Evolution: An Objective Look

56 Comments

1. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 11, 2009 at 2:52 pm

   Mr. “Ev-illusion”,

   Though you claim to “know the theory,” your explanations of the processes driving natural selection and mutational change, as well as how the scientific process functions (including peer-review), suggest otherwise. You also claim that are not suggesting any other answer to the origins of life but continue to praise all of the ideology behind intelligent design.

   I will keep this concise: Natural selection is founded on the idea of progeny, not predation. Those individuals of a species that are able to survive and successfully reproduce keep their genetic material alive; those that die early (whether from disease, predation, accident, deformities, etc) do not and their genetic line has reached an end. The second, related, fallacy you suggest is that tissue is placed exactly in the right place. Evolution does not unilinealy produce more “advanced” or “perfected” forms. In fact, a species that is especially adapted to a particular environment is more likely to go extinct in times of climatic fluctuation. Natural selection operates using the natural VARIATION within populations so that if a particular feature is beneficial, let’s say, the bigger the better, those with small features will be less likely to reproduce thus skewing the natural variation toward the larger end of the spectrum. If selection pressure continues to select for these traits, the distribution of variation will continue to skew toward the large until that trait reaches an optimal size given developmental constraints and environment. At this point, variation has simply skewed and if a smaller version of that trait was adaptively significant, that spectrum could shift back.

   This has nothing to do with the species eating another species or suddenly putting just enough tissue in one place…it’s a natural process that occurs at random: if a species does not have the necessary variation to cope with a particular environmental change, it goes extinct. I can provide several examples from our own evolutionary history. First, the rise of bipedalism (upright walking). Unlike other primates, humans are obligate bipeds. We can see the skeletal changes through time that lead to our efficient mode of locomotion: beginning with Sahelanthropus tchadensis (a single fossil find from Chad dating to roughly 5.5 million years ago (mya)), we note a change in the location of the foramen magnum from nearer the back of the skull to directly underneath the skull, suggesting a shift in the location of where the spinal cord enters the skull and an upright posture. Ardipithecus ramidus, Ardipithecus kadabba and Australopithecus afarensis show definitive upright posture by 4 million years ago and show not only spinal and cranial changes, but a flared pelvis and obtuse angle of the femoral neck, suggesting modern gait. The feet also show changes in the location of the big toe, moving from opposed, like chimps, to slightly abducted (like in the Lucy specimen) to modern (by the time of Homo erectus at 1.5 mya).

   Secondly, the robust line of australopithecines versus the gracile australopiths and early Homo species. The robust australopithecines (robustus/boisei) developed massive molars and the muscles to utilize them by developing a mid-sagittal crest as a muscle connection at the top of the cranium. These massive molars were used in times of environmental stress for “fallback” foods including hard seeds, nuts and grasses (as evidenced by pitting and striations that have been tested against modern animals chewing similar foods). The gracile forms of australopithecus (afarensis in particular) is considered an ancestral line to modern humans and didn’t evolve the robust features of A. boisei. Instead, we see a small frame and associated teeth that are also noted in early Homo specimens. These early Homo specimens are associated with animal bones and stone tools, including cut marks on the bones that denote exploitation of animal resources for these early hominins.

   Though a very brief synopsis of a very complicated subject, there are myriad examples of very specific evidence for natural selection acting on fossil species. As far as peer-review goes, have you read these papers (including the dental ones)? With few exceptions, they are statistically dense, extremely well-researched and NOT claiming to be conclusive! That is the beauty of science: a paper suggests further research and research to corroborate research already done with suspect methodology. Peer-review is highly competitive and a large proportion of papers are rejected due to the rigorous process of the scientific method. Please, before making such broad claims against the peer-review process, know that this is the same method that lead to medicinal discovery, computer innovation, cell-phone technology, and every other luxury that we live with every day. In short, the system works.

   P.E.T.

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     August 11, 2009 at 6:45 pm

     Re: the notion that I “praise all of the ideology behind intelligent design.”

     Sorry, I “praise” no “ideology” and I am not a member nor do I identify with any group. I write on my own thinking and observations. I have been in the position of accepting others and group thinking, both as a kid (religion) and as an adult (Darwinian evolution.) I far prefer studying what is there and making my own conclusions.

     Re” Natural selection is founded on the idea of progeny, not predation. Those individuals of a species that are able to survive and successfully reproduce…..”

     You don’t know your own belief system. Those that successfully “survive” have avoided predation in Darwinwan cases due to their advantages that have been “selected for”. Selective predation is what drives evolution. Then sexual selection.

     Re: “let’s say, the bigger the better, those with small features will be less likely to reproduce thus skewing the natural variation toward the larger”

     I find it amusing that someone who writes as well as you do could actually pose this scenario as the driving force for developing all of nature and the invention and development of its unbelievably complex systems . So this scenario will lead to the invention and development of four chambered heart/lung/blood systems? Visual systems? Your science says the ones that don’t get eaten survive, and that survival in many cases is due to some newly formed trait that arises from mutational changes. So, the ability and choice of a predator killing and consuming prey, leaving the stronger members with advantageous traits and good mutations forces the unthinking and unintelligent evolutionary formation of all of nature? You can’t see the absurdities? BTW I have a page on the evidence FOR evolution, which you, obviously missed. (p. 7)

     Your science dies with your notion that individuals ‘showed change” which surmises that one lead to the evolution of another, in a branching line. You don’t know if these are selected mutational changes or different but similar species showing different but similar traits. This notion is assumed, but assumptions are no more scientific than fantasies, nor objective. You don’t KNOW that Australopithicenes became humans. The incredible change in the size of their craniums in such a short time says no. The notion that they look alike, therefore these animals are our “common ancestor” is made up. And apes are our cousins? Sorry. There are 650 primate species, only one of which has human skin, consciousness, language, et al. What kind of family tree does that make? 649 of one type, only one of another? Is that gradualism? Natural? Is it conceivable that natural processes would divide things up in this fashion? 649:1? Your tree is also in the process of collapsing due to the fact that many of your samples lived during the same time period on this planet. Habilis and erectus; neanderthal and humans.

