of “Intelligent design’.

    the rest of your post reeks of ‘the lady doth protest too much – histrionics

  174. Rurik says:
    @Nephre

    Funny – feel the hysteria? … … The _hatred_ exhibited by those who can’t stand ….. … puts you to shame. … … the virulence of your emotions boiling over the top with an intellectual’s version of “rage.” It’s funny. :). Lol. Preposterous jerks.

    another lady doth protest too much, methinks..

    hmm..

  175. SamAdams says:
    @advancedatheist

    The materialists never ask the ultimate questions, so have no real answers. The emotional charge in their reactions is obvious. Some time in their lives they recoiled at formal religion. Instead of believing in ‘God’, they chose to believe in the god of human science. They are unthinking in their faith, yet they scorn others for believing in an ultimate Creator.

    If Humanity and all life came about from a primordial soup, where did that soup come from ? If we are nothing but the chance interaction of matter and energy, – where did matter and energy originate from ? We cannot even describe what, exactly, an ‘electron’, ‘proton’, and ‘neutron’ IS. All we do is discover ‘sub-atomic particles’ that we name & do not understand – – Human beings can be so arrogant. They invent a name for something they have observed and think they’ve explained it.

  176. utu says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    The TofE is the best explanation

    Are the two explanations within the framework of ToE correct? And how would you go about proving or disproving them?

    ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’

    ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’

  177. @Intelligent Dasein

    Mother of God, but you are one major fucking nutjob.

  178. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Aw, Mikey, you are so pathetic, so whiny. Aren’t you embarrassed? If you can’t take it, stop picking at your face and giving yourself primrose tea enemas. Try learning how to write sensible, direct, well-structured English composition.

    I knew a Navy senior chief like you. Showed up on the bridge every freaking morning, and started a litany of complaint. The NCO chow was no good; his bunk was lumpy; the seaman-deuce in charge of coffee didn’t make it right; his wife was probably fucking the next-door neighbor while he was at sea. Same shit, different day, every day. Snipe chief, of course.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  179. I don’t have a dog in this food fight. Though I do note that Fred likes to post a lot of controversial topics and therefore ensures a lot of comments and attention. Who knows what Fred really believes.
    But one thing’s for sure, and that is that the origins of life won’t be settled here. I think Fred just likes to stir the pot and then sits back and laughs. However this is just a supposition, and not a theory.

  180. peterAUS says:
    @SamAdams

    The materialists never ask the ultimate questions, so have no real answers. The emotional charge in their reactions is obvious. Some time in their lives they recoiled at formal religion.

    Yup.

    Instead of believing in ‘God’, they chose to believe in the god of human science.

    I feel it’s more as “I can be God” and even “I am equal to God”.
    Funny word that “equal”. Close to “inequality” from which it easily goes into “privilege”, “oppression” and the rest.
    Makes you think……..or not.

    Human beings can be so arrogant.

    Don’t say.

  181. @BamBam Rubble

    ” Try learning how to write sensible, direct, well-structured English composition.”

    I suppose the irony is lost on you that you would immediately follow up that critique with this whopper:

    “The NCO chow was no good; his bunk was lumpy; the seaman-deuce in charge of coffee didn’t make it right; his wife was probably fucking the next-door neighbor while he was at sea. Same shit, different day, every day. Snipe chief, of course.”

    LOL – But why don’t you use the same handle, fool? You’re mostly a coward, I’d expect. But perhaps you realize you’ve made quite a few ignore lists, and this is how you attempt to stay relevant. Any attention is good attention, I suppose. I suggest you look to your savior, L Ron Hubbard, to guide you.

    Go ahead, give me another weak insult run through the Hindu translator. I have except large brain is very more, yes?

  182. “I will win three Irish Sweepstakes in a row. These odds are infinitely better than the odds of Darwin being correct.
    I find it odd that historians, especially those who question the holocaust narrative, are also treated with the same enthusiastic disdain by the powers that be. Sometime ago I pondered over why it is off limits to question Darwinism? Why is it so protected? I came to a simple conclusion. Darwinism is just 1 part of an overall scheme to deny the existence of God for the purpose of weakening society by abridging, or stunting human thought. Darwinism is a misdirection that fits all too well, and it parallels nicely with Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and the study of electricity, a field of science, that has not been allowed to advance past where it was in the 1920′s. Now you can say my idea requires a conspiracy on a scale so grand that it is incomprehensible, thus impossible. But, so are the Big Bang and Darwin’s theory.

  183. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Two different opinions in the Bible from two different authors. Your favored passage doesn’t automatically override the one you don’t like. Note that Jesus condemned the author of Ecclesiastes, more than once.

    Ecclesiastes’ Epicurean Cetemum censeo that nought is good for man but eating, and drinking, and pleasure (8, 15; 2, 24; 5, 18; cf. 3, 12) is condemned by Jesus (Luke 12, 20) in a section which contains several allusions to the Book of Ecclesiastes {cf. Luke 12, 18 and Eccl. 2, 4; Luke 12, 20 and Eccl. 2, i8b, and above all, Luke 12, 27 = Matt. 6, 29 (Solomon in all his glory).

    The Book of Ecclesiastes: a new metrical translation with an introduction and explanatory notes (John Hopkins Press, 1905, p.6)

    http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofecclesiast00balt

  184. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @SamAdams

    Human beings can be so arrogant. They invent a name for something they have observed and think they’ve explained it: God.

    Thanks for explaining your arrogance to us.

  185. Allan says:

    The objection from the flagella is an oldie and a goodie of antidarwinism. We ought to thank cranky Fred for bringing it to our attention again.

    Just last week I picked up my copy of Atheism Explained by David Steele and, while skimming the chapter about objections to Darwinism, was reminded on p.49 about a shortcoming of the irreducible complexity objection:

    Some kinds of bacteria have tails with which they can swim. These tails or ‘flagella’ have quite a complex structure. When ID began, this was Exhibit A in the case against Darwinism. Thirty proteins are involved in the creation of the flagellum and, the ID people argued, all thirty had to be in place before the flagellum could work.

    No sooner was this claim made than it was refuted. It was discovered that ten of these thirty proteins were responsible for forming the secretory organ of some bacteria.

    On pp. 46 you’ll find a related discussion about the notion of scaffolding. All of this is in a chapter about one of eight popular objections to evolution, i.e. descent with modification. Objection #1 is the complaint that there hasn’t been enough time for evolution. Obj #2 is that we don’t see evolution happening today. Steele deals with sophomoric complaints that we don’t encounter half-evolved structures, that apes are still here, and so on. He carefully distinguishes the IC objection from Paley’s argument that chance could not produce great complexity.

    The book is well worth every penny of the few bucks needed to acquire a copy and is a great introduction to theology in a semirigorous format. Be forewarned that it compensates for its lack of theocratic sanctimony and creationist rage with levity.

    http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/atheism_explained.htm

  186. KenH says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    Horse puckey.

    Whoa, you’re really bringing the heat.

    Your post doesn’t say anything about the percentage of Latinos who voted for Hillary that would make my claim “horse puckey”, so here’s a link that should set you straight:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/37424551/

    65% of Latinos voted for Hildabeast while only 29% voted for Trump. So much for not voting as a racial bloc.

  187. @Colin Wright

    My bad. I can’t type and do math at the same time.

  188. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    Not at all.

    Oh. alright, then. I tried. But what you said thus remains a complete mystery, to me.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  189. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @SamAdams

    If Humanity and all life came about from a primordial soup, where did that soup come from ? If we are nothing but the chance interaction of matter and energy, – where did matter and energy originate from ?

    Good questions. But nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Darwin was quite firm in stating that it was a complete waste of time speculating how life arose. His concern was solely with how the forms of life changed over geological time as evidenced by changes in the fossils to be found in geological strata. If the anti-Darwinians would take a few minutes to think about that, most of their hatred for Darwin and evolutionism would probably evaporate. But somehow they seem unable to confront two simple facts: (1) that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life; and (2) that the fossil record shows that life forms have changed over time.

    It is true that life forms could have changed without evolution having occurred. Perhaps the Lord returned time and again for a spell of special creation. But As we know that life forms do change as a consequence of differential reproductive rates for different forms, it seems most reasonable to assume that the Darwinian process did the whole job, without divine intervention.

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
  190. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park?

    Yes, I took a child to see it. The science in Hollywood movies is always defective.

  191. @Si1ver1ock

    ‘If humans were created, the question is from what?

    Is Fred suggesting that life was created ex nihilo (from nothing).

    Or does intelligent design imply genetic manipulation?

    Do you have to be God to do that?’

    If you’re God, why bother? Just make whatever you want.

    Of course, to me, this merely suggests that even if there is some supernatural being, our conception of Him could be fantastically askew. Who knows what external parameters he has to adhere to? He might just be some sort of cosmic observer. He could be a moron, randomly rearranging blocks and giggling to himself.

    Consider the ants in the foundation of my house. They might well suspect I exist. How accurate their conception of me is would be another matter. For all I know, they might think the neighbor’s cat is actually the Supreme Being. They might even be assuming that I care in the least about the moral quality of the lives they lead.

  192. @CanSpeccy

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    Now you made me feel bad. Allow me to specify.

    Theology is bunk. Pure nonsense. Every declaration within any given theological presentation is invention.

    Religion is a cultural/social behavior based on theology, superstition, tradition and old wives’ tales.

    Science is a system for observation of phenomena, investigation of physical relationships, interpretation of data, and prediction of future inputs and outputs.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  193. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    Darwin did suggest that life started in warm ponds. Life being born out of non-life is an essential part of darwinism, which is an ideology disguised as a scientific theory claiming that natural mechanisms have created the multitude of life around us. The idea that all life is created from earlier life is actually an antithesis to darwinism.

    Evolution is not Darwinism. It was not invented or discovered by Charles Darwin. The idea that all cells evolved from earlier cells is the essence of evolution as currently taught. Speculation on how the first cell came into being is interesting, and it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. But it is still speculation, and how that happened does not affect the theory of evolution at all.

  194. Entirely out of my league here. But allow me to jump right in face first to make a fool of myself anyway.

    My understanding is that, when it comes to evolution there is refinement of the species within it’s existing general shape/form, like neanderthals into modern humans (micro) and there is the transformation from one species to another, like reptiles into birds (macro).

    What evidence is there really of the latter? The former seems straight forward enough. Slowly over time, posture, and existing features like the curve of a beak change by way of selective breeding for what is perceived to be desirable characteristics due to their superior performance within a particular environment creating more breeding opportunities for them.

    But if evolution supposedly starts at a fixed point, the soup, then should there not be an excess of fossil records documenting the slow, millions upon however many millions of years of transformation from something with fins to feet or feet to wings etc. We’re always told it didn’t happen quickly, which to me suggests that it should be no more difficult to find fossils that show things with feet but are still in some stage of losing a tail or gaining wings. Yet, there is no such evidence?

    How can that be? Should there not be just as much, if not more evidence of the macro side of evolution as there is micro?

    Is it not possible that life had a multitude of beginnings? That things with wings always had wings and they just changed and improved according to environment over time?

    Is it not possible that life didn’t come from primordial soup at all? But was rather seeded from an outside force, be that a meteor or aliens or whatever God means to you?

    I mean, I know it’s a big ‘what if’ and that anything without an answer that people can wrap their heads around tends to be lashed out at, but is there any concrete evidence of evolution bringing us from ape to early man? Could it be that something came along and found apes, then mixed it with some other DNA and in doing so created (perhaps more than one type of) early man and then left natural selection to handle the refinement afterwards?

    Parts of the official narrative surrounding evolution, much like the big bang, seem to be carried as much by faith/beleif as the religious viewpoints that both seem to take pleasure in consistently bashing.

  195. Biff says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read

    Lloyd stepped in a crap Pye. That video was almost funny.

  196. Anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @DanFromCT

    You’re not real smart thinking everybody who isn’t part of your perverted Jewish cult is an atheist. St. Paul was right about Christians being mostly ignoble and stupid creatures.

    Speaking of unmanly, socio-sexually dysfunctional losers, Jewsus requested you cut off your balls. And he was a flaming faggot with a boy snuggled in his “bosom,” as the Jew Testament puts it. And he promised heaven means no straight sex forever. Puts that “Bride of Christ” tripe in perspective.

    • Replies: @Charlie Baud
  197. Fred, [love ya, baby]

    Darwinism fails vs. Intelligent Design.

    But the huge issue is: Intelligent Design is a God created world. However, the extremely intelligent among us cannot accept a God because…………………….

    ………………….with a God comes sin and without a God, no sin.

    Hence, where and why you position yourself, as do many others.

  198. @Simply Simon

    Doesn’t your question [who designed the designer] relate directly to the question scientists ask about the origin of the Big Bang? The singularity I believe they call it. Another one of the mysteries that may never be answered.

    I already explained that the further we dial back the clock of history, the less certainty we can have about our theories and hypotheses, reducing us to speculating about plausible scenarios, and that we have no choice but to accept the constraints imposed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    In our present universe, virtual particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously appear from nothing, then annihilate each other. If such a property was present at the beginning, then it is not hard to imagine the entire universe springing into existence from nothing. After all, the sum total of the universe appears to be….nothing.

    “The matter of the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close together have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter.
    So the total energy of the universe is zero.”
    – Stephen W. Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 136.

  199. @BamBam Rubble

    Thanks for your uneducated and unpleasant response to my point. Perhaps you could try doing some basic research before you “shoot off your mouth” next time:

    The term differential reproductive success refers to a statistical analysis comparing successful reproduction rates between groups in a given generation of a species—in other words, how many offspring each group of individuals is able to leave behind. The analysis is used to compare two groups holding different variations of the same trait, and it provides evidence of which group is “the fittest.”

