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.

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?

“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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Thanks Fred. Your commenters underline your points. Notably, the ad hominems.

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.

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

Links please…

I thought you people were all big “Science” Boosters!

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

Your reasoning is somehow flawed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

Oragel? For toothaches?

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.

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.

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

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

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/

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.

Another Gringo journalist is not having a good time in Colombia:

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=121425

https://canadafreepress.com/article/canada-free-press-columnist-michael-fumento-freed-from-colombia-jail-but-hi

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

“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…

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

‘…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.

” 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Links please…

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

‘…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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Some parts….not bad.

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.

Good post.

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.

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”.

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

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

“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.

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.

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

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.

Hear! Hear! Indeed.

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

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.

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.

The brainless boomer strikes again!

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?

The white race is becoming the contemporary dodo bird.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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

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

Its nothing new.

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

cf. Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body.

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.

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).

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

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.

Oh dear! She caught you too.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

” 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.

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.

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

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.

….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?

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

Links please…

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,’)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 ??

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

“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

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.

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

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

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

“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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Go away moron, the adults are speaking.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

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?

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

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.

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

Yes, well we certainly feel your malice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

“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.

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.

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

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..

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.

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).’

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

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.

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.

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.

” 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?

“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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Not at all.

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

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.

Did you ever watch Jurassic Park?

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

‘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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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..

“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.

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.

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.

We disagree.

I’m sure we both will survive.

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.

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.

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?