     Re: “The robust australopithecines (robustus/boisei) developed massive molars and the muscles…”

     I find it astounding how you can simply say they “developed” without the slightest notion of the mechanism. “Oh, natural selection, of course”. I am a dentist, and I know how teeth form. And the odontogenesis that I studied has no place for Darwinian evolution. If you knew how teeth form, and you could consider this on an objective and reasoned level (instead of an indoctrinated one) you would be amazed at the process, and quickly see that mutational changes and odontogenesis could not be connected at all. Eg. the odontoblasts that form enamel and ameloblasts that form dentin have to be lined up in perfect order, turned on, then turned off at just the perfect moment to form the unbelievable miniature sculptures that are teeth. And these different astounding miniature sculptures form in just the correct order and location. Their designs allow for incising, incisors oppose incisors, and crushing, crushers oppose crushers. Opposing teeth have such perfect design the way they oppose each other, the way each groove, fossa, ridge forms to fit the opposing same, almost as if they were assembled in a machine shop. And the fact that maxillary teeth and mandibular teeth have DIFFERENT genetic pathways eliminates your belief system as a causative agent for the invention and existence of teeth. How did mutation “A maxillary” know what mutation “A mandibular” was forming? A big disappointment for evolution. So, I would avoid the mention of teeth if I were you. (Actually hearts, alimentary tracts, consciousness, visual systems too.) If you want to promote your belief system as the scientific causative agent for all of nature, just don’t mention these.

     Re: “As far as peer-review goes, have you read these papers (including the dental ones)?”

     Are you kidding? Do you actually think I would write what I do without reading a huge number of papers on every subject I talk about here? THAT is very naive on your part. I debated with members of richarddawkins.com on many subjects, but the evolution of teeth was prime. Their “evidence” utilized many of the more “important” peer reviewed papers on the subject. (P. 23 H, I J on this blog) I found the papers to be unbelievably lacking. An embarrassment to science, but not this “science”, since you and your fellow believers will accept anything, any “peer reviewed paper”, as evidence.

     In short, Darwinian evolution is a complete and utter failure. It’s a simplistic fantasy, and not even close to answering the Puzzle. Not remotely close. Thanks for the try.

     Reply
2. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm

   As a quick follow up, after reading another of your posts you claim that using the inclusive term “we” uncovers the religious nature of evolutionists. To clarify, I use “we” because I am an evolutionary paleoanthropologist and part of the scientific community. It is in this sense that I use “we.”

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     August 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm

     You were obviously caught off guard just a bit. I know of no other science that uses the term “we”. It infers groupthink and indoctrination. As a dentist, I never included other dentists as “we” in any conversation. Nor have I heard astronomers, mathematicians, et al use the “we-us” terminology. You might want to consider why you and so many of your peers do. I have my own opinion.

     Reply
3. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 11, 2009 at 11:18 pm

   Steve,
   You may not identify yourself with I.D. yet, but you certainly sound like you hold their same views. And sir, you certainly don’t practice what you preach…accusing all “ev-illusionists” of attacking you and being condescending. I certainly know, NOT what I believe, but what the facts demonstrate as accurate and I can tell you that predation is only a small part of what drives natural selection. Obviously carnivores have few predators while herbivores have more; some plants are eaten, some are not. Even these species, though, are subject to selection pressure. By what? Not predation. Certainly, if an animal is eaten before reproducing, its lineage is lost and therefore it is selected against. However, the vast majority of adaptation occurs in the form of niche selection: particular food resources in particular environments and climates (if an animal or plant can’t eat, it won’t live long enough to even be preyed upon…).

   In terms of natural population variation driving evolution, I provide you with a tremendous YES that I (and we) have determined that these small changes can drive massive changes. I understand that many people have a difficult time grasping the sheer numbers of generations that it takes to elicit such changes, but I don’t think that you are one of them. So what is so difficult about small changes adding up to significant ones? You keep citing the same things: eyes, heart, teeth, etc. All of these things can be explained through small steps. NO you don’t need a fully functioning eye to be adaptationally important (lead to survival), all you need is a cell that is light sensitive. That light sensitive cell doesn’t even need to be connected to brain! To use your predatory hypothesis: let’s say a small multicellular creature is in the ocean. Within the natural variation of cell structure in this species are those that have photo-sensitive cells, within the natural variation of those with these cells, some have these cells on the side of their body facing the surface. If these individuals, over time, can avoid predation from above by swimming whenever the light is interrupted (like when a carnivorous species swims above it), then the population of creatures with these adaptations will increase as they live to reproduce. Now some of these individuals naturally (and I mean as a natural byproduct of reproduction in the form of mutation (for asexual species) and recombination (for sexual species)) develop several light-sensitive cells on their dorsal sides. If there is other variation in body structure, number of cells present, efficiency of locomotion, etc. then these light-sensitive cells may establish a slight curvature (note that this development could be a byproduct of another developmental variant in the creature). This curvature would allow the individual to not only know when light is interrupted above, but from what direction that blockage of light is coming from, thus improving chance of survival again. The more curvature, the more change of survival, the better the species is able to visually note changes in its surroundings, the better it is at finding food and not starving, the better it is at finding mates (for sexually reproducing species) and the better it is at avoiding potential predators. You can see how small changes can lead to significant adaptations, even if it is something quite flawed (yes, I said it) like the eye. Also note that these changes can occur without mutations. Instead, using the natural variation within populations, completely new adaptations can form, albeit over thousands, if not millions of generations. The other important thing to note is that it certainly is impressive that sight, the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, the sexual reproductive organs and process, among many others developed via minute changes and key developmental mutations. However, it is equally likely that the variation in these early progenitors wasn’t enough to produce the traits we see today; if this was the case then we wouldn’t see the same visual systems, the same organ systems, the same sexual systems, the same dental structure that we do today. Instead, we would see some other adaptations and be equally awed by them, or we all would have gone extinct two billion years ago, or life never developed on Earth at all! The fact that we HAVE these things gives us clues into our past and that is what I am trying to uncover in terms of human origins and what others are trying to uncover in terms of the origins of all life. Just because we have these adaptations doesn’t make them extraordinary, it is just a symptom of earlier genetic variation that drove these adaptations.