    If individuals exhibiting variation A of a trait are demonstrated to reach reproductive age more often and produce more offspring than individuals with variation B of the same trait, the differential reproductive success rate allows you to infer that natural selection is at work and that variation A is advantageous—at least for conditions at the time. Those individuals with variation A will deliver more genetic material for that trait to the next generation, making it more likely to persist and carry on to future generations. Variation B, meanwhile, is likely to gradually vanish. (ref)

    Your ipse-dixit faith-based assertions don’t really cut it for me.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  200. Dumbo says:

    1. We have not observed or have evidence of the creation of any new species. We have observed only changes in existing species. (i.e. dog breeding, variations of types of flies or bacteria that start reproducing only with the new group, etc.)
    2. It is unlikely that random genetic mutations + “survival of the fittest” explain the changes required to create ever more complex organs and organisms, especially considered that random beneficial mutations are very rare. Another explanation is needed, either the mutations are not random, or something else is involved.
    3. By the way, as it has been observed, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t really mean anything, it’s circular reasoning. Also, species seem to adapt to changes in environment much faster than Darwinian theory implies (epigenetics?).
    4. Most changes in species are conservative, i.e. removing the defective or different and keeping the “normal” or average.
    5. Species seem to appear and disappear suddenly and not gradually (i.e. extinction of dinosaurs, fossil record).
    6. We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone and that life therefore is something much more complicated and unique than we think.
    7. This is not evidence of Intelligent Design, but that the Darwinian theory of the “origin of the species” and succeeding theories is flawed.

    Fred is right. You are all a bunch of unbelievers who will be dragged to Hell to suffer everlasting torment. Lulz.

  201. @Anonymous

    So I take it you’re one of those fedora-tipping deist faggots who think that masonic, judaized 19th-centruy is somehow the one true philosophy? Or maybe your some kind of LARPing neopagan?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  202. @AlreadyPublished

    Your ipse-dixit faith-based assertions don’t really cut it for me.

    Your absurdly comical misunderstanding of evolutionary processes is nothing but bullshit. You, and the rest of the Creationist shit-bags, are nuts. Rage and denial-filled, shrieking priests of a long-ago Baal, converted to a false Christianity.

    You guys never change, and you never fool anybody.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  203. @Dumbo

    Laddie, all seven of your “points” are ridiculous, god-fearing nonsense.

  204. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Really, I think the question of origin is basic. Do you read the posts of others before flying off the handle?

    I was saying that there are many demonstrable instances of evolution, OTOH, very many transitions of organs and development of new ones that are clearly outside the scope of Darwinian, and for that matter, Dawkinsian evolution.

    Sure. I would allow that some may have been mutations. The pink grapefruit was produced from atomic bombardment.

    Perhaps that programme was producing many other new sub-species of fruit and vegetables, but that is the only success story I have heard of.

    How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    Perhaps bats arose immediately after the last mass-extinction (prior to the one now), and there were not enough predators to prevent their further development, but there are many other examples of transformations that have similar implausibility re. the intermediate stages.

    I am not against Darwinian evolution, at all, although it is too clearly close to his own observation of the selective breeding of domestic animals by people.

    My example of the bats above, is just one of very many where it is difficult to imagine a viable intermediate species. In most such cases, there is no fossil record (origin of bats and cetaceans, as examples, there should be intermediate examples of both, but there are not).

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  205. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Dumbo

    1. We have not observed or have evidence of the creation of any new species. We have observed only changes in existing species. (i.e. dog breeding, variations of types of flies or bacteria that start reproducing only with the new group, etc.)

    Wrong. Doctors have identified a Chinese man who has only 44 chromosomes compared to the 46 most of us have. He is a new species, because if he mates with a normal woman most of the pregnancies will miscarry. A similar thing happened 5-7 million years ago when two ape chromosomes merged and separated the 46-chromosome line that led to humans from the 48-chromosome line that led to chimpanzees.

    https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news1242.

    It is unlikely that random genetic mutations + “survival of the fittest” explain the changes required to create ever more complex organs and organisms, especially considered that random beneficial mutations are very rare. Another explanation is needed, either the mutations are not random, or something else is involved.

    Yes, there is another mechanism involved. During the special kind of cell division called meosis that produces egg and sperm cells, the two copies of the genes that we carry in each chromosome pair are switched around. The result is not random but more like a kaleidoscope where the same patterns repeat over and over again down through succeeding generations.

    3. By the way, as it has been observed, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t really mean anything, it’s circular reasoning. Also, species seem to adapt to changes in environment much faster than Darwinian theory implies (epigenetics?).

    If you listen carefully to the sound of a flute you will hear noise. The pure note of the flute is the sound of the random white noise produced by blowing filtered through the closed environment of the flute. So it is with evolution. Randomness is filtered into something elegant.

    Epigenetics doesn’t mean what you think it does. The rapid adaptations are achieved because of the gene crossovers during meisis mentioned above.

    4. Most changes in species are conservative, i.e. removing the defective or different and keeping the “normal” or average.

    And this disproves evolution…how?

    5. Species seem to appear and disappear suddenly and not gradually (i.e. extinction of dinosaurs, fossil record).

    Dinosaurs are not extinct. The larger species died, but we still have birds, crocodiles, and a few dragons.

    The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.

    6. We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone and that life therefore is something much more complicated and unique than we think.

    We are beginning to see evidence for life on mars, and increasingly find organic molecules on asteroids and distant planets. We are almost certainly not alone.

    7. This is not evidence of Intelligent Design, but that the Darwinian theory of the “origin of the species” and succeeding theories is flawed.

    I don’t know what you are writing about here, and I don’t think you do either.

    Fred is right. You are all a bunch of unbelievers who will be dragged to Hell to suffer everlasting torment. Lulz.

    The study of evolution is the study of God’s handiwork. Turn away from it, and you are the one in trouble.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
    , @j2
  206. @Hu Mi Yu

    Cheese Louise, HuMi. You’re a regular Dr. Schweitzer, medicating the dumbos and all. ;-)

  207. Rurik says:
    @Biff

    Thanks for the video

    Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent

    Yes, but certainly less so with the Bonobo

    The bonobo, also called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee,[3] is an endangered great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan;

    Primatologist Frans de Waal states bonobos are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity,[3] and described “bonobo society” as a “gynecocracy”.[34][a] Primatologists

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

    the Bonobo, along with the other great apes, will no doubt go extinct in this century, due to the mindless ravages of the planet by ‘God’s special little creature’.

    someone posted a picture of a child suffering from round worms, and proof that no Intelligent Design would ever create such a thing.

    Watching (with horror) as God’s special little creature, sets about wiping out every last natural wonder (that once inspired man to believe in God in the first place), out of insatiable, blind greed- leaves me thinking the round worm is a species of exquisite elegance by comparison to the mindless, consuming, torturing, droning war-ape.

    But that’s just me ;)

  208. j2 says:
    @Che Guava

    “How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    Perhaps bats arose immediately after the last mass-extinction (prior to the one now), and there were not enough predators to prevent their further development, but there are many other examples of transformations that have similar implausibility re. the intermediate stages.”

    Even in absence of carnivores, how could these miserable intermediate forms compete for sexual partners? No, it is clear that neo-darwinism has not answered the question that Darwin claimed to have answered: the origin of species. Especially as new genuses arose so fast after a mass extinction event, like just before the Cenozoic era.

    I have been thinking of microbes transmitting genes from other species: getting a piece of DNA to their genome from some species and inserting this DNA to the genome of another species. Microbes may also be the place where new gene segments could have developed by mutations: they are old enough and there are many of them. Humans turn out to have shared genes with cats, cows and mice. “Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.” Cats should be closer to dogs than to humans and about as far from humans and chimps, but it is not so. It is like cats have got human genes and the only way would be by microbes moving them between species. So, humans who had cows got cow genes and were thereafter called cattle, goyim, while humans, who had sheep got sheep genes and got thick curly hair and heavy beards and they believed sheepishly all what their priests told them. Hunter gatherers knew that characteristics can move from a species to another. They tried to get genes from their totem animal: bears and jaguars, by keeping the skins and heads of these animals, or keeping the animals in cages. They wanted the hunting instincts of a large carnivore.

    I think this theory has as much potential as darwinism. Not worse anyway. Darwinism is a fable.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  209. Che Guava says:

    I stop at your casual use of ‘goyim’, and stupid one-off username.

  210. Che Guava says:
    @j2

    You are making a very valid point, but AFAiK, that kind of gene-sharing only exissts among bacteria.

    • Replies: @j2
  211. anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dumbo

    We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone

    While the first part is technically correct, I am getting the feeling that you do not quite understand just how massive the universe is..

  212. j2 says:
    @Che Guava

    “but AFAiK, that kind of gene-sharing only exissts among bacteria.”

    Not quite so, and it mostly happens with viruses. About 8% of human genome is DNA humans got from viruses. There happens all kind of copying errors with DNA. It is not at all impossible that viruses may get DNA segments from the host. (I would say it is certain that they can get DNA from the host if they can pass DNA to the host, it is the same mechanism.) In this way viruses may transport genes from another species. Interspecies sex is not the only way.

    This is one way to get a gene for a wing of a bat. No gradual evolution. Take a ready one.

  213. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    They might not have been able to fly, but even a little webbing would make them effective swimmers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew

    In general, shrews are terrestrial creatures that forage for seeds, insects, nuts, worms, and a variety of other foods in leaf litter and dense vegetation, but some specialise in climbing trees, living underground, living under snow, or even hunting in water.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  214. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    Theology is bunk. Pure nonsense. Every declaration within any given theological presentation is invention.

    Religion is a cultural/social behavior based on theology, superstition, tradition and old wives’ tales.

    Science is a system for observation of phenomena, investigation of physical relationships, interpretation of data, and prediction of future inputs and outputs.

    So you confirm my statement that science and religion are of different stuff.

    But because religion is not fact based does not mean it is worthless. Fairy tales and nursery rhymes are not true but they have a function, as does the Iliad or the Odyssey. A religious account of the history of the world and the nature of God or the Gods is a narrative to live by. A good religion has a valid social function. It is a vital social institution. It is a factor determining group survival and competitive success. Likewise, the readiness of people to accept a religious belief, or at least to accept a religious narrative as a guide to life.

    Readiness, in a scientific and materialistic age, to accept the validity of religion was nicely expressed by that atheist Winston Churchill who said, “In times of fear or perplexity, I pray to God, and it helps. It helps a lot.”

    I suspect that there is a genetic component to that susceptibility to the power of pray and the readiness to accept the existence of a benign, or at least somewhat benign, god if not a pantheon of gods.

    Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who reject religion as a harmful load of rubbish are, in my view sadly, indeed catastrophically, mistaken. Indeed it is hard to understand how Dawkins can be so obtuse as to fail to understand the biological function of religion.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  215. @CanSpeccy

    We disagree.

    I’m sure we both will survive.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  216. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Thank you.

    I did not know of the variety of shrews before, only having seen the basic ground-dwelling SE Asian variety, and read of Shakespeare’s use of the word for a certain type of womam.

    However, I would posit that ripping factoids from WP is of little value most of the time, and does not explain getting from there to bats.

    Actually, I am pretty sure that genetic evidence places bats quite distant from shrews. Even the metabolism. Shrews are like certain birds and insects, in that they can never rest. Most bats can.

    Although we must be aware that the grand-ancestor of placental mammals likely was a shrew, or shrew-like.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  217. @BamBam Rubble

    Thanks for the unjustified torrent of abuse, Mr fictional stoneage cartoon baby.
    Every one of my posts was anti-creationist, pro-evolutionary, pro-science, pro-detective, anti-mystic, contrary to your latest round of schizophrenic false charges.

    Here’s that link that you ignored, like a fanatical creationist:

    https://www.google.com/search?&q=differential+reproductive+success

    I’ll put you on my ignore list.

  218. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    We disagree.

    I contend that religions are systems of belief that shape morality, and that group morality determines the survival of tribes, races, nations and civilizations.

    Among religions I would include all systems of belief for the shaping of public morality, including not only Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also Confucianism, Communism and, in the West today, the government-promoted and bureaucratically- and judicially-imposed system of belief known as political correctness.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    On that, are we in disagreement?

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  219. Avalanche says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    “No, you idiot. Evolution is not a driving force, not an active force, not a force at all. Species adapt; evolution doesn’t make them adapt.”

    So, you’re suggesting that some adaptation “just happens” and that makes ANY species evolve into some OTHER species?!

    How is it that evolution has QUIT happening — have any new species shown up by adaptation (or any other method)? Not a slight modification already possible within a species, but a whole entirely new species that never existed before? Check out the Finnish enzyme microbiologist who wrote his book “Heretic” — he and his grad students were NOT able to “evolve” enzymes — even WITH “directed evolution by an intelligent designer” beyond certain limits? (And NOT into anything close to a new species!) How come ‘intelligent designer’ dog breeders cannot make a NEW species out of ‘dog parts’: not a subspecies / race of DOGS; but a wholly NEW species with different genes? Mutation can’t do it!

    IF evolution results from adaptation (since evolution doesn’t force anything…) — why has NOTHING “adapted” into a new animal in all of human-recorded history? Why is evolution not just one more ‘just-so’ story, told in an attempt to explain what we can’t yet figure out?

  220. @CanSpeccy

    I contend that religions are systems of belief that shape morality, and that group morality determines the survival of tribes, races, nations and civilizations.

    Good lord, Speccy. You’re looking for a carefully-considered discussion, old-school style? I don’t know if I can meet the challenge, soured as I am by years of exposure to Mensa members. (That’s a wee joke. I went to a Mensa meeting once.)

    Not to be too picky with language, but religions may be belief systems. They may be social systems that are prescriptive of behavior. They may be systems that include prescriptive morality. They may be fideist systems where “morality” is defined only in terms of a variation on the age-old principle of reciprocity.

    I say all that because religion is not necessarily prescriptive of ethical values, and I am one to differentiate morality and ethical values.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  221. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, we finally got that settled.

  222. j2 says:

    The dichtomy with evolution and creation is wrong. If nothing had evolved, there would not be anything created, so lack of evolution is a proof of lack of creation.