   Certainly there are instances of convergent evolution in which unrelated species show similar adaptations due to similarity in environments. However, there is no way to justify this argument in terms of human evolution. You said it yourself: humans are unique among apes, right? Our brain size, bipedality, and behavioral flexibility all separate us from our ape brothers. Again, watching brain size consistently grow over 6 million years of evolution (plenty of time for encephalization, especially when the development of that trait was at the cost of many others), watching more efficient forms of bipedality evolve via the fossil record, studying the minute differences between the facial morphologies and skeletal morphologies of australopithecines, early Homo and ourselves, all lead to the rather obvious conclusion that we are related. What is even more convincing about all of this is the behaviors associated with all of these early human species. The places they lived (as evidenced by associated fauna, geology, and paleobotany) as well as the resources they exploited (as evidenced, for early Homo, by stone tools, cut-marked bone and large site complexes), not to mention the skeletal similarities, all suggest a common lineage.

   As far as multiple hominins living simultaneously, this is a strength of evidence for human evolution, not a weakness! Having multiple species of australopithecines surviving in the same ecosystems demonstrates niche separation between them; if Homo habilis and Homo erectus are parent-daughter species, then you would expect overlap over geographic distances of these species in which traits are quite similar (see the site of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia, for instance), and this is exactly as predicted.

   And yes, I think I will discuss teeth; I’m familiar with how they form and the robust australopithecine example stands. We both know that though teeth are complex, they are quite a primitive trait and develop early (remember that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!). They are also highly plastic in that they can exhibit dramatic morphological change over a relatively short amount of evolutionary time. Because of their deep ancestral roots, the developmental process already exists in australopithecines and all it takes to develop these robust molars is a selective pressure for them to form (i.e. those with small teeth can’t survive). Of course these teeth are associated with other changes in skeletal and muscle morphology surrounding the use of these teeth, but developmentally (research HOX genes), these processes are linked and wouldn’t take a significant amount of time to form (on the order of hundreds of thousands, not millions of years).

   As far as the peer-reviewed articles go, no, I’m not convinced at all that you have read them based on what you’ve written. Which journals do you frequent and can you give me an example of a specific article which you have a problem with, factually? Your attitude toward science is surprising…I know that the general public gets a very watered-down version of evolution and this makes it seem like a simple, straight-forward process, which it isn’t. That being said, the reason we (I) know so much about the past and how life functions is due to the rigorous standards set by the international scientific community. I am deeply concerned that you think we do not pay attention to statistics or the scientific process. This science is just like the others: we form hypotheses and methods to test them to both prove new theories and to falsify those that have been published earlier…in fact, it’s pretty ruthless out there in terms of competition and standards. All modern research will not be published without statistical validation, often using highly technical, multi-variate methods much more rigorous than you would imagine. All articles published are under international scrutiny and if anyone claims anything illegitimate or ill-conceived (in terms of how it was tested and logic behind it), it will be rebutted quite quickly on several fronts and never cited as evidence! It’s absurd to think that scientists worldwide take what others write at face value!

   Sign up for a conference, wherever you are, in whatever scientific field you find interesting and I guarantee you will hear the term “we” all the time. I’m sure it even happens at dental conferences.

   PET

   Reply
4. 

   stevebee92653 said,

   August 12, 2009 at 2:37 am

   Re: “You may not identify yourself with I.D. yet….”
   You are way off here. ID is not a form of groupthink like evolution is. ID was discussed by Socrates and other greats of the time. It’s such an obvious and ancient concept, and not one made up by a messiah like Darwin or Jesus. Atoms were also considered and discussed thousand of years ago. I’m sure you know that. Take a real look at nature and it’s systems, and if you can’t see the obvious intelligence in the design, you have blinders on. Religions believe in ID as it fits their system. That does not mean ID is religious. It is conceivable that an atheist could also be an ID believer, as the ID that I conceive of is not a religious god, but a part of nature. That is my BELIEF, so don’t bother jumping on that one.

   Re: “So what is so difficult about small changes adding up to significant ones?”
   This takes belief. What in your life or experience has evidenced a chaotic mass organizing itself into an incredibly complex system? Anything? Of course not. So a part of your mystical god is time. Millions of years and millions of generations. THAT is what is necessary to construct your fantasy world. And since you can’t synthesize the immense time that you claim is responsible for nature, and it isn’t in your experience, your science is all belief. You believe it happened that way, even though there is no evidence. There are zero evolved fossilized bioelectromechanical systems that you can cite as evidence of your belief. So, in lieu of that, evillusionists come up with the famous “peer reviewed paper” . Peer reviewed papers are great in most other venues. In dentistry, I used them constantly. But in evolution, the paper comes out as a writing which supports a preposterous theory. These “peer reviewed” papers rarely question the theory, and are never a search for truth. The paper then morphs into evidence for that theory, instead of being a writing about the theory. Instead of the paper being about evidence, it IS the evidence, and is cited as such by your peers. Why? Because the evidence you need to show complex systems evolving is simply not there. And that’s the way evo works

   Re: the evolution of complex systems such as visual systems and heart/lung systems: “it is just a symptom of earlier genetic variation that drove these adaptations.”
   You sure aren’t very impressed with vision or the functioning of a heart/lung/blood/oxygen/blood vessel system. You and other evoulutionauts cannot be. You MUST make them sound simple and easy. Because otherwise you KNOW they couldn’t form on their own out of mush. Your discussion on how these came about is nothing but fantasy/dogma that was fed to you. You believed, for a reason only known to yourself, and you got deeper into your indoctrination to the point you can relay it to me. You have no thought about if what you say is true or not. You don’t question whatsoever. Why? I don’t get it. It seems that you are very intelligent, but you forfeited you ability to be skeptical and to reason to some other person. A teacher, or writer. You have taken what they say, believed it, locked it in, and now your are passing it to me. Exactly as it was relayed to you. You have no thought that what they are saying has no basis in reality. There is absolutely zero evidence that shows how complex vision systems evolved, nor that single celled species somehow evolved into retinas. You wasted your time with that long paragraph. I have debated on PZ Meyers site extensively regarding eye evolution. . It’s on Page 23 if you are interested. So, I know evo’s explanation for vision. Reality is there isn’t one. Only fantasy.
   Your discussion on teeth demonstrates that you have no idea how teeth form. You are just spewing more dogma. You have no skepticism. None whatsoever. Strange.

   Re: “I am deeply concerned that you think we do not pay attention to statistics or the scientific process.”
   You (pl) don’t. I have read “peer reviewed” papers on heart, dentition, vision. Many. Not one of them tell how these systems evolved. Not one. They all go into detailed anatomical discussions, and the current genetic pathways that bring them about. . Routinely. Then they let you know what species held the earlier versions of these systems. Usually that would be some sort of fish or worm. Then they let you know that they morphed more complex. Somehow. Of course they have no idea how, but the cover-up is always there. They hate to just come out and say they have no idea, which is the case in each instance. They can’t admit failure, so they cover-up. And they do that for each other. Their peers. Hence the peer reviewed cover up….ooops, I mean paper. Feel fee to research yourself and see if you can really come up with ANY paper that tells how hearts were invented, then evolved into the four chambered hearts we have today. Then get back to me when you do! I will give you a hint at what you will find…….”the throat gene copied itself so there were two throats. Then one of the throats became……..!” It’s all very exciting.
   And, sorry. You are wrong on the “we” thing at conferences. You have to know I have been to many of many different types. You guys stand alone.

   Reply
5. 

   val said,

   August 13, 2009 at 1:10 am

   What a fascinating blog – you are both obviously so knowledgeable in your areas of study – I am learning a lot!

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     August 13, 2009 at 3:08 am

     Thanks for the POSITIVE comment! I am used to slings and arrows.

     Reply
6. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 13, 2009 at 8:03 pm

   Steve,

   I’m glad you bring up Socrates in terms of Intelligent Design because I completely agree! Socrates is a philosopher and Intelligent Design is a philosophy, NOT a science and you and I can be in complete agreement that ID can be taught in philosophy courses nationwide. You see, the problem is that ID cannot be tested and thus rests on the same founding principles for millennia. You continue to offer negative evidence for evolution and refuse to offer any other testable ideas…you think it’s more logical to say “something made the world this way” than it is to establish testable hypotheses to explain the formation of life and variability as we see it in the world? Seriously? Offer something concrete and maybe the world will listen! All evolutionary biologists and researchers seek to NEGATE theories. Nothing in science is ever proven, it is shown to not be false given a certain set of tested hypotheses. This includes gravity, this includes ALL physics! No one has claimed that evolution is proven, it is only proven give the set of hypotheses that have been tested (and that’s literally thousands upon thousands of them). If you have an alternative specific hypothesis to test, please, let the world know, but don’t reply “something intelligent did all of this” unless you can offer a test to back it up.

   The concept of small change over time has nothing to do with belief. Certainly, being human I only live for 70-80 years and can only witness so much in terms of generational turnover. But if your logic is that that fact negates the theory of evolution and turns it into a belief system, then your logic is misleading and surprisingly nihilistic! By that logic I can’t accept ANYTHING that I don’t experience first hand?! Well, there goes everything before I was born and everyplace I’ll never visit and every animal I’ll never see. Why do we know what happened before we were born? History. We have historic documents and pictures; before pictures, we still have writing, before writing we have artifacts, before artifacts we have fossils, we have geology, we have preserved ecofacts and atomic information. You are drawing an arbitrary line between the historic and prehistoric record and claiming we can know nothing before the advent of writing without belief. Is that right? If not, why not? In my life experience, I have excavated fossils of Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis and Homo erectus; I have held these fossils and the stone tools associated with them; I have cut geological trenches and witnessed the stratigraphic passage of time; I have come to understand the chemical traces associated with particle accelerators and laser-fusion technology that provide accurate dating mechanisms; in my life experience I have held the crania of past human populations and seen firsthand the clear and steady changes associated with their morphology over 3 million years.

   There may not be DIRECT, preserved evidence of “bioelectromechanical systems” in the fossil record, but you seriously can’t expect biologists and paleontologists to lay out 50 preserved hearts for you, right? I mean, you know how preservation works and you know, as a dentist, why we find so many teeth in the archaeological record but no soft parts, right? But where do we go from there? We can say, as you do, this is too much to explain and so I’ll chalk it up to some intelligent force out there and call it a day, or you can do as scientists do and say, you know, there are proxies for this information (stem cell development, genetic information, prediction for fossil location and form, effects of proteins on developmental systems, etc. etc. etc.) and with testable hypothetical predictions, we can test the accuracy of our own theories and begin to establish how all of this came to be. I choose the later because I’m critical, because I think outside the box, because the notion of a deity, or “intelligence in nature” isn’t enough for me. I read these articles and produce my own for a living, Steve, so to suggest that I read them at face value and accept everything I read is ludicrous. Half of what’s published out there are “Responses to:” past articles in which authors are having a scientific word war with each other over minute methodological differences! So, back to my last post: which scientific journals do you frequent and can you provide me with a specific article that you have factual problems with? Again, don’t say “I read a Dawkins book” or “I found this on a webpage.” I want specifics. Remember, even you can submit a journal article! If evolution is so wrong, come up with a hypothesis that would falsify some aspect of it and TEST IT. Good luck with that, if you’re able to come up with a feasable, testable hypothesis, you can get yourself another doctorate degree.