    It is also true to the other direction: Evolution is a proof of creation. Think about anything you have created: a book, a painting, a melody, a program, an article, a piece of furniture, a prosperous firm. It always took time and the idea evolved during this time. It was never that you said, let it be and it was. Indeed, if somebody claims to have created a piece of anything and there are no signs that the idea was evolving for some time, he most probably stole the result form someone else.

    What shows in evolution that it is creation is that it evolves towards better rather than degrades. And evolution as a term means that it is getting higher, better. Naturally everything finally breaks down, gets worse, ages, rots. So if something gets better it must be creation of some kind. It must use intelligence of some kind, even if this intelligence is given by some simple rules like natural selection.

    But as it turns out, natural selection, like all selection processes, only reduces choices. It reduces complexity and is basically a destructive force, not a creative one. A creative force in darwinism is random mutations, selection is a destructive force reducing alternatives. I have tried to compose music by writing a program that goes through different variations of a riff. There are quite many and one can take a sample and listen. Practically no variation is good. It is almost impossible to find a single good riff in this way. Why? Because taking a random sample is like random mutations, they just do not find the very few good combinations that there are somewhere. But finding a reasonable new riff with a guitar is not so difficult and does not take so long. That is an intelligent choice.

  223. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “He is a new species, because if he mates with a normal woman most of the pregnancies will miscarry.”

    He is a new species only if he finds a woman and makes fertile children. The problem with mutations is that it is difficult to make two mutated individuals so that they start a new species.

    “During the special kind of cell division called meosis that produces egg and sperm cells,”

    We all know meosis. It cannot create totally new genes. Find a way that can explain how an intron can get 10 or so mutations so that it codes a really different protein and the gene variant is not only an allele of an existing one.

    “Dinosaurs are not extinct. The larger species died, but we still have birds, crocodiles, and a few dragons.”

    Crocodiles and Komodo dragon are not dinosauri. Komodo dragon is Squamata and Crocodils are Crocodilia. Only birds developed from dinosauri (Teropodot), but are not considered Teropodots.

    “The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.”

    Charles Darwin claimed so. In his time it still sounded possible. Now we know that the gaps are not a result of missing fossils. The gaps are real.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  224. dkshaw says:
    @nsa

    I know nothing of Florida. International.
    SUNY Binghamton happens to be world class, widely recognized as such.

  225. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BamBam Rubble

    I say all that because religion is not necessarily prescriptive of ethical values, and I am one to differentiate morality and ethical values.

    All the religions I mentioned are prescriptive of ethical values, which covers virtually all of the religions that are currently a force in the world.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    You cannot provide definitive evidence that the present-day morphological, physiological, or behavioral variants among individuals of a species have implications for evolutionary success. Yet you believe that to be the case, for that belief is the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

    So, no, I cannot give definitive evidence that, going forward, Judaism, say, will affect the evolutionary success on its adherents relative to the adherents of political correctness or voodoo. But one can surely find examples of the impact of religions faith on the success or failure of particular human groups: the followers of Jim Jones, for example, or David Koresh, or the followers of Moses in Nazi-dominated Europe, although I am not quite sure how to score the last example. In the short run, the consequences of Judaic belief were more or less disastrous, yet the survivors driven abroad seem to have done well.

  226. anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    We all know meosis. It cannot create totally new genes. Find a way that can explain how an intron can get 10 or so mutations so that it codes a really different protein and the gene variant is not only an allele of an existing one.

    Introns don’t code proteins. I have no idea where you are getting this from. You are the only person I’ve ever seen who claims that you need “10 or so” mutations to introns to change gene expression. You have not even come close to showing that this is the case. When asked for a source, you cite yourself and your own reasoning. Or you tell people to find it themselves. If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claims.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  227. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    However, I would posit that ripping factoids from WP is of little value most of the time, and does not explain getting from there to bats.

    I have long puzzled over the evolution of flight, and I am sure that this development is incompletely understood. As best I can see, the transition would start with webbed feet giving better swimming ability. Over time the webbing become larger, and the creatures swim greater distances. This gives them the ability to escape predators and reach new predator-free environments such as caves on small rocky islands. Even small wings inadequate for flight will allow improved ability to jump from rocky crags. In the protected environment of the caves they lose their sight, and the evolution of wings continues. Eventually the wings become large enough for flight.

    Forgive me for citing wikipedia again, but another path to the development of flight is arboreal. Flying squirrels have evolved gliding capability from their habitat in trees. Given another 20 million years they might evolve flight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

    I agree with the rest of your reply.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  228. j2 says:
    @anonymous

    “Introns don’t code proteins.”

    introns code proteins. introns are the pieces of a gene that code proteins. They are the protein-coding part of the genome.
    #Introns were first discovered in protein-coding genes of adenovirus,[4][5] and were subsequently identified in genes encoding transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA genes# (do not be confused by the language, it means they code proteins)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

    “If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claims.”

    You find some references from this post:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/26/viruses-in-evolution/

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    , @anonymous
  229. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    To cite an extreme case, the Shakers have died out, because they do not believe in having children. Beliefs regarding birth control and medical care also have an effect.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  230. j2 says:
    @anonymous

    “You are the only person I’ve ever seen who claims that you need “10 or so” mutations to introns to change gene expression. ”

    I have never said so. You just do not understand. I have said that one-two mutations gives you new alleles, which naturally change the gene expression. But they cannot change reptile skin to feathers or hair. In order to make the large changes, like give a shrew a wing of a bat, you need to have essentially different proteins and therefore you need essentially different introns. DNA is first coded to RNA and then to proteins, but essentially it is so that DNA codes protein via RNA. The protein-coding parts are called introns.

    “When asked for a source, you cite yourself and your own reasoning. If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claim”

    Very obviously you have never written original scientific papers, I have. The idea is not to refer to somebody else’s result. The idea is to present your own results.

    “I have no idea where you are getting this from.”

    It is because you do not know the field.

    “Or you tell people to find it themselves.”

    Yes, if the person asks an idiotic question that he either should know or should look himself from the literature/web. Like, if you start questioning of what is the average mutation rate and want a source for this well-known figure, well, that you should know and if you do not know you should look it up. It is about the same as asking what is your source for the gravitation acceleration 9.81 m/s2. Such things do not need sources, readers should know them, at least those readers who start questioning the values. First check if you are correct, do not do propaganda as an anonymous commenter.

  231. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    Crocodiles and Komodo dragon are not dinosauri. Komodo dragon is Squamata and Crocodils are Crocodilia. Only birds developed from dinosauri (Teropodot), but are not considered Teropodots.

    Crocodiles and dinosaurs are both descended from archosaurs. So they are cousins, and the Komodo dragon is a somewhat more distant cousin. All of them I loosely consider dinosaurs based on appearance and age, even though strict taxonomy has separated them. Anyway my point was dinosaurs did not go extinct. They do have living descendants in birds.

    “The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.”

    Charles Darwin claimed so. In his time it still sounded possible. Now we know that the gaps are not a result of missing fossils. The gaps are real.

    Evidence?

    Even discrediting the trail of fossils would not destroy evolution, because today the evidence from biochemistry is even stronger.

    • Replies: @j2
  232. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    introns code proteins. introns are the pieces of a gene that code proteins. They are the protein-coding part of the genome.

    No. Exons are the protein coding parts of the genome. Introns are removed during the editing which occurs after transcription.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

    An intron is any nucleotide sequence within a gene that is removed by RNA splicing during maturation of the final RNA product.[1][2] The term intron refers to both the DNA sequence within a gene and the corresponding sequence in RNA transcripts.[3] Sequences that are joined together in the final mature RNA after RNA splicing are exons.

    • Replies: @j2
  233. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    So, I’ll just change the problem tom exon problem. The problem stays exactly the same.

  234. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Even discrediting the trail of fossils would not destroy evolution, because today the evidence from biochemistry is even stronger.”

    You mean that evolution, that life has evolved from earlier forms, is proven. This is not questioned. The question is how, that is, evolution has not proceeded gradually but with fast bursts. And it is the fastness of those bursts that is the problem for random mutations. How to get in a too short time enough change by the mutation rate.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  235. anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    Introns don’t code proteins. They are part of the non-coding region of a gene. They’re found in protein coding genes, but they have other regulatory functions. I don’t know much clearer I can make this for you. It seems to be you who is confused by the language.

    Again, none of the sources in your blog post support your wacky claims. Your second reply is pure silliness. Sorry, not worth a response.

    • Replies: @j2
  236. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    To cite an extreme case, the Shakers have died out, because they do not believe in having children. Beliefs regarding birth control and medical care also have an effect.

    Yes, a compelling example.

    The commitment to chastity has been recurrent among Christians, for example the Gnostics and Cathars. Such sects were, obviously, self-terminating, although the church helped speed them on their way.

    Pro-abortion theologies must also tend to self-extinguish, e.g., Soviet Communism — the demographic consequences of which post-Communist Russia is now trying to escape; and in progress, the theology of Political Correctness, which has the European peoples in its deadly anit-nativist grip.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  237. MacNucc11 says:
    @Rurik

    So good then we are all in agreement that Darwinism is a religion.

    • Disagree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  238. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    You mean that evolution, that life has evolved from earlier forms, is proven. This is not questioned. The question is how, that is, evolution has not proceeded gradually but with fast bursts. And it is the fastness of those bursts that is the problem for random mutations. How to get in a too short time enough change by the mutation rate.

    Show us the numbers. Remember to factor in to your calculation the phenotypic changes resulting from crossover during meosis that are not mutations.

    waiting…

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  239. MacNucc11 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The fossil record does not support natural selection. It does show that species have changed over time but not as the result of a mutation taking hold and being spread through the population but rather as a more sudden change. In other words you didn’t start seeing a slightly different organism and then all changed to that gradually but that that all changed at the same time.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  240. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Speccy, the Cathars were the basis for the Troubadeur culture of Southern France, generally considered one of the most attractive and appealing sub-cultures Europe has created and the creators of Romantic Love.

    They were flourishing quite well until the Catholic Church decided to crush them with maximum brutality and bloodshed, as happiness and ease and poetry could not be allowed to endure if Progress was going to start.

    Also, Theravada Buddhism, the kind practiced in Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Ceylon, advocates celibacy yet these countries are noted for being happy, easy going, sociable, and quite flourishing sorts of places and for a frivolous sexual promiscuity found in few other places in the world (alongside more conventional sexual mores on the surface).

    Such apparent contradictions in the utility of philosophies for Darwinian purposes!

  241. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    This has nothing to do with meiosis. It is of mutations. To get enough mutations with the mutation rate in the given time.

    There is a mammalian specific protein superfamily SCGB, which contains mouse ABP and cat Fel d 1 which differ by 50% according to one reference in my post. Thus, the protein coding parts differ by 50%. Fel d 1 is 90 amino acids long according to another reference in the post, that is 270 base pairs. So 50% is 135 base pair difference. Maybe this family was already in pre-mammals, so 260 million years ago but mammals divergated 60 million years ago, so the time to get these mutations is 200 million years. The mutation rate in 200 million years is 0.5*10-9*2*10+8 =0.1 mutations per base pair. The probability of getting 135 mutations gives 0.1 to 135 times (270 over 90) which is about 2 to -222.

    Notice that if the exon becomes duplicated and the mutating one is pseudocode, because there is no way all intermediate versions can work, then selection is not acting on this pseudocode exon. The mutations come randomly, like they come to the Y-DNA markers that are used to calculate divergency times, junk-DNA. This is why I can calculate simple probability.

    • Replies: @j2
  242. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    #Show us the numbers. Remember to factor in to your calculation the phenotypic changes resulting from crossover during meosis that are not mutations.#

    In case your question is about the speed of emergency of new subclasses after an extinction event, then look at a chart showing it. I have one right here, but no scanner to send it to you. In Cenozoic era 10 subclasses emerged in 10 million years (61-49), Xenarthra, Rodentia, Litopterna, ruminants, Mesonychid, whales, horses, bats, insectivora. You find a similar case in the beginning of Mesozoic, and Permi. You know this all, but just want to play. Show us the numbers! Why, you know it is so. You have to know. I am waiting for your calculation of the mutations. Are you not the expert.

  243. j2 says:
    @anonymous

    I am a mathematician and mathematicians do not need to know the terminology used in a particular field. We work by thinking, not by learning words. Mathematics is not wacky or silly. Please, give an answer to the mutation problem if you can, in numbers, in mathematics. The problem in evolution is mathematical. It is not a problem of terms and words you want to use. Only people who do not have an answer need to call the opponent wacky and silly. That is what trolls do here when they do not know anything.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  244. j2 says:
    @j2

    Even if you consider a triplet of base pairs as an unit, you still get a too small probability to get something large enough with a realistic population size. I changed the terms intron and exon and recalculated with an unit of three nucleotide pairs. Still too small. There is a problem in the theory, it cannot be removed by hand waving and complaining of terminology.

  245. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    I am a mathematician and mathematicians do not need to know the terminology used in a particular field. We work by thinking, not by learning words. Mathematics is not wacky or silly. Please, give an answer to the mutation problem if you can, in numbers, in mathematics. The problem in evolution is mathematical. It is not a problem of terms and words you want to use. Only people who do not have an answer need to call the opponent wacky and silly. That is what trolls do here when they do not know anything.

    So your math is excellent, you just don’t do word problems?

    The answer to the mutation problem lies in the details of the coding. You might want to have a look here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

    Most DNA is non coding. Coding sequences begin with a start codon and end with one or more stop codons. The non coding sequences (such as introns) can mutate for eons without affecting the viability of the organism. A mutation involving start or stop codons can turn off a protein, or turn on previously non coding DNA on to create an entirely new protein. Sudden jumps, just as you require.

    The crossover during meiosis also helps, but I am tired of explaining things to you. I get paid for tutoring.

  246. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @MacNucc11

    So good then we are all in agreement that Darwinism is a religion.

    Darwinism is a religion. Evolution is a science.

    • Replies: @j2
  247. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Darwinism is a religion. Evolution is a science.”

    Evolution is a fact. The evolution theory pretends to be a scientific theory, but under the scientific cover are ideas of a religion, darwinism. Such scientific theories are called pseudoscience. If any science faces a mathematical problem and refuses to address it, then it is pseudoscience.