   PET

   Reply
7. 

   stevebee92653 said,

   August 14, 2009 at 6:39 am

   Your problem PET is you are so indoctrinated you can’t really even consider what the debate is. You have to be so adamant about no intelligence in natural design, you can’t even broach the fact that it’s there. Nature IS intelligently designed beyond our ability to comprehend. And if you can’t see that or agree, any discussion with you would be a sham. The argument is the SOURCE of that design, not whether there is design. Is it (1) an entity with an IQ of absolute zero: the early sterile earth and its contents, or (2) an unknown entity of immense ability and intelligence. The mere objective teaching of physiology, anatomy, biology, et al, is in itself the teaching of intelligent design. Nothing needs to be said about a source. The source isn’t scientifically known. The same is true with d. evolution, which says the sterile earth and it’s elements, with a total IQ of zero, was able to invent, design, and assemble the most incredibly magnificent and complex bio-electromechanical devises imaginable. The argument is not whether there is intelligent design in nature, but what the source of that design is. My thinking and observations lead me to believe that the source is an unknown intelligent entity. And I do that on a purely philosophical basis. You believe it’s an entity with an IQ of zero. Both ideas should be relegated to philosophy and history classes. They should not be taught in schools as science unless one or the other can be proven beyond doubt. But for some reason, your entity with an IQ of zero is currently injected into the heads of school children as real science. I know you will say there is tons of evidence. But there simply isn’t. And for intelligent design, just open your eyes and take a look. It’s EVERYWHERE.

   Re: “The concept of small change over time has nothing to do with belief.”

   Not just you, but no man has ever experienced or observed the formation of complex bio-electromechanical systems from a group of cells. Ever. There is no ongoing formation today. We would see steps in the process. There are none. The fossil record shows zip. The notion is made up fantasy, and you believe it. Why? It’s a belief, and you are so indoctrinated you can’t see what a belief it is.

   Re: “Steve, so to suggest that I read them at face value and accept everything I read is ludicrous.”
   You have been indoctrinated and you believe the preposterous. You don’t look outside the box even though you think you do. You accept the whole thing, lock stock and barrel. You haven’t relayed one single sentence where you say, about evolution, “that may or may not be true.” Or, “I really don’t believe that part.” You have no skepticism. People who have been indoctrinated are the last to know. You don’t realize it, and you can’t escape. Even for a minute. Your complete lack of discussion on the intelligence in the designs of nature, and your inability to recognize the fact that it is there, is a big giveaway. Your referral to yourself as “we-us” is another. Your belief in the preposterous that have no supporting evidence is just more.
   You are convinced, brain locked, committed, and you have nowhere to go. We have hit the point of going in circles. So, if you like you can have the last say. I will read it and say thanks for the discussion.

   Reply
8. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 14, 2009 at 9:01 pm

   Steve,
   Indoctrination and knowing the evidence are two different things; just because I am vastly more familiar with the history of evolution, the most recent research, and the debates within the field, does not mean that I am indoctrinated…it means I am well-researched! Maybe you should read a few more of those articles you tell me you read (though you won’t bring ANY of them up specifically…).

   For any others out there who may visit this blog and read this thread of comments, please be aware that Steve consistently brings up the same arguments and offers NO testable hypotheses of his own. In short, this is what all ID philosophy is about: our little human brains (that are so amazing) can’t comprehend all of this complexity around us so therefore something must have made it that way. If you agree that we’re far too feeble to grasp the natural world, then good luck with life. If, on the other hand, you see the natural world as a glorious assortment of well-adapted life and can wrap you mind around the notion of four and a half billion years, then do some reading and enjoy, because though natural selection may be cold, it doesn’t detract from the beauty of life.

   As for Steve, are you suggesting that natural selection has a vision for what life could be? If so, your understanding of evolution is far less than I’ve given you credit for. Obviously there is no decision-making with natural selection, it can’t (as you suggest) “invent, design and assemble” life forms. On the contrary, life could have just as easily never arisen, just like our other traits (a point I mentioned previously and you decided not to comment on).

   Evolution, again, is NOT a belief. It is the most logical conclusion given the data available. If, scientifically, there was evidence against evolution, I would follow the new paradigm of the origins of life. However, for 150 years, despite the advent of genetics, social evolutionary theory and evolutionary developmental theory, and despite all of them working in concert, this paradigmatic switch has not occurred. And you know what? You ID people were around this whole time. And you know what? Not one testable hypothesis has been put forward by you since, as you put it, Socrates! Congratulations on living in the Iron Age!

   Apparently you didn’t read my last entry regarding things not experienced in life. Do you want to answer my question or just give it to me? What about history, Steve? Where do you draw the line between experience and “belief?” You have said that you accept the evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old, but how do you know that the dating is accurate? There are lots of creationist websites out there that claim that god put these atoms on Earth already depleted so that we would date things incorrectly as a test. What do you say to them? They can use your same logic and say, “Steve, you can never witness the half-life of Carbon or the half-life of Potassium-40, or the half-life of Uranium-238, so your saying the Earth is ancient is purely belief and the only reason you believe it’s that old is because you’ve been entirely indoctrinated” etc. What do say to them?

   Of course there are LOTS of unanswered questions regarding evolution, but guess what? That’s science! It’s a beautiful process that takes years of work and thousands of lives devoted to testing minute hypotheses to further our understanding of the natural world. I have no doubt that we will have all of the genetic evidence necessary to explain the origins of the heart, the lungs, the eyes, and all of those things you have questions about (and my thinking this is a belief, I’ll give you that!) but you can’t expect everything to be answered with a snap of the fingers. As I said before, all of the evidence to date points to the accuracy of evolutionary theory; though some questions remain unanswered, they are being avidly worked on all over the world. But, since you can’t wait, you can go ahead and just say “something smart that I can’t see did it.”

   The only reason this debate is going in circles is because you refuse to respond to half of my comments. You use the same examples over and over and it’s getting old! Get some new material! Try reading some actual journals (you obviously haven’t since you won’t give me any specific examples, but I’ll suggest a few for you to read: Journal of Human Evolution, Journal of Archaeological Science, Journal of Paleogeography, Nature, Science, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, PNAS, Marine Geology, Sedimentary Geology, and Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology for starters). See what you think of these (don’t forget the back issues!) and then we’ll talk. I’d also suggest the textbook “The Human Career” by Richard Klein, if you are interested in human evolution.

   It’s worth mentioning that I DO NOT agree with everything that is said in these peer-reviewed papers, but not with the foundation of the theory, but rather with the nuances of how it works and how certain events occurred in the past. With regard to human evolution (my specialty), genetic evidence is shedding light on how early humans (Homo erectus) and later, modern humans (Homo sapiens) dispersed out of Africa and populated the world. There are two competing hypotheses (note: these are testable in that the archaeological material predicted will either match or not match what is expected given each respective hypothesis), the Multi-Regional Hypothesis and the Out Of Africa Hypothesis and this debate has not been settled. Given the current evidence, I sit on the Out of Africa side of the fence, but given the right evidence, the entire field will change camps! This is how it works, but you need to have evidence for something, just like in a court of law! You’ll never hear a judge say, “I believe he’s innocent,” and you’ll never hear an (true) evolutionist say “I believe in evolution.” It needs to be qualified and quantified by the facts. The relationship between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is also an area of significant debate, though genetic evidence is helping to close the gap given that we have mapped the human genome and are working on that for Neanderthals (or do you not “believe” in genetics either?).

   It’s up to you whether you want to give me the last word and leave all of these points unanswered, but that’s what I’m expecting. Every other debate ends the same way: with the ID proponent saying “Well I believe in intelligence and there’s nothing you can say, so there!” How mature and scientific of you.

   If that’s it, then have a good life based on anything but reality.

   PET

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     August 14, 2009 at 10:42 pm

     Thanks for the response. I did read it. FYI I have reviewed Dawkins: “The Blind Watchmaker” (p.18). I have many MANY references to evolution materials in this blog, so giving you a list would be absurd. Do a little digging yourself. The information is all there. I have so much information in this blog on why the answer isn’t Darwin. Do I need to hand hold you and go through each? Every page is on a different phase of failure.You say I bring up the same arguments over and over. Did you read the same page over and over? I wrote this blog for a purpose, and I am not going to redo it in comments to you. Thanks for the communication. I hope someday you realize how indoctrinated you are. If you do, you will feel enlightened, and be amazed. At how you could believe this stuff.
     Bye

     Reply
9. 

   P.E.T said,

   August 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm

   Steve,
   Your condescension is quite becoming of your character; in all of your writing you’ve taken on the “British, professor-type pulling the bait and switch arguments” that you hate so much (p. 3). The difference between professors and yourself is that at least they know what they’re talking about.

   You say you have “MANY references to evolution material in this blog,” but all I see are websites (including youtube?!), TV specials, some popular magazines (like Nat Geo) and a Dawkins book. If I believed everything I heard on Discovery Channel specials, they’d have me thinking that Homo erectus was adorning itself with primitive jewelry…come on, Steve, do some actual research using some of those peer-reviewed papers you hate so much. Just a little criticism on something that actually has some research merit to it, please! Remember that list of journals I gave you? Start with some of those.

   And please, hold my hand through this process of reading so much blog material, I can’t get through it all! Now it’s my turn with condescension. How dare you accuse me of such things after its you who fails to respond to my questions, which you DO NOT address on this blog. I have actually (painfully) looked over most of this blog and, if you look back, your arguments repeat continually in one of three flavors: system development (eye, heart, ear, sexual organs), fossils, or early life. The other stuff is fine for philosophical arguments, as we’ve discussed. Despite evidence to the contrary, despite many people spending time to leave you comments (rude or otherwise) and showing you the fallacies of your thoughts, despite new research that is demonstrating many of the problems you have directly, you continue your ignorant tirade against a topic that, I am fully convinced, you don’t understand! I truly don’t think you know how natural selection operates, what genetics really are and what they are able to tell us, and, besides teeth, anything about developmental systems!

   So, as a closing thought, I want everyone reading this blog and all those blogs out there like it to go to a library or university, look up some actual research on a topic that interests you, and see for yourself what scientists, who have selflessly devoted their lives to understanding the world around us, have been doing. Don’t be swayed by dentists with good vocabularies and no foundation in evolutionary theory, be swayed by those that devote their lives to increasing our knowledge of how the world and the life that’s on it actually works.

   Bye, Steve, and as a UCLA alumni, go Bruins.

   PET

   Reply
10. 

    stevebee92653 said,

    August 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    (1) They do know what they are talking about, and they know they are fooling the students, which you were one of. These instructors are charlatans all. And you are a gullible sucker.
    (2) So NatGeo, Dawkins, Sci Chan, BBC, PBS, debates with PHD biologists, debates with the entire richarddawkins.net site over peer rev. papers on the evolution of teeth, debates with the PZ Meyers site on the evolution of eyes, doesn’t satisfy you? They ALL don’t understand evolution? Really. You should bother them and give THEM your list of wonderful research papers and articles. Teach THEM. Obviously you think they need more learning! I’m certain they would really appreciate it!
    (3) Ohhhh, natural selection is soooo complicated. Yes, I don’t understand it. hahahah
    (4) Booo hoooo. hoooo So touching. “……those that devote their lives to increasing our knowledge of how the world and the life that’s on it actually works.” sob….
    (5) UCLA? No wonder. Are you going to have another crushing football season?

    Reply
11. 

    P.E.T said,

    August 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    (1) So you’re a conspiracy theorist, that makes much more sense! Seriously, you think professors are knowingly and willingly pushing a illegitimate scientific agenda? Wow, I can only imagine what you think of Roswell.

    (2) The shows on TV and online are watered-down versions of scientific information. I thought most people knew that, but I guess I was wrong. Using actual debates are fine, but you can’t consider online debates you’ve had with ordinary users “evidence” for your position.

    (3) Apparently natural selection IS complicated since you’ve been able to butcher it so completely.

    (4) You obviously don’t have a respect for scientists out there, but readers who come across this site might and I want them to understand that there are literally thousands of people who do devote their lives to evolutionary sciences and that this research deserves respect (and to actually be read, Steve…).

    (5) Westwood vs. the ghetto…hmmm…

    And still nothing addressing any previous questions. Ahh, I love the smell of victory. Have a good one.

    PET

    Reply
    • 

      stevebee92653 said,

      August 18, 2009 at 12:33 am

      Congratulations on your great self declared victory. Don’t forget to get your reading list to those sources I listed. They MUST be straightened out. Bye

      Reply
12. 

    jan said,

    October 23, 2009 at 2:26 am

    P.E.T. Are you still checking in here?