    Finally, try to solve the following problem. I have waited for your answer. It seems that in order to get 40 mutations to any single protein-coding part in any single individual in a population, you need more than 10 million years, assuming that mutations arise as your evolution theory says, from random mutations and not by some other mechanisms, like transfer of DNA by viruses, or intelligent design. Yet you know that in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era developed in 10 million years many subclasses of mammals. According to your evolution theory placental mammals developed form the same ancestor around 66 million years ago. Are you claiming that bats, whales, rodents, ruminants do not have a single protein that differs 40% from a protein in a far away placental mammalian species?

    But I can show one. the SCGB superfamily diversified in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. A cat has the protein Fel d 1, it appears in many subclasses, so it developed in 10 million years. A mouse has a protein ABP that differs 50% form Fel d 1, and these are indeed the closest ones, others are further from Fel d 1. The length seems to be 90 amino acids. We can treat DNA in units of three, so it is about 90 units and 45 changes in them. Yet, this seems to be impossible. If you think CH2 gene mutated exceptionally fast, I am sure you can find differing proteins coded by other genes. Those mammalian subclasses look so different that they have some different genes.

    And meiosis has nothing to do with this.

    Assume:
    exon size is n=100
    mutations in exon k=40
    mutation rate 0.5*10**-9 per bp per year
    time 10 million years = 10**7
    genes in genome 20,000-100,000
    exons in a gene 10
    exons total in an individual < 10**6
    population size 100 billion
    exons total in any individual in the population < 10**17

    q mutation probability of a bp = mutation rate * time = 1/200
    probability of k mutations in an exon from the binomial formula
    (n over k)q**k(1-q)**(n-k) < (n over k)q**k
    =sqrt(48pi)**-1 (0.4)**-40 (0.6)**-60 2**40 10**-80
    =2**93*2**-282 =2**-190=10**-57

    Probability that no exon in the genome of one individual
    Less than 10**-51

    Probability that no exon in any single individual in the population
    Less than 10**-40

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  248. j2 says:
    @j2

    and assuming that pseudogene has a much higher mutation rate leads to another problem, since if the exon evolved in pseudogene, there was no selection pressure on it. Then it it totally unbelievable that the result of so many mutations could be anything sensible. Do any way you want, Ho, there is a problem.

  249. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    Assume:
    exon size is n=100
    mutations in exon k=40
    mutation rate 0.5*10**-9 per bp per year
    time 10 million years = 10**7
    genes in genome 20,000-100,000
    exons in a gene 10
    exons total in an individual < 10**6
    population size 100 billion
    exons total in any individual in the population < 10**17

    You have many assumptions here, some of which are off by orders of magnitude.

    Probability that no exon in any single individual in the population
    Less than 10**-40

    And your conclusion is grammatically incorrect to the point of incomprehensibility.

    • Replies: @j2
  250. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    ” Assume:
    exon size is n=100
    mutations in exon k=40
    mutation rate 0.5*10**-9 per bp per year
    time 10 million years = 10**7
    genes in genome 20,000-100,000
    exons in a gene 10
    exons total in an individual < 10**6
    population size 100 billion
    exons total in any individual in the population < 10**17

    You have many assumptions here, some of which are off by orders of magnitude."

    What would be that. exon size is correct, mutation rate is correct, genome size is correct, time is correct, exons in a gene is correct. Then I give you all the chance with the population size, putting it very much higher than is should be.

    " Probability that no exon in any single individual in the population
    Less than 10**-40

    And your conclusion is grammatically incorrect to the point of incomprehensibility."

    The verb is omitted as it is not a sentence, see there is no full stop. You understand perfectly well that it means the probability that there are 40 mutation in any exon in any individual in the population.

    So, please, tell what parameters are orders of magnitude wrong and make the calculation. You can understand it, it is very basic. ** means to power, cannot write it in other way here.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  251. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    So, please, tell what parameters are orders of magnitude wrong and make the calculation. You can understand it, it is very basic. ** means to power, cannot write it in other way here.

    I have no problem with your notation. I disagree with your assumptions and model.

    time 10 million years = 10**7

    To start with we have billions of years rather than millions.

    exon size is n=100

    Exon size is highly variable. Again from wikipedia because the writing is better than mine, and they have references:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon

    Across all eukaryotic genes in GenBank there were (in 2002), on average, 5.48 exons per gene. The average exon encoded 30-36 amino acids.[6] While the longest exon in the human genome is 11555 bp long, several exons have been found to be only 2 bp long.[7] A single-nucleotide exon has been reported from the Arabidopsis genome.[8]

    Let’s skip the rest of the assumptions and get to the model which includes only point defects which affect one base pair at a time. There are also insertion errors and deletion errors which affect many base pairs at a time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indel

    AFAIK no one has an adequate metric for measuring the number of mutations between DNA in different species. The problem is homologous to data compression where heuristics are used.

    Your analysis is faulty from beginning to end. Your math is fine, but you just can’t do word problems.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  252. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    ” time 10 million years = 10**7
    To start with we have billions of years rather than millions.”

    No, the problem was how can SCGB protein superfamily diversify in placental mammals in 10 million years, from 66 million to 56 million years ago. It is 10 million years, not billions of years. SCGB is specific to mammals and assuming that all mammals diversified from early mammals in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era, then we must assume that the first placental mammals had one version of this family and it diversified in 10 million years. As Fel d 1 can be found from several subclasses of placental mammals, it must have developed in 10 million years. Your first objection is wrong.

    “exon size is n=100
    Exon size is highly variable.”

    It is irrelevant that it is variable, we need the average. You quote Wiki as “The average exon encoded 30-36 amino acids”. One amino acid is coded by three base pairs, so this gives the average 100 bp per exon. If exon size is longer than 100 the probability obtained is smaller. Just counting the ones above average you get quite enough exons. The problem can be stated, no exon at least 100 bp can have 40% (or over) mutations, but there is CH2 which is longer and has 50%. You must know this if you did the calculation, so your second objection is not only irrelevant, it is dishonest.

    “Let’s skip the rest of the assumptions and get to the model which includes only point defects which affect one base pair at a time. There are also insertion errors and deletion errors which affect many base pairs at a time.”

    You are suggesting that no proteins in placental mammals have diverged from the ancestral form 66 million years ago by over 40 mutations, that while there are proteins that differ more, they are always caused by insertion and deletion errors. This claim is almost certainly false. You should show that this is the case if you claim so, as it is highly improbable.

    At the same time you admit that all other assumptions are valid. As also the two assumptions you commented were valid, all assumptions are valid.

    “AFAIK no one has an adequate metric for measuring the number of mutations between DNA in different species. The problem is homologous to data compression where heuristics are used. ”

    Here you only state that there is no adequate metric for measuring mutations between DNAs of two species. My problem does not require such metric. I asked you to solve the problem in a way that you get a reasonable probability for getting the SCGB superfamily of proteins from mutations. You have not managed to do it.

    “Your analysis is faulty from beginning to end. Your math is fine, but you just can’t do word problems.”

    You have not managed to show any faults. The only valid comment you have given is that I mixed up the terms exon and intron. You, though still taking courses, so a student, claim to be an expert on this topic. Yet, I from another field, found in the first look a fatal problem in the evolution theory. You cannot answer it, so you have to claim that “the analysis is faulty” while you cannot say where it is faulty. The problem I gave is one way of formulating the problem, how a shrew can develop the wing of a bat. It is no wonder that you cannot answer it. The calculation shows that it cannot, not in that time frame.

    If given a problem from your field where you claim expertise, you must be able to show the faults if you claim that the analysis is faulty. You cannot show the faults. You have had enough time for showing it, but all you can produce is two incorrect objections. You indeed play only with words, no analysis at all. You just claim that the opponent is wrong and everybody should believe the student still taking courses.

    Give it up Hu, you failed. And no wonder, the evolution theory is religion. It is hard to defend religion against mathematics. You are just a student of a Yeshiva of Darwinism.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  253. j2 says:
    @j2

    Notice that I take for simplicity base 2 for base pairs. They actually have base 4, so the probability is still much smaller. But I do not need to get so low, 10**-40 is low enough. A model can always be simplified as long as the main result is not affected, and here it is not.

    You can have more mutations than there are base pairs, but then they are back mutations in base 2. The probability of multiple mutations in the same base pair is low enough to be ignored in the model.

    Normally I would do the model with a Poisson process, but as you are a student of biology, I thought that it is better to stay in very basic probability theory and not to go to stochastic processes, which do model the situation better. If you want, calculate it with Poisson process and find what is the probability of 40% base pairs assuming the average rate is as given. The result is basically the same.

    “Your analysis is faulty from beginning to end. Your math is fine, but you just can’t do word problems.”
    I wonder if you actually are Chinese. Chinese are usually good in math and logic and this is not a typical Chinese comment.

  254. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Let’s skip the rest of the assumptions and get to the model which includes only point defects which affect one base pair at a time. There are also insertion errors and deletion errors which affect many base pairs at a time. ”

    I will still add a refutation also for this your comment. The mechanisms you mentioned are even less probable than mutations. Their effect could be included by increasing the mutation rate, but there is a simpler way: we can ignore these changes as the counterexample, Fel d 1 and ABP, have enough parts with point mutations. Fel d 1 is 90 amino acids long, so 270 base pairs in exons. The proteins Fel d 1 and ABP have parts that are 50% identical. There can be reordering, but we can ignore the reordering and count only the parts that are 50% identical and other non-reordered parts that are even less identical. The genes producing these proteins have the same origin. Even assuming that each of these mutated only 25%, you still get the same result (strong enough even like that and much stronger if you change base 2 to base 4).

    As a conclusion, none of your comments showed any errors in the assumptions as you claimed. You have also not shown any faults in the model (which is simplified, but if you make a more complete model the result stays the same, please try and put your model and parameters to the comments).

    You only can do hand waving and comment like “faulty analysis”, “incorrect assumptions”. You should be able to show them, but you cannot. You are not a professor to use such expressions, I am, but I do not use such hazy expressions because one should prove what one claims.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  255. Merlin says:

    Do you know that lipids have been found in fossils that are supposedly 558 million years old? Not to mention all the other soft tissues that have been found in fossils 68 million years old and older. Any of you want to buy a bridge from me? Great prices, lots of choices.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  256. @Merlin

    What’s your point?

    Did you know that nylon is a novel substance created by humans?
    Did you know that bacteria have evolved to eat nylon and other plastics?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism

    Did you know that your claims have more truth value when supported by links to evidence that can be found in the real world?

    I don’t see any evidence that you own a bridge.

    • Replies: @Merlin
  257. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Soft tissue, the original material, does not last anything close to millions of years. If you are gullible enough to believe in soft tissue lasting millions of years, you can get rich buying a cheap bridge from me. I’ll sell you any bridge in the world. Cheap.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  258. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    How do webbed feet become wings?

    There seems little connection between swimming and flying, even the flying fish only has a slight abilhty to giide.

    For one of the gliding mammals to develop flight, it would have to be a unique form, since they don’t have anything resembling a wing. As you would know, the gliding is based on a membrane between hind and forelimbs.

    An interesting thought, though. You have me speculating about possible mechanisms.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  259. Anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    The religious right are really something else.

  260. @Merlin

    Once again, you didn’t present any real world evidence that you own a bridge, nor did you show any real world evidence of well-preserved/non-decayed “soft tissue” (not pertrified) in multi-million year old fossils. All you provided was faith-based ipse-dixit assertion, being a common theme for creationists and their pantheon of spontaneously-generated supernatural “intelligent” designers.
    (ipse-dixit means, approximately, “because I said so, therefore true.”)

    You must be a “young Earth” creationist. Here’s an example of your skydaddy’s handiwork, which He (with His redundant reproductive organs and capital H for reverence) designed to test your faith:

    As a larval flatfish begins its passage into adulthood, it does not merely experience uneven growth spurts and mood swings. Rather, it changes from a cute, symmetrical little fish into a total anatomical disaster—like some unrecognizable object evolution made from clay in preschool and gleefully brought home to its parents, who kept it for “sentimental value.”
    Evolution of the Flatfish, PBS

    • Replies: @Merlin
  261. Evolution, getting better, is not a fact.
    ‘Better’ is a subjective judgement.
    That species change is a fact.
    Alas, until now nobody understands this change.
    If Darwin decided to use the word evolution to soothe the blow to creation believers, or that he himself believed in man as the end of the change of species, w’ll never know.
    As to the origin of life, w’re not even able to define what life is.
    The sulfur life in the bottom of the oceans shows that quite other forms of life are possible.
    The only science fiction writer able to imagine a quite different form of life was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, in one the best, in my opinion, science fiction novels ever written ‘The Black Cloud’.

  262. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    How do webbed feet become wings?

    The webbed feet improved swimming and allowed them to reach isolated predator-free areas where wings could develop. This was in response to the assertion that partially developed wings would make the creature clumsy and vulnerable to predators. This is speculation, of course.

    I also pointed out flying squirrels which have partially developed flight.

  263. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    I will still add a refutation also for this your comment. The mechanisms you mentioned are even less probable than mutations

    Insertion and deletion errors are mutations, and they do occur reasonably often. If you had followed the reference you would have known that. They make massive changes in two ways. First by inserting and deleting chains of amino acids in proteins, and second by altering the reading frame to completely change the meaning of the following DNA.

    Also I think you are confusing exons with matured and edited mRNA. Even more changes can occur in the editing process.

    • Replies: @j2
  264. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MacNucc11

    The fossil record does not support natural selection.

    Didn’t say it did. I said the fossil record indicated that there had been organic evolution, i.e. the forms of life have changed over time.

    There is of course plenty of evidence that natural selection occurs. How could it not?

  265. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Ha. You didn’t even read my concise reply.

    Admittedly, your attempt at making ynur earlier association of webbed feet and flight have some semblance of logic did give me a laugh, so thanks.

    Please try to read sincere comments before writing replies.