    Reply
13. 

    jan said,

    October 23, 2009 at 5:29 am

    “Natural selection is founded on the idea of progeny, not predation.”
    First of all, any discussion that pretends to adequately in some sort of meaningful definition of “science” explain chemicals to today’s observable living systems is simply an impotent exaggerated compilation of speculation…….Doesn’t matter what the accumulation of “information” (speculations) leads your “vastly limited” sense of “intuition” to lead you to believe…….You, to put it in pop-culture terms” (pop-culture, your beloved promoter) YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW SHIT!!!!!!!!

    Get your butt back on here P.E T. Let us continue this discussion………….

    Reply
14. 

    P.E.T said,

    October 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Jan,
    Yes, I see when new posts are put on this page. I can’t really decipher what you’re trying to say in your post, can you restate your post more clearly, please?

    PET

    Reply
15. 

    jan said,

    October 24, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Dear P.E.T.

    Please read the following statement and repeat as needed. If enlightenment does not occur within two weeks of repetition, please consult medical care:

    First of all, any “discussion” that pretends to adequately (with sufficient and necessary demonstrated scientific data) explain chemicals to today’s observable living systems is simply an impotent exaggerated compilation of speculation…….Doesn’t matter what the accumulation of “information” (speculations) leads your “vastly limited” sense of “intuition” to lead you to believe…….

    Reply
16. 

    jan said,

    October 24, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Dear P.E.T.

    Please read the following statement and repeat as needed. If enlightenment does not occur Any “discussion” that pretends to adequately (with sufficient and necessary demonstrated scientific data) explain chemicals to today’s observable living systems is simply an impotent exaggerated compilation of speculation…….Doesn’t matter what the accumulation of “information” (speculations) leads your “vastly limited” sense of “intuition” to lead you to believe…….

    Reply
17. 

    P.E.T said,

    October 25, 2009 at 1:42 am

    Jan,

    As I said, I read your statement and cannot figure out what you are trying to say so simply repeating it verbatim doesn’t help. Can you EXPLAIN it please: what do chemicals have to do with the idea of progeny vs. predation in natural selection? Can you give some examples of what you’re trying to say? I’m perfectly happy to discuss this with you but I need to know what we’re discussing first…

    Talk to you soon!

    PET

    Reply
18. 

    jan said,

    October 25, 2009 at 5:13 am

    PET,
    Progeny vs. predation……..Are you not trying to argue a case for “evolution”? I confess, have not taken the time to review all of your comments…it is just assumed the conceptual specter regarding these terms utilized by you is intended to support the concept of “climbing mount improbable” so to speak, from substances that we call “chemicals” progressing through various stages of “selection and progression” if you will, to what now, can be scientifically demonstrated as a degree of disparity between just “chemicals” and “living organisms” that is certainly observable, measurable and scientifically validated………But, I would have to assume, there has to be many scientists in the field that, from a scientific perspective, would certainly have to agree that …….there just is not enough quantitative experimental evidence that sufficiently demonstrates the “filling in of the gaps” (I know that certain people like to claim that those who question “evolution” are imposing a god of the gaps) between chemicals and living systems…….

    Reply
19. 

    jan said,

    October 25, 2009 at 5:59 am

    “Selection values” must have different ” developmental meaning” to the components of the processes toward complexity differentiation, depending on the various stages of “development” that undoubtibly would be required in a “path” towards “greater complexity”. But a concept of “selection” must continually and relentlessly be defined and quantifiablly judged (measured) in relationship to the stage of “biological development” that must of occurred at it’s given point of time, relevant to the progression of the system and components, to what we can observe at this point in time…………Because selective environments in relationship to developing SYSTEMS ARE NOT STATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    PET, please TRY AND UNDERSTAND.

    Reply
20. 

    jan said,

    October 26, 2009 at 5:57 am

    PET,
    Hello, where are you??????? I guess you must need more time to respond….. that’s ok with me………..because you and i both know a good response would require…who the fuck knows the amount of time necessary to scientifically demostrate any kind of “theory” of explanation, let alone an “explanation” that is a trite series of speculations coming from “human conciousness”……….that loves to claim it has the ability to “know it all now” motherfucker!!!!!!!!!!! what an asshole you are………….

    Reply
21. 

    P.E.T said,

    October 27, 2009 at 12:03 am

    Jan,

    Excuse me, but I DO NOT respond well to such character assassination, especially when we haven’t even discussed this. First of all, you need to stop with the “quotations” and the…dot-dot-dots…I have no idea why you use them. You also need to learn how to clearly outline your thoughts, logic and arguments.

    Based on what you’ve written (besides your tirade against me using foul and inappropriate language), you seem to have a problem with abiogenesis, the rise of life from nonliving matter. No one is going to argue that this event was fantastic and unique, but evolutionists are going to point out that that all of the building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracil), except for cytosine, which is replaced by uracil in RNA, has been created from nonliving elements in lab conditions that mimic early Earth. Since it makes sense that early life would have been simple, like RNA, and self-replicating, these experiments demonstrate the feasibility of its random formation.

    In terms of what you call “selective systems,” I agree: systems ARE NOT static! That is the basic premise of natural selection, so congratulations. Environment, climate, trophic relationships, geographic instability, population dynamics, mutations, etc., etc. all change due to myriad causes and lead to differential ability to produce PROGENY (including some members of a species falling to PREDATION pressures) leads to both speciation and extinction!

    In terms of evidence for “filling-in-the-gaps” between chemicals and life (as you put), what would you expect there to be?? Do you understand how old 4 BILLION years is? Do you understand how things fossilize? Do you understand how we infer the presence of bacteria NOT by the bacteria but by the preservation of their specific byproducts? Listen, no evolutionist is going to tell you that we have it all figured out because we don’t and we owe that to the relative young age of evolutionary sciences, genetics, archaeology and paleontology. This is a science that takes time, money, excavation, and detailed lab work to progress, so while it’s all well and good for you to make huge, broad claims about a subject you know very little about, it doesn’t make you right. If you can’t even take the time to read what few comments I’ve made on this blog, how can you possibly have read up on evolutionary theory? If you want some references I’d be happy to recommend them, if you want me answer more questions I’d be happy to address them. If, however, you disrespect me like you did in your last comment, you will not hear from me again.