  266. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    OK, well have a look at a bat. The wings are elongated webbed fingers between four digits and a vestigial thumb.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  267. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    To start with we have billions of years rather than millions.”

    No, the problem was how can SCGB protein superfamily diversify in placental mammals in 10 million years, from 66 million to 56 million years ago. It is 10 million years, not billions of years. SCGB is specific to mammals and assuming that all mammals diversified from early mammals in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era, then we must assume that the first placental mammals had one version of this family and it diversified in 10 million years. As Fel d 1 can be found from several subclasses of placental mammals, it must have developed in 10 million years. Your first objection is wrong.

    Early mammals at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era had genetic diversity, just as they do today. The genetic variations of this protein had already been evolving for billions of years at this point. Different individuals carrying different versions of this protein evolved into different species. It is a mistake to assume there was only one version of this protein present in the common ancestor. In effect you have assumed creationism is true to prove ID.

    • Replies: @j2
  268. @Che Guava

    It’s a bird, it’s a plane, no! It’s Wallace’s Flying Frog! Located in the tropical jungles of Malaysia and Borneo, one of the FEW aerial amphibians on this planet is the Wallace’s Flying Frog. Sizing in at about 4 inches (about the size of a tea-cup), these thrifty and quick frogs annoy and pester their predators. Named after the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (the man who first studied and described these species), this type of frog is known for parachuting almost 50 feet away from its location. Many reasons contribute to why they “fly”. They may be in danger of a predator, looking for prey, trying to mate, or even attempting to lay eggs. Whatever the reason, this amphibian is amongst the largest to do so.

    After understanding why they “fly”, I was curious to learn how. I had to know the science and physics of its ever-so-unique defense and mating mechanism. When they leap, they spread out their four-webbed feet and catch the air around them.
    http://blogs.bu.edu/biolocomotion/2011/09/22/wallaces-flying-frog/

    He who laughs last…

    Hu Mi Yu – a belated thanks for your positive feedback on my “life from petroleum” website, and thanks for taking a look. It’s recommended for study by the head of geosciences at Bergen University.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  269. Darwinians assert that evolution is a fact but they can not give any living examples of an animal in transition from reptile to mammal or fish to amphibian. Modern day extinctions such as that of Dodo birds are not an example of one species transforming into another. Breeding and the rise of subspecies are also not the issue here. No one denies minor variation. They are also asserting here that the origin of life is a separate issue, no one knows how it happened, etc. If that is the case then why is it that every single biology textbook feels the need to speculate as to how life arose from nonliving chemicals? With both abiogenesis and evolution you can not deal with the laws of probability. Darwinians don’t even attempt to deal with that since they know they can’t and have faith that it all had to happen somehow since evolution is declared to be a fact.

    According to Dawkins, the greatest evidence for evolution is the genetic similarity found in related species. If that is true, then would would the genetics look like if all of life was created by an intelligent designer? If pentadactyl limbs are evidence of common descent then what would they look like if they did not have common descent?

    Some here are asking who created the designer (i.e. God). Theology 101 answers that and you guys look like foolish children with that one. God is outside of time and space and is self existing with no need of a creator.

    All of this could be put to rest with with a public debate but Darwinians refuse to debate the issue.

  270. Anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charlie Baud

    So, I take it you’re projecting. And lying. What are you, a Democrat feminist?

  271. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Gavin Cato

    According to Dawkins, the greatest evidence for evolution is the genetic similarity found in related species.

    Richard Dawkins is a political activist and popularizer of scientism. He describes himself as an evolutionary biologist, but he is in fact a Darwinist. He retired in 2008, and he is no authority on recent advances in biochemistry and microbiology. If you want to understand evolution, his books are a waste of time.

    All of this could be put to rest with with a public debate but Darwinians refuse to debate the issue.

    It seems to me that we have had a rather robust debate right here.

  272. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Of course, I own numerous bridges. You can take my word for it.
    As for the soft tissue, I thought everyone knew that it was being found regularly in ancient fossils. See Mary Sweitzer for the first find. She is an evolutionist.
    Yes, I believe in a young earth. The “558 million” year old soft tissue proves the earth is young.

  273. @Gavin Cato

    …but they can not give any living examples of an animal in transition..


    (there are none so blind as those who refuse to see)

    Every organism is “in transition.” However, the brief duration of a human life doesn’t allow us to see much in the way of actual transit. All we see is living snapshots, plus fossils subjected to entropy.

    The theoillogical notion that a deity could exist outside of time and space is pure conjecture, unscientific wishful thinking designed to avoid the reality of mortality. The same is true for all forms of religion and spirituality, which require a supernatural non-physical, non-material domain where the properties of the universe we inhabit don’t hold true.

    And this is why the war against evolution is still raging today, despite all the convergent evidence supporting the 2nd most successful theory in science. Creationists don’t attack the most successful theory in science, quantum mechanics, because it doesn’t undermine their wishful notions about an afterlife in heaven. That’s what it really boils down to.

    Evolutionists invariably welcome debate because it helps the theory evolve.
    In contrast, blasphemy, sacrilege, dogma and the burning of heretics are the hallmarks of religion.

    • Replies: @Merlin
  274. @The Alarmist

    The key word is theory, which applies equally to Creationism and Darwinism. I cannot imagine an Evolutionist stating that Darwinism is anything other than a theory. While at the same time knowing from personal experiences that the vast majority of Creationist believe and state that creation is a fact.

  275. @AlreadyPublished

    Religion is entertainment, with mystery being it’s attraction. Remove the mystery and it would cease to exist.

  276. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Insertion and deletion errors are mutations, and they do occur reasonably often. If you had followed the reference you would have known that. They make massive changes in two ways. First by inserting and deleting chains of amino acids in proteins, and second by altering the reading frame to completely change the meaning of the following DNA.

    Also I think you are confusing exons with matured and edited mRNA. Even more changes can occur in the editing process.”

    You cannot prove that evolution in the mechanisms that the evolution theory suggests is capable of creating the mammalian subspecies that emerged in 10 million years. It evolutionists could do that, as it would be a great result, they would have done it. That none of them have done it shows that they cannot do it. You cannot do it, that is clear from your responses.

    There are very serious problems, which you do not seem to understand. One is that if you go on changing a protein-coding section of DNA, after a few mutation the protein almost certainly does not do anything useful. The opposite idea is that every intermediate step between far away endo points is useful. It seems very improbable. As the intermediate steps are not useful and can be harmful, mutation scan accumulate only if this DNA part is pseudo-gene. Then it is not under selection and there is not mechanisms that leads it to something useful. This problem you have not even mentioned.

    I gave you a simpler one, which you also cannot solve. You can calculate the probability of getting to one DNA unit if 100 base pairs k mutations, where k is any number larger than, say 27, and you can conclude that it cannot happen. Not in one single exon. Then you simply have to find two proteins which have developed from the same ancestral form in 10 million years and measure how many mutations were needed. Your mutation scan be insertion or deletion issues or anything else. Just count them. But you cannot solve this problem, which can be seen already. So you try to confuse issues. So, as you cannot solve this easier one, try solving the harder one, how the mutations lead somewhere when they are not under selection pressure?

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  277. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Early mammals at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era had genetic diversity, just as they do today. The genetic variations of this protein had already been evolving for billions of years at this point. Different individuals carrying different versions of this protein evolved into different species. It is a mistake to assume there was only one version of this protein present in the common ancestor. In effect you have assumed creationism is true to prove ID.”

    Hu, do not be ridiculous. Before 543 million years there were only single-celled organisms. You cannot seriously suggest that SCGB superfamily of proteins was already present in single-cell organisms. Indeed, as this family is confined only to mammals, 340 million years would be the earliest possible time, but this superfqamily seems to be only in placental mammals, so 100 million years. Mammalian subclasses have developed already by 50 millio years ago, so 50 million years is the maximum one could give you, and it is not enough time. You either cannot think carefully, or you are intentionally trying to confuse issues. I will not discuss longer with dishonest students.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  278. @BamBam Rubble

    “The TofE is the best explanation that is based on evidence and scientific method.”

    It’s not based on either. It’s a circular, religious dogma.

  279. Che Guava says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Good photo, not yours. Very poor of you, I have already spent much time watching bats, so learn nothing from it nor from your words.

    Clearly no connection to the gliding mammals.

  280. Che Guava says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    I was already knowing of this creature. So don’t be such a moron. You may also try to make tag-team trolling from outside the site a little less obvious.

  281. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “Every organism is “in transition.” However, the brief duration of a human life doesn’t allow us to see much in the way of actual transit. All we see is living snapshots, plus fossils subjected to entropy.”

    The transitions we don’t see during one lifetime, we also don’t see in the fossil record. Things show up as fossils, hang around unchanged for a while, then disappear, sometime to appear unchanged as living species. There are no unambiguous transitional fossils.

    “plus fossils subjected to entropy.” Except, of course, for the lipids and other soft tissues that have been found in fossils 68 to 558 million years old. No entropy there. I read that the “half-life” for collagen was about 2000 years. Does that seem about right to you or is collagen an entropy free zone?

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  282. Che Guava says:

    Ok, you jerks. How close is that frog species to being extinct? I have never seen it in the wild, but never lived near its habitat . It is a glider, not a flyer, and a near-unique one, almost raising it myself earlier, but the topic was placental mammals (OK, I was mentioning the so-called flying fish, which doesn’t even glide well), neither does the frog. For it to go from there to flight, is unimaginable.

    In any case, some snakes are also able to glide, even less imaginable how they may go from there to flight.

    In any case, sincere thanks for being an entertaining troll tag team, and making it obvious.

    Cheers.

  283. @Hu Mi Yu

    I also pointed out flying squirrels which have partially developed flight.

    There is no such thing as partially developed flight, and a flap of membrane stretched between digits or limbs, or otherwise protruding from the body, is not a wing. These various gliding animals are simply falling, not flying.

    True, powered flight requires a whole host of metabolic, anatomical, sensory, and musculoskeletal modifications before it can work. This is why a man cannot fly simply by fabricating a large pair of artificial wings and flapping his arms. We are too heavy, we do not have the lung capacity, we do not have the cardiovascular strength, we cannot physically eat or digest enough calories to supply the energy required, our shoulder joints lack the resilience, our breast muscles are nowhere near large or deep enough, etc.

    To get from a non-flying to a flying animal requires a complete transformation of the organism. Every part of the creature must be repurposed and reconfigured.

  284. @Merlin

    Are creationists incapable oof anything but faith-based assertion? You still provide no links, urls, references to the real world.
    A map is not the territory.
    Only the territory is the territory.

    • Replies: @Merlin
  285. @Che Guava

    How close is that frog species to being extinct?
    ============

    I don’t know, and I don’t care. Your question is simply irrelevant, creatively designed to distract from your defective excuse for “logic.” The frog buried your attempt at an appeal to ridicule fallacy, causing you to lose the plot. Let me rub your nose in that fallacy again:

    Admittedly, your attempt at making ynur [sic] earlier association of webbed feet and flight have some semblance of logic did give me a laugh, so thanks.

    The ad hominem fallacies are quite revealing also, you “moron,” “jerk” and “troll.”
    (I do wish Americans would expand their limited vocabularies.)

    Note that 99% of the personal abuse on this page comes from deity-worshiping creationists, contradicting the premise and title of the article, with the abuse escalating in response to….physical evidence supporting evolution!

    Just like his fanbois, the mythical and mystical intelligent designer is also a hateful creature.

  286. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Google Mary Schweitzer or Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs. Let me repeat; Schweitzer is an evolutionist. You have apparently not followed the evolution/ID/creation debate. Do you, as an example, know or can you describe Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument? You want real world? Read Behe’s Edge of Evolution.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  287. @Merlin

    Google Mary Schweitzer or Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

    No thanks. I’m not doing your homework. There were no dinosaurs 558 million years ago, btw.

    Behe and his “irreducible complexity” nonsense was debunked by Darwin himself in “Origin of Species,” a book that creationists refuse to read. Let me quote from my copy…

    To suppose that the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus for different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populii, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, if the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve becomes sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensitivity.
    [...]
    The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or refractive body. [...] Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness.
    - Origin of Species, p 172.

    (redundant text removed to reduce typing by my currently very sore right arm! (bursitis))

    Darwin then explains that the development of a depression in star-fishes provides the animal with information about the direction of light, and how true visions is just a step or two away. (which I can explain in less words, reducing my typing burden again!)
    But read the complete text yourself.

    Kudos to you for not stooping to abuse, btw.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
    , @Merlin
  288. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Here’s why a wise Darwinian evolutionist sees no conflict between religious faith and the scientific study of evolution. Indeed, it is a statement of why a wise evolutionist can be, and perhaps always should be, an exponent of religious faith :

    Without a religious dimension, a commitment to human freedom is likely to be attenuated, too weak to make sacrifices in its name.

    Europe’s political elites especially, but its citizens as well, believe in freedom and democracy of course, but they are reluctant to put the “good life” on hold and put lives on the line when freedom is in need of a champion — in the Balkans, the Sudan, Darfur or, in the Middle East.

    The good of human freedom, by European lights, must be weighed against the risk and cost of actually fighting for it.

    It is no longer transcendent, absolute.

    In such a world, governed by a narrow utilitarian calculus, sacrifice is rare, churches go unattended and over time the spiritual capital that brought forth all that we know as the West is at risk of being lost.

    Let me name five things that might turn the tables and perhaps, even begin to, if I was so bold to suggest, revive Europe.

    First, coming to grips with its unique place in world history and renewing the importance and source of those original ideals.

    Second, some comprehension that culture matters and Europe’s culture has been the most formative for Western-Christian civilization, what used to be termed, Christendom.

    Third, accepting the social, political, economic and especially military responsibility of a great continent, now more and more united.

    Fourth, realizing the too evident demographic realities and Islamization and stepping up to reverse them so as to avoid an eventual Eurabia.

    And finally, and most critically in my estimation as a Christian, sparking the second great Reformation, spiritually such that there is a wider recognition of transcendence and a moving of the spirit of God across the whole continent from the western most shores of Portugal, Ireland and Britain to the eastern most steppes of Russia.