    PET

    Reply
22. 

    jan said,

    October 27, 2009 at 5:35 am

    “Do you understand how old 4 BILLION years is?”

    No, I don’t and you don’t either, nobody can comprehend that in terms of our own living intuition…..The effect of long periods of time on the alleged pathways from chemicals to life is still vastly non demonstrable from a scientific perspective. (pardon the periods, but the periods imply discussion of the topic could go on for a further period of time. But of course you are only interested in coming to the conclusion you want in as short of time as possible because you know you only have so much time and want to prove your correctness more than anything else (you asshole)(By the way, who cares if we are talking about the capabilities of “REAL” science. (sarcasm)Real science would first and foremost try and establish it’s limitations and then work within that scope. Not so with evolutionary “science”. Any even nonscientist looking in can see that there are “philosophies” at work here. I would suspect philosophical preferences are probably more motivational than finding the results from a real scientific perspective are.)
    I will comment more later. I am competing for computer time………

    Reply
23. 

    jan said,

    October 28, 2009 at 3:08 am

    “Excuse me, but I DO NOT respond well to such character assassination, especially when we haven’t even discussed this.”

    PET, i dont know who you are and you dont know who i am…..so, regardless of the rhetoric, lets engage in conversation…………..if you are comfortable with your character, why would you be concerned about somebodies statement about(apparently that) that you dont know personally and will never meet face to face (more periods, oh heck) it is an important discussion. dont ditch out on such a immature technicality……..

    Reply
24. 

    jan said,

    October 28, 2009 at 4:34 am

    “Based on what you’ve written (besides your tirade against me using foul and inappropriate language), you seem to have a problem with abiogenesis, the rise of life from nonliving matter.”

    Oh, really, “abiogenesis” That man made term certainly implies that human intellectual capabilities has the abilities necessary to adequately confirm evolutionary “science” (philosophy) conjectures.(oh heck, more of those confounded periods…….. boy those periods in and of themselves have so much relevance to the real content of this discussion……

    Well, i guess you think there is adequate scientifically demonstrate evidence that non living chemicals were able to develop into living organisms as are observable at this point in time………(sorry about the periods, i hope they don’t irritate you too much…..)

    I am sure you can cite the body of real scientific evidence to corraborate your assertions (in case you dont know-SARCASM)……(dog gone it, there i go again, more periods)

    Please site the studies that, cummulatively,( without speculation and conjecture ) adequately demonstrate the necessary constraints, whatever they may be, in order to for selection processes(please confirm these on all necessary stages) (at all given levels, one at a time, or even simultaneously, however they can be identified and measured and”scientifically ” demonstrated ) to have the abilities to work upon the necessary traits, in the fashions required to go from nonliving matter to living systems that are observable at this point in history….. (damn, those dang periods)

    to have

    Reply
25. 

    jan said,

    October 28, 2009 at 4:43 am

    “First of all, you need to stop with the “quotations” and the…dot-dot-dots…I have no idea why you use them. You also need to learn how to clearly outline your thoughts, logic and arguments.”

    You sound like some sort of ivory tower preacher who has been able to make a living reprimanding students who dont quite get your propaganda right by regurgitatiing the crap you throw at them….. I dont know if you are a “teacher”, “professor” or whatever they call people in the realm of “education” who have authority over someone else who 1) is looking to get a good grade to keep the family finances funding their “education” 2) or some child who sincerely is interested in pursuing a career in real science………….You son of a bitch, don’t tell me what i should say or not say in this conversation. Get real…..
    but i suspect you will cower out of this discussion and blame it on “well he didnt want to play by my rules, so screw him……..(oh hell, more inappropriate periods…….) you are just another one of those chicken shits i have faced over and over again…….

    Reply
26. 

    jan said,

    October 28, 2009 at 5:03 am

    “No one is going to argue that this event was fantastic and unique, but evolutionists are going to point out that that all of the building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracil), except for cytosine, which is replaced by uracil in RNA, has been created from nonliving elements in lab conditions that mimic early Earth”

    Mimic early earth? You are insane……..(oh jeez more periods) the circular reasoning is absolutely nauseating….. the conclusion that science has come up with in that regard is based entirely on the fact that “these results needed the conditions we know are necessary for those results to occur, therefore those conditions MUST HAVE BEEN……)
    Just another blatant example of evolutionary philosophers, ( and i use that term extremely graciously) taking their position of power and declaring “reality” based upon their beloved philosophical preferences…….you asshole) prove me wrong butt wipe…….

    Reply
27. 

    jan said,

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 am

    “has been created from nonliving elements in lab conditions”

    What a dumb ass. “has been created………in lab conditions” You have got to be kidding me…….(damn it more periods)…….oh heck . Lab conditions, (sarcastically) just like natural conditions must be in some sense, equivalent, eh?????? oh well, the earths surface is huge and over enough time there must have been nooks and crannies that, if nothing else, in some sort of cumulative sense, been able to do what “intelligent” (maybe not so smart) scientists in a “lab” (ah, the wonders of such a hospitable invironment to help us) guiding agents have been able to accomplish.

    to CORRELATE the impact of ‘time” with the intellectual capabilities of human intelligence) to manipulate results is just ABSOLUTELY UNGROUNDED AND UNFOUNDED. AND THIS KIND OF ASSERTION ALONE SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ANYBODY IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN THE SUPPOSED “BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES”………(oh shit, more periods)

    Reply
28. 

    jan said,

    October 29, 2009 at 2:40 am

    Shucks, PET, I am not done with commenting on your other post yet. Ya gotta slow down. I don’t know about you, but I have to devote a significant amount of time to making a living. These issues are not so easily glossed over, and you know what? Just on the surface at this point in time, all of the references you may cite