    I pray every day for such transformation and reawakening.

    Ted Malloch: The New Dark Age of European Progressivism

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  289. Bronson says:
    @Rurik

    Wow … the level of indoctrination in these pro-Evolution comments is insane. People SOOOOO afraid of admitting they don’t know something – everything has to fit into the two stupid boxes that the PTB gave you. Just because you got an “A” on your “exams” in school, doesn’t mean you’re smart or knowledgeable – just that you were a good parrot. Perhaps there is another option besides Creationism or Evolution?

    As a Biochemist, I stopped believing in “Evolution” as it’s propagandized in graduate school while working on enzymes. There is no way that the level of complexity that keeps a cell alive from minute to minute – a self-replicating, self-repairing and self-modifying system – is an accident. Additionally, nobody has explained just how those “stupid molecules” seem to know exactly what to do, and how to do it. There is obviously something more to it than a random soup of organic molecules just “reacting”.

    To put it in simple terms, what is the likelihood that tomorrow, you could walk into a forest anywhere on Earth, and while walking down a trail, you would find, spelled out in flawless cursive, in identical Aspen Tree leaves, “Hello, (insert name here), welcome to the forest, we hope you enjoy your stay!” Now, how likely is it that you would see that spelled out 5oo times in a row – all identically, all perfect? Well, if you don’t think that’s likely, then how would someone explain a system that’s a million times more complex than that happening by “accident” – as in DNA replication 0r even inter-cell transport systems?

    Evolution is a THEORY, and it’s got holes in it big enough to drive a truck through – Darwin admitted that …. and no, that doesn’t make me a “Creationist” ….

  290. j2 says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “Behe and his “irreducible complexity” nonsense was debunked by Darwin himself in “Origin of Species,” a book that creationists refuse to read.”

    Creationists may refuse to read Darwin’s book, but many who have read the book, like me, become very disappointed by the lack of any solid arguments in the book. Reading the book convinced me that Darwin actually had not solved the problem of the origin of species.

    The quote you included, far from debunking irreducible complexity, demonstrates clearly that Darwin believed, without a proof, that organisms can evolve from one form to a very different form via intermediate steps, which all are useful. They must not only be useful, but slight improvements. This kind of path means greedy optimization, where on every step of optimization you go towards the higher level. This optimization strategy cannot find the absolute maximum, but more important is that is typically does not find anything except for minor improvements to the starting point. That is, purely mathematically, this strategy should not find a path from one useful solution to another very different useful solution. It should not, because usually there is no such a path, typically every path between far away solutions must go to a lower level before starting again to climb up. To explain it in simple terms, think about climbing a mountain top and then wanting to go to the top of a yet higher mountain. Usually you will have to go down from the present top before you can start climbing the new mountain. The claim that the intermediate stages are all useful to the organism, made in this quote from Darwin, is so incredible that it certainly requires a proof or at least a very convincing argument. Darwin does not give any.

    The whole argument in the Origin of Species is highly questionable. The main claim is that natural selection is the reason why animals (and plants) diverge to different species. Against this one can suggest that the main reason is boundaries (seas, deserts, glaziers, mountain chains) that divide the animal population into parts. The genome of each part drifts to different directions and in sufficient time the populations become different species. This would happen with or without natural selection, though natural selection happens. Inversely, if there is no such boundary, the populations mix and will not separate. This mixing happens with or without natural selection, though there is natural selection. The conclusion is that boundaries are a sufficient and necessary condition for the creation of new species, while natural selection has no role in creation of species as it happens in any case.

    The emphasis put to natural selection derives from economic theories of the 19th century. Natural selection is like competition in a free market, at that time seen as a forced of development, though actually a force is destruction of choices and reduction of information in the system. The theory of evolution was invented by Freemason Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Darwin. It was propagated and declared the scientific truth by Freemasons, the purpose being destruction of the pillars of the society, in darwinism the pillar of faith. In Communism, the pillar of the old establishment and wealth, in feminism and sexual rights of minorities the pillar of home. Destruction of pillars makes it much easier to conquer a country from inside. It has nothing to do with actually supporting these kind and wise sounding ideas. Interestingly, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion group darwinism with nietzscheism, socialism and communisms to the set of isms that the Elders have promoted, thought they know they are false. This alone is a sufficient reason ton start being suspicious of darwinism.

    The fact is that darwinism, as the modern form of it, the evolution theory, is basically hand waving. Nothing is proved possible, not much is observed in nature, alternative mechanisms are not evaluated and compared, skeptics of the orthodox views are smoked out of academia. All this shows that we are talking about a religion, not of a science. The simple fact is that evolutionists cannot take a mathematical challenge to show how mutations can create protein coding sections of DNA in the given time and create essentially different proteins, while we know that this has happened. The failure to meet this challenge, and the miserable efforts to claim not to understand the model (the model is the simplest possible, just a DNA segment and mutation/no-mutation, i.e., binary changes) show very clearly what the argumentation level is in the evolutionist camp. They are no different from Holocaust believers.

  291. j2 says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “Behe and his “irreducible complexity” nonsense was debunked by Darwin himself in “Origin of Species,” a book that creationists refuse to read. ”

    Remarkable claims require remarkable proofs, but the book of Darwin does not have the remarkable proofs. Later efforts of evolutionists also do not have the remarkable proofs. This is why their remarkable claims have not been shown true and why the field is correctly called a religion: religion is something that is not proven, yet you are forbidden to criticize it.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  292. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    You seem to be unaware of all the soft tissue finds. I have told you how to easily find reports of these finds. I cannot type on your keyboard.

    “Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who lead the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125, as well as evidence that the specimen was a gravid female when she died.” from wikipeia

    “how true visions is just a step or two away.” Good grief. You cannot be serious. What simple mutations lead from one to the other and what simple mutations created the light-sensitive spot from something else?

    But first, please convince yourself that soft tissue is routinely being found in fossils that are supposedly in excess of 68 million years in age.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  293. Extreme leftists who become more on the extreme right tend to be one of the dumbest of all. Robert Lindsay tard and Freedy here are great example of someone who can’t be rational or reasonable in any side of ideological spectrum.

  294. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    Hu, do not be ridiculous. Before 543 million years there were only single-celled organisms. You cannot seriously suggest that SCGB superfamily of proteins was already present in single-cell organisms.

    Obviously a precursor was present in single-celled organisms that evolved into larger animals.

    • Replies: @j2
  295. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Che Guava

    the topic was placental mammals (OK, I was mentioning the so-called flying fish, which doesn’t even glide well)

    No. The topic is ID/Darwinism/evolution. Attempt to close off discussion noted.

  296. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    You can calculate the probability of getting to one DNA unit if 100 base pairs k mutations, where k is any number larger than, say 27, and you can conclude that it cannot happen. Not in one single exon. Then you simply have to find two proteins which have developed from the same ancestral form in 10 million years and measure how many mutations were needed. Your mutation scan be insertion or deletion issues or anything else. Just count them.

    Counting the mutations is mathematically intractable. When you throw in insertion/deletion errors with single base pair errors the path is not unique. And BTW there are other types of mutations as well. Single base errors are not the dominant mechanism for adaptation. That is well known, and it is all you have proved.

    • Replies: @j2
  297. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Obviously a precursor was present in single-celled organisms that evolved into larger animals.”

    Obviously the first cell was the precursor of all cells and the genome of this cell was a precursor of all genomes, allowing some DNA injection from viruses and other non-cell organisms, but we do not go so far to precursors, we always have to go to the latest common precursor for the genes that code proteins of the superfamily SCGB. As some point of time there was the first protein of that superfamily and a gene that coded the protein. That gene was the earliest precursor to all genes coding SCGB proteins. This latest precursor must have been in placental mammals placing it between 120 million years ago and 55 million years ago. I wrote already that if you will write this kind of dishonest comments, I will not discuss with you any more. This comment of yours was again dishonest. You must have known that you always must take the latest precursor, so you only try to confuse.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  298. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Counting the mutations is mathematically intractable. When you throw in insertion/deletion errors with single base pair errors the path is not unique. And BTW there are other types of mutations as well. Single base errors are not the dominant mechanism for adaptation. That is well known, and it is all you have proved.”

    The path is never unique as you can always have mutation and back-mutation any number of times, but you can detect spot mutations, insertions, deletions and make a good guess of how many mutations have most probably been needed. If your argument were correct, it would be impossible to find the time when two genes have diverged, but researchers can do it quite well based on mutations. Therefore you present the problem as much harder than it is in practice.

    You have Fel d 1 and OBP proteins (Fel d 1 size 90 amino acids) which according to the reference I mentioned had sections which were 50% identical, implying that the rest was less identical as the article argued that the proteins have the same ancestor. From this data one can conclude that the genes have large sections with have lots of spot mutations. If they had large deletions and insertions, they would not be referred to as segments that are 50% identical. It is totally irrelevant what kind of mutations you have. They do not need to be stop mutations. It is simply so that already 25-27 mutations in a 100 bp segment is too much to be done in 10 million years and you can calculate what number can be done in 50 million years.

    Again, you do not have any valid arguments and you try to confuse issues. That is getting too dull. Either present a valid argument or stop.

    As you clearly cannot solve the time problem, try solving the problem how an exon can mutate far from the starting point since if it mutates far, most probably the intermediate versions are not useful or improvements and not taken by selection, but if it mutates as pseudogene, then there is no selection to guide mutations and it is totally random and leads nowhere.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  299. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Skim reading payoff.

    Good comment, or, better, a very good quote there.
    Informative link, too.

    Thx.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  300. @j2

    Science rarely deals in proof. But your time-wasting species of anti-scientific primate always demands proof, over and over and over again, ad nauseum, ignoring all the convergent evidence in favor of your wishful thinking.

    Note the response to the mudskipper photo I posted from the people in your cult who claimed that evolutionists never provide evidence of an intermediate animal. Your desperate and boring efforts at sophistry are not in fact very sophisticated.

    “Religion is something that is not proven” – that is just a blatant lie. When I use a word said Humpty-Dumpty the creationist, in a rather hateful tone, it means whatever suits my agenda.

    1)

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis

    2)

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory

    3)

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

    ► “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
    (that moral code includes verbal abuse of heretics, as evidenced repeatedly on this page.)

    Also, before you mutilated Sagan’s quote to fit your malevolent agenda, it went like this….

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE”

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  301. @Merlin

    I cannot type on your keyboard

    Type the search parameters into YOUR OWN KEYBOARD, and post the url.
    I’m not doing your homework. I already told you that.

    • Replies: @Merlin
  302. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    good quote

    Glad someone liked it. It draws attention to the role of religion —through its influence on institutions and individual behavior — in determining the fate of civilizations. To put that another way, it asserts that religious faith, where it exists, is a feature of a human groups upon which natural selection must act.

    Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who deride religion because it is based on propositions that are inconsistent with scientific truth make a mockery of their own claimed scientific expertise. There is no reason why a religious faith should be based on literal scientific truth any more than nursery rhymes, fairy tales or epic poetry should be based on literal scientific truth. In fact, religion, like nursery rhymes, fairy tales or epic poetry, would have little appeal without an element of the supernatural. What matters, from a Darwinian perspective, is how faith, or for that matter nursery rhymes, fairy tales, or epic poetry, serves to shape individual and group behavior.

    In abandoning Christianity, the West has abandoned belief in absolute values of right and wrong for the Humean proposition that “honesty is the best policy but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.” Or actually, it is worse than that. Today, far from considering it knavish to be relentlessly self-serving, many consider it stupid to be otherwise. We know where that led the Soviet Union, but benighted rulers in the West unhesitatingly lead in the same direction.

    That is not to say that all religions are equal. Many, as has been pointed out above, have proved highly detrimental to human welfare, whereas others have clearly contributed greatly to the success of adherent groups.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  303. j2 says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Not quite so. What is told as the truth, a proven scientific fact, is to be proved, not given evidence. In physics nobody claims that something is proven as a fact, because they are not proven facts. There probably was a Big Bang, yet somebody can come and argue that it was not so.

    But not so in the evolution theory. Here we have a group of people who claim that the evolution theory is proven, neodarwinism is a fact and those who question it must be purged out. Such an attitude is called a religious attitude and such beliefs are called religious beliefs.

    There are proven facts, and not only in mathematics. In all sciences there are facts that have been demonstrated and explained so well that they are proven facts. It is not only that there is evidence for it. I asked you to show by calculation that the genes for Fel d 1 and ABP proteins have diverged in a possible time frame. It is a simple problem. You should be able to answer it. It is you who claim that evolution works. Then show how it can have worked in this simple case. If you can explain it, it takes you only some minutes. But you do not have the solution, because your theory does not explain how this could have happened. It is those who claim to have an explanation who have the burden of proving it correct. Any single contradiction shows that your theory is not correct. If it is not a complete solution, then it is a solution approach and an approach cannot be shown correct or incorrect. If so, the evolution theory is not a scientific fact, it is one research program, one approach among many. And this would be good if you would treat is as such, as everybody else does in their fields, but no, you claim that is is true, the truth. You have found the truth. Strangely, you cannot answer to simple questions concerning this your truth, a proven scientific theory.

    In reality there is very little support to darwinism. Practically nothing to support the birth of life from non life. Nothing to explain the birth of the first cell. Nothing to explain the birth of different main branches of species. It is just that AlreadyPublished and Hu say so. Hu wrote that he just took a course, so he is a student. AlreadyPublished indicates that you only recently published a paper, so almost a student. For extraordinary claims students and almost students need more than evidence, you need to convince the people, you need proofs. Not mathematical proofs, but proofs that convince the audience. Unfortunately, you only have some evidence that allows many interpretations. What you need to do is to explain in a convincing way why those other explanations for your evidence are not correct. That is, you need to prove your argument as the most correct.

    “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

    In the oldest religions, shamanism, there is no moral code. Not all religions have superhuman agency or agencies. Confucianism is a religion without gods, though spirits of ancestors are venerated. Atheism and Communisms are religions without supernatural beings, though some of these people believed in some king of spirit of the time. Darwinism certainly is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. There certainly is a ritual observance of publishing papers that nobody reads. Clearly, it is a ritual. The religion insists that the priests (doctors and professors) perform this ritual every year.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  304. j2 says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “Note the response to the mudskipper photo I posted from the people in your cult who claimed that evolutionists never provide evidence of an intermediate animal. Your desperate and boring efforts at sophistry are not in fact very sophisticated.”

    You like to debunk naive counterexamples and to ignore the hard ones. Of course it is known that there are many intermediate animals. Let us take the blowhole of a whale. Whales developed in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era and the present view is that whales developed from mesonykhids about 57 million ybp. Early whales did not have a blowhole while modern whales have it. Naively one might say that how did the blowhole appear gradually, was it first a hole that went only half way through? But this is naturally not the case. In this case the development was gradual. The blowhole is the nostrils, which moved gradually from the nose closer to the eyes in about 47 million years. Only the appearance looks like it could be a new hole on the upper jaw, but it is the same old nostril hole.

    Yes, this is what people like you try to do. Debunk the easy and false counterexamples and ignore the hard ones. Now, show that in each of the fast evolution stages after a megacatastrophe there was no protein coding DNA segment that mutated faster than it should have. This is something you should do in order to argue that the evolution happened through the mechanisms you propose. As it turns out, Hu states that there is no data to estimate the differences in DNA between species in order to give this proof (yes, proof that it is possible mathematically, there can be proofs in biology, proofs that a mechanisms can work in a certain respect). Thus, it is not shown and the theory is hand waving.

    An alternative theory to evolution of species to natural selection is barriers and genetic drift with bottlenecks. This alternative mechanism can be shown to have occurred many times. It leads to different species and does not require natural selection. The problem with it is that it does not naturally lead to higher life forms, only to different ones. How do you show that in the evolution of e.g. whales the mechanism essentially depended on natural selection rather than on this other mechanism? You cannot. To show that evolution has happened is not the same as to show that it has happened in the way neo-darwinism says.

  305. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    This latest precursor must have been in placental mammals placing it between 120 million years ago and 55 million years ago. I wrote already that if you will write this kind of dishonest comments, I will not discuss with you any more. This comment of yours was again dishonest. You must have known that you always must take the latest precursor, so you only try to confuse.

    I call this hot air or maybe circumvention. No need to discuss further.

  306. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    The path is never unique as you can always have mutation and back-mutation any number of times, but you can detect spot mutations, insertions, deletions and make a good guess of how many mutations have most probably been needed. If your argument were correct, it would be impossible to find the time when two genes have diverged, but researchers can do it quite well based on mutations. Therefore you present the problem as much harder than it is in practice.

    Spot mutations are not the dominant cause of genetic change. The number of spot mutations required is a massive over estimate of the genetic distance.

    To find when two genes have diverged they find sections of noncoding DNA that do not have major insertion/deletion problems to use for comparison. The fact that these noncoding section can be found to be very similar in different species is strong evidence for evolution.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  307. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Overall…..agree.

    Having said that, not quite sure that organized religion as we know it, Christianity in particular, is solution to the problem.

    Just recently read a related, fiction, book:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_(Preston_novel)

    Some interesting, I think, ideas there.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  308. peterAUS says:
    @j2

    Good post.

    Especially:

    Here we have a group of people who claim that the evolution theory is proven, neodarwinism is a fact and those who question it must be purged out. Such an attitude is called a religious attitude and such beliefs are called religious beliefs.

    …the evolution theory is not a scientific fact, it is one research program, one approach among many. And this would be good if you would treat is as such, as everybody else does in their fields, but no, you claim that is is true, the truth. You have found the truth.

    “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    Darwinism certainly is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. There certainly is a ritual observance of publishing papers that nobody reads. Clearly, it is a ritual. The religion insists that the priests (doctors and professors) perform this ritual every year.

    I feel that “governing the conduct of human affairs” explains a lot there.
    “Governing” in particular.

  309. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Hu, when asked for a proof that neo-darwinian evolution can explain the emergence of mammalian species in the beginning of the Cenozoic Era, the requirement is that you can at minimum show that it is mathematically possible in the given time scale. A theory that has no mathematical proofs that it is possible is no theory to be taken seriously. It is simply hand waving. You have in so many comments made it perfectly clear that you cannot provide any proof that evolution in the way as you propose is at all possible. It is exactly the supporters of the theory who have to show that their solution works. You cannot show it, thus it is not a scientific theory. In physics there are theories and those people certainly try to show that their theories are possible and do not have a major flaw. You simply refuse to show anything. You simply say that mutations can be this or that, but you do not have any calculation that known evolution is possible via the methods you claim it happened. That is a major flaw in any theory.

    You all the time try to confuse things. One thing is that life has developed from previous life. We can call that evolution. That is demonstrated well enough. The other thing is that this evolution happened through the mechanisms that you have in the evolution theory. This is not demonstrated. When you say: “The fact that these noncoding section can be found to be very similar in different species is strong evidence for evolution.” You mean the first issue. Hardly anybody claims that evolution has not happened. But this is no evidence that the evolution theory is true since you have not provided any argument why the noncoding sections being similar is caused by the mechanisms of the neo-darwinian evolution theory and not by some other mechanisms.

    “Spot mutations are not the dominant cause of genetic change. The number of spot mutations required is a massive over estimate of the genetic distance.”

    It is exactly your job as a supporter of the evolution theory to find out how many mutations were needed and to prove that your mechanisms can explain the number of mutations, i.e., it is not too improbable. If you cannot provide such a calculation, your theory lacks a scientific basis and cannot be taken seriously as we do not know it it is even possible in the mathematical sense. Finally, do you understand this? This is the requirement for every real science: it is checked that there are no simple contradictions. No hand waving is allowed.

  310. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Hu, consider going to a conference to present your results. After your talk there are the questions. People asking those questions are not any idiots. Assuming they are not satisfied with your answers, you lost. The one presenting a theory or results must be able to answer questions of it in a way that convinces those who ask. You avoid the questions, I am not convinced that you can give an answer. So I am not convinced that you have the solution you claim to have

  311. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    not quite sure that organized religion as we know it, Christianity in particular, is solution to the problem.

    I’m not advocating a particular ideology. What I’m saying is that the ideology imposed on the people by the elite will determine the prospects of that group for survival.

    Every ideology shapes moral feelings and assumptions and is, therefore, reasonably described as a religion, whether it be based on belief in God or other supernatural forces, or is imposed by means of propaganda, brainwashing, and the punishment of non-believers, as with dialectic materialism, or American people’s own particular road to Hell and self-destruction, Political Correctness.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  312. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    ….the ideology imposed on the people by the elite will determine the prospects of that group for survival.

    That’s an interesting point.

    Let’s assume, for the moment, that there is that “Globalist/prog” group. It has its elite and related mass of people. Definitely their sets of beliefs, a certain religion with all the related methodology, infrastructure, the works.

    That ideology does seem…..well…..skewered. Especially that “prog” side.
    Still, be that as it may, the ideology doesn’t seem to be going down anytime soon. And that group appears to be getting bigger and stronger. There is just visible effort and passion there to make the world as they want it.
    The opposition feels……meek.

    Things can change, of course.
    How and when is the thing.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  313. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    The Hispanics aren’t driving anyone out of California. They don’t speak Spanish. They speak their native Indian languages with a few words of Spanish.

    Even the public schools are switching to Mandarin as a popular language. The Jews are here to stay in their center of power. The Irish Catholics like Governor Brown aren’t going anywhere
    New Irish catholic private schools are popping up everywhere especially in the Bay Area continuing a long tradition there.

    The blacks aren’t moving to Utah 2 states away. Like Whites, they are just becoming a smaller percentage of the population as the Hispanic Indian population becomes a bigger percentage every census.

  314. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    Still, be that as it may, the ideology doesn’t seem to be going down anytime soon. And that group appears to be getting bigger and stronger.

    The “Globalist/prog” group as you call them, may be doing alright, but what about the mass of people upon whom they seek to impose their beliefs by means of state imposed brainwashing, propaganda and punitive suppression of alternative ideas?

    Those people, the target of the “Globalist/prog” BS, for example the English residents of London, Birmingham, Leicester, Luton and many other urban centers across Britain and Europe, have been been largely ethnically cleansed.

    Moreover, the European peoples as a whole are simply dying off, their fertility far below the replacement rate. They are being genocided through methods that amount to psychological warfare.

    That’s how evolution in human groups goes. It’s not just about minding your own business, it’s about screwing with other people’s culture so they destroy themselves and make way for your group.

    Currently, the people who are doing the screwing with the European peoples are the billionaire class who control the media and own the so-called democratic governments and want to replace the the common people of the Western nations with a mass of immigrants with no knowledge or commitment to Western civilization, with no experience of democracy, the rule of law or anything else that made the West great.

    What the “Globalist/prog”s want is a maleable and corrupt population to do the dirty work at minimum wages or less, and provide the cannon fodder and concubines that the elite need to satisfy their lust for power and sexual exploitation.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  315. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What the “Globalist/prog”s want is a maleable and corrupt population to do the dirty work at minimum wages or less, and provide the cannon fodder and concubines that the elite need to satisfy their lust for power and sexual exploitation.

    Pretty much.

    The problem is, the (local) masses, at the receiving end, don’t see it coming.

    The real problem is, how come/why not?

    Or….well…maybe they simply deserve what’s coming.

    It appears that people in general can’t prevent bad things from happening. Simply too…dumb and (intellectually) lazy. Too comfortable to think hard. Convenience is the king.

    Do the math: How much of Internet “revolution” is about entertainment and shopping vs true learning? Yeah….
    Those “media owners/TPTB” don’t own the information. All of it is accessible to anyone. Anyone willing to find it and think about it, that is. Not many we know.
    Even the worst cooks, trolls and shills here are miles above any average person I know.
    Fact.

    I believe the things must go really bad in order to start getting better.
    Will it happen, not so sure about.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  316. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    The problem is, the (local) masses, at the receiving end, don’t see it coming.

    … how come/why not?

    The proles never do see what’s coming. That’s why they’re proles.

    Most societies provide avenues by which intelligent and ambitious proles can join the elite, usually in a minor capacity, but a capacity sufficiently rewarding to ensure the loyalty of the ex-prole to the existing elite.

    But the direction of any society or civilization is determined by little more than a handful of leaders, the elite, ruling class, whatever. These are the people who have access to all available information and the political/police/military means to impose their dictates on the people.

    Democracy is a system of government intended to blind the proles to their own powerlessness. The masses are sufficiently deferential to vote for members of the elite, who form themselves into usually just two parties committed to essentially the same policies. Among those policies, the prime directive includes preservation of the social hierarchy, with a ruling elite controlling all the important levers of power. Thus you have elite schools where children of the elite mix and mate and join one another’s parents law firms, bank boards, venture cap companies, etc., and where the future elite get a good education, i.e., they learn, if they have a reasonably good brain, to think for themselves rather than become receptacles for propaganda, as is required of students at state-funded schools for children of the masses.

    It appears that people in general can’t prevent bad things from happening. Simply too…dumb and (intellectually) lazy. Too comfortable to think hard. Convenience is the king.

    The people are largely what the elite make of them. “If” as the American poet T.S. Eliot told a British Royal Commission on Broadcasting “you give people what they want, you begin by underestimating them and you end by corrupting them.” That is what the Americanization of Western civilization has done to the Western masses. What Elliot did not say, is that if you corrupt the people, you end by destroying them. And by destroying them, I mean quite literally. Hence the collapse of the fertility of the European people, who have been taught that the only sexual perversion is reproduction.

    I believe the things must go really bad in order to start getting better.
    Will it happen, not so sure about.

    The question is: why should it happen? The ruling elite are not destroying the European peoples by accident. There is a program of racial and cultural genocide now far advanced and apparently unstoppable. The goal? A mongrelized population with no national identity or, therefore, national loyalty. Diversity is the product of separate development. We are to embrace diversity in order to destroy it.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  317. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Agree.

    As for:

    The question is: why should it happen?

    The questions which interest me a bit more are:
    What is the the likely timetable/details of implementation and what can I do about (re)organizing my life, accordingly.

    Having said that, miracles do happen, best plans of mice and men etc.

    And, there is always that thought that the weaponry we’ve developed outgrown our capillarity to manage it. Progs makeup and nukes, for example.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  318. Hu Mi Yu says:

    Hu, consider going to a conference to present your results. After your talk there are the questions. People asking those questions are not any idiots. Assuming they are not satisfied with your answers, you lost. The one presenting a theory or results must be able to answer questions of it in a way that convinces those who ask. You avoid the questions, I am not convinced that you can give an answer. So I am not convinced that you have the solution you claim to have

    I have presented papers at conferences, in my specialty (not biology). You know nothing about science. If you were a mathematician, as you claimed, you would know that that there are true propositions that cannot be proved with logic. Scientists must supplement logic and mathematics with observation and experiment. Since you refuse to look at the data, you can never be convinced.

    This is not simply a religious question. The theory of evolution has practical consequences, and rejecting it causes problems for others.

    Evolution does not really say one species originates with another. Rather it implies that there is no such thing as a species. Supposed species never breed true because of genetic variation. Since there is no such thing as a species, we cannot count species. This turns commonly broadcast statements counting existing species becoming extinct into nonsense. Instead of species we have clades that smoothly transform and separate over time.

    The mixture of creationism with environmental activism has other regrettable consequences as well. It is clear that there never was any stable pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration, for example. Fossil fuels are not special, but part of an ongoing process which sequesters the carbon in biomass. Burning wood chips is just as harmful, but the creationists have TPTB convinced otherwise.

    Creationism and medicine also do not mix well. Because creationists do not accept genetic variation, they do not understand allergies. I was raised by creationists who abused me; but rather than tell you about my problems, I will talk about my niece. Her father was a creationist from Tennessee who boasted that when his little girl would not eat something he put it back in the fridge. He would not give her anything else to eat until she ate what she was first given. He also owned a gas station and frequently complained about California’s requirement that gas stations post cancer warnings. Gasoline isn’t harmful, he claimed, “You can even drink it.”

    Well daddy’s little girl did what all children do when they are not fed properly. She began eating things that were bad for her. She drank gasoline. It eased her pain, but she died young. Laurie died of stomach cancer.

    I know people here will try to claim ID is different from creationism. There are ways of twisting the meaning of ID to make it conform to the science of evolution, but that is not how most people interpret it. Really it is just the idea that Creation took millions of years instead of thousands.

    Finally I would like to point out that the creationist/ID people are harassing those who want to study evolution rather than the other way around. I have witnessed dozens of incidents that range from cutting off funds for textbooks, to cancelling research grants, to sending true believers into biology classes to disrupt them, and even to threatening political assassination.

    • Replies: @j2
  319. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “I have presented papers at conferences, in my specialty (not biology). You know nothing about science. If you were a mathematician, as you claimed, you would know that that there are true propositions that cannot be proved with logic. Scientists must supplement logic and mathematics with observation and experiment. Since you refuse to look at the data, you can never be convinced.”

    The theory of evolution is not proved to a sufficient degree to be a verified scientific theory. There is e.g. missing a proof that evolution with the proposed mechanisms is even purely mathematically possible given the time frame and other data that we can agree on. You have not presented any data, I did not refuse to look at the data. (and I made a Ph.D. on math., though later worked on information technology.)

    “Evolution does not really say one species originates with another. Rather it implies that there is no such thing as a species. Supposed species never breed true because of genetic variation. Since there is no such thing as a species, we cannot count species. This turns commonly broadcast statements counting existing species becoming extinct into nonsense. Instead of species we have clades that smoothly transform and separate over time.”

    You divide DNA into clades, but there are species. There currently is a large extinction wave of species. Neo-darwinism claims that genomes of different species smoothly transform and separate over time, but it has not been shown and it may be untrue. From what we can verify, genomes of existing species are discrete, each species has a characteristic genome. This claim is something that evolution researchers should be able to prove, but they cannot.

    “The mixture of creationism with environmental activism has other regrettable consequences as well. It is clear that there never was any stable pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration, for example. Fossil fuels are not special, but part of an ongoing process which sequesters the carbon in biomass. Burning wood chips is just as harmful, but the creationists have TPTB convinced otherwise.”

    Burning renewable carbon sources produces less carbon to the atmosphere since these sources (plants) grow and take carbon away from the atmosphere. Burning fossil carbon releases carbon that has for a long time been out of circulation and releasing it puts the earth to a different thermal equilibrium, meaning it heats the globe. The plots of atmospheric carbon dioxide over a long time show this quite clearly.

    “Creationism and medicine also do not mix well…”

    I will skip this part. Your experiences with Tennessee creationists, regrettable as they are, have no relevance to darwinism being a valid scientific theory or not.

    “I know people here will try to claim ID is different from creationism. There are ways of twisting the meaning of ID to make it conform to the science of evolution, but that is not how most people interpret it. Really it is just the idea that Creation took millions of years instead of thousands.”

    I am no creationist, nor a supported of ID. I have not so far even read anything on ID. I simply do not consider darwinism and neo-darwinism as a verified scientific theory. You are against creation of all type? New space-time is created all the time: when time goes forward, future that was not determined becomes determined. Clearly, this is creation of space-time reality out of possibilities. Certainly it is not darwinistic evolution. So, what you have against creation, or can you propose an alternative for it? Maybe you mean by Creation that the Christian God creates the space-time. That sounds like a religious view. My criticism to darwinism is not religious but mathematical.

    “Finally I would like to point out that the creationist/ID people are harassing those who want to study evolution rather than the other way around. I have witnessed dozens of incidents that range from cutting off funds for textbooks, to cancelling research grants, to sending true believers into biology classes to disrupt them, and even to threatening political assassination.”

    Maybe this can be so in the USA in some Bible belt states. In science it is so that the evolutionists are harassing researchers who dare to question their theory. I have witnessed one incidence in a university when I was a professor there: one professor, even a dean, dared to invite an ID researcher to talk in his seminar. The other professors strongly condemned it because of what Americans would say, good that they did not fire the poor guy. But here I feel that you are harassing me. So let us stop this. You believe your way, I my way, we disagree, that happens.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  320. peterAUS says:
    @j2

    …You believe your way, I my way, we disagree, that happens….

    Hehe…..I just have a feeling that you don’t understand how believers work. ANY believers.
    That doubt………..just unbearable. Must be removed. By any means necessary.

    • Replies: @j2
  321. Merlin says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    I copied part of a wikipedia entry on Mary Schweitzer. Are you convinced that there is soft tissue that is claimed by evolutionist to be 68 to 558 million years old? Copy “Soft tissue in Fossils” to your search engine and select the entries that you trust. Or you can remain ignorant of the claims
    that EVOLUTIONIST make about 558 million year old soft tissue.

    http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue

  322. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    What is the the likely timetable/details of implementation and what can I do about (re)organizing my life, accordingly?

    Ha! you surely don’t expect me to answer the hard questions.

    I expect the British sheep farmers who settled the Falkland Islands thought they had reached a safe haven, albeit with a godawful climate. Then all Hell broke out as the Argies landed and just offshore, they and the Brits fought what, to date, was the world’s last naval battle.

    So, who knows where to run. Probably best to stay where one is and keep good relations with the neighbors on whom one will have to rely if civilization ends abruptly.

    miracles do happen, best plans of mice and men etc.

    Yes, there’s never yet been an empire that didn’t fall apart, usually quite rapidly and contrary to the expectations of the imperial clique.

    Given the astounding advances of technology over the last few decades, the US empire could fall apart in a spectacular fashion, and perhaps almost overnight.

  323. peterAUS says:

    Ha! you surely don’t expect me to answer the hard questions.

    Of course not.
    Once upon a time I did sort of hope to find at least pointers to those questions online. Gave up, of course. Sometime between Windoze 2000 and 2003.

    …what, to date, was the world’s last naval battle.

    And the last armed engagement by Western forces against more or less equal opponent.
    Bloody infantry in particular.

    Probably best to stay where one is and keep good relations with the neighbors on whom one will have to rely…..

    Pretty much.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  324. j2 says:
    @peterAUS

    peterAUS, first I thought you were a troll, but now, with all these really bothersome trolls and believers, I think your comments make some sense.

  325. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    The theory of evolution is not proved to a sufficient degree to be a verified scientific theory. There is e.g. missing a proof that evolution with the proposed mechanisms is even purely mathematically possible given the time frame and other data that we can agree on. You have not presented any data, I did not refuse to look at the data. (and I made a Ph.D. on math., though later worked on information technology.)

    PhD in math. Are you unaware of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorems

    Logic is inherently incomplete. Observation and experiment provide the evidence for evolution: not mathematical logic. Logic and religion “prove” that species are fixed, and that the earth is flat.

    I read concerns that webbed feet cannot evolve into wings, and I posted a picture of a bat which clearly shows the bones in a bats wings are extended fingers. Is this not evidence? There are thousands of other pictures I could have posted. Bacteria reproduce much faster than higher animals, and through a microscope you can see evolution happen over a matter of months. The evidence today is overwhelming, and I am not going to waste my time posting more of it here. I get paid for tutoring.

    I am no creationist, nor a supported of ID. I have not so far even read anything on ID. I simply do not consider darwinism and neo-darwinism as a verified scientific theory.

    You deny it, but by confusing Darwinism with evolution you out yourself as a creationist. It is not necessary to read anything to be a creationist: ignorance makes it all the easier.

    Maybe this (harassment) can be so in the USA in some Bible belt states

    I am not speaking of Bible belt states, but west coast states where evolution is not controversial. Out of state elements with connections to the federal government and the military do this. Once one of them mistook me for a supporter and explained the strategy. They want unite the west by replacing Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a new “American” religion based on Noah’s Ark. Then they will lead the battle of Armageddon against China. So, of course, evolution is an anathema to them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

  326. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    Pretty much.

    Or have a small farm. A couple of acres of meadow and a cow and you have a year-round food supply. Naturally, you’d have a well, so an independent ground-water supply, which will be largely uncontaminated by radioactive fall-out, unlike most public water supplies. Plus an acre or two of woodland to provide all the fuel you’d need, and an orchard, a few chickens, a vegetable garden and a sack of flour and you’[d have a better diet than most city dwellers.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  327. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Hehe….if we go along THAT train of thought, a couple of guns with sufficient ammunition wouldn’t hurt, too. With enough proficiency to handle them, of course. Proper attitude as well.
    Preppers world?

    I feel that getting ready for different scenario would make a bit more sense.
    Surviving and even growing, at least spiritually, morally and intellectually, in a world of material scarcity and surveillance authoritarian “Prog” state.

    Something most Caucasians in West will have hard time adjusting to.
    Caucasians from Eastern Europe…no prob. They’ll draw from their experiences under Communism.

    That’s the next phase in all this, IMHO. I’ll probably live my last days in that paradigm.

    What happens after that, and how,well, I prefer leaving that to those living to see it.

  328. Hu Mi Yu says:

    The Nobel prize for chemistry this year has just been won by three scientists whose experiments showed that randomness works better than design in creating new enzymes.

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/revolution-based-evolution-honored-chemistry-nobel?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2018-10-05&et_rid=321283152&et_cid=2411859

    or if that is too long try this:

    https://tinyurl.com/y7htkgnb

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  329. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Since humans are part of the natural world, human-directed evolution is still evolution. But the development of techniques for precise human-directed evolution marks the beginning of what will be a new stage in the development of life, as more and more of the planet’s biological resources will be products of human-directed selection. This means an enormous speed-up in the rate of evolution with super-humans and many unimaginably strange new organisms emerging within not eons, but mere hundreds or even dozens of years. On the question of evolution, that’ll finally shut Fred up.

  330. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    I know that you would like the present evolution theory to be true, as you or your niece were badly treated by some Tennessee creationists, but there are much more serious problems with it than those that I mentioned so far. One should explain the present time, consciousness, birth of life, birth of the first cell, fine tuning of interactions and all that. The evolution theory explains far too little as it tries to explain things with the preassumption that the physical world we see is the whole reality. But it most probably is not and when you try to explain these other things, the basis of the evolution theory becomes artificial. I wrote a short post if you want to read what I mean:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/10/06/a-theory-of-creative-time-another-alternative-to-darwinism/

  331. Hu Mi Yu says:

    The evolution theory explains far too little as it tries to explain things with the preassumption that the physical world we see is the whole reality. One should explain the present time, consciousness, birth of life, birth of the first cell, fine tuning of interactions and all that.

    Darwinism, the philosophy of Herbert Spencer, explains everything. Evolution only explains how the creatures we see today arose from single celled organisms. If you want a theory of everything, look somewhere else. Science doesn’t have one.

    You are looking for religion, not science. You can reconcile evolution with your religion any way you like, but evolution is a fact. As far as I am concerned, God made the flute. Evolution is the pure notes that result from random noise flowing through it. If you listen carefully, you can hear the breath of the Flutist.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  332. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    The problem with people like you is that they learned something in the school and in basic courses in the university, but not enough, so their knowledge is about 100 behind the state of art in science, and then these people pretend to represent science. Theories of everything, unified theories, have been made since 1980ies and are still made and they are current science, while your favorite evolution theory is an 19th century idea and an embarrassment to modern scientists. Yes, indeed, science tries to answer to deep questions, not only to the question how species developed from single-cell organism (which the evolution theory has in fact not answered), but there are those, who are still in the 19th century and do not know that these problems are studied, so these people ridicule modern research.

    Evolutionists are very similar to people, who claimed that all stars and planets circulate the earth, the earth is unique, it is the only place with life and in a unique position in the universe.
    Evolutionists claim that this physical world is the only world, there are no other worlds, this is the only one and in a unique position, because only this world is real, so this is why life developed here from non-life through random mechanisms that did not need any external information, because there is no external, we are the center of the reality: there is only this world.

    Yes, evolutionists are exactly the modern version of the religious fanatics of the past.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  333. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Evidence does NOT support the theory that life developed from earlier life through random mutations and natural selection.

    In order to develop new main classes of species, genes must change much. A large change requires many intermediate steps:
    1) if there intermediate steps are expressed, the claim is that every intermediate step is useful and a small improvement and this is why natural selection has selected it. This claim is practically impossible as all intermediate steps could not have been useful and improvements.
    2) if the intermediate steps are not expresses (like it they happen in pseudogenes), then no selection force acts on them. Then they are a random walk and a random walk hardly ever leads to a useful result. It may work with enzymes or viruses, as there are many of them, but cannot work with many genes that cause phenomenological differences between species.

    So, evidence does NOT support random mutations. Evidence from fossils and biochemistry support the idea that life has developed from earlier life, but this must have happened through non-random mutations and some kind of selection, like bottlenecks, not only by natural selection. If so, then in a short time period mutations look random, but in a longer time period they are not random. If the past was selected to lead to a given present time, these mutations have to lead to the present time, thus they cannot be random over a long time period.

  334. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @j2

    The problem with people like you is that they learned something in the school and in basic courses in the university, but not enough, so their knowledge is about 100 behind the state of art in science, and then these people pretend to represent science.

    You need to take a basic college-level course in biology.

    Theories of everything, unified theories, have been made since 1980ies and are still made and they are current science,

    Theories of everything are not science. They are religion.

    while your favorite evolution theory is an 19th century idea and an embarrassment to modern scientists.

    My favorite evolution theory stabilized in the 1950s. I was first exposed to it around 1960. Decades later I studied biology in two different colleges, and the prescience of the theory was stunning. Everything that was predicted has turned out to be true.

    OTOH the ideas you promote haven’t changed since the days of William Jennings Bryan. Did creationism or ID predict genetic fingerprinting, cloning, and genetic manipulation?

    I have seen the list of talking points. You are only here to promote a cause; you don’t understand what you are writing about.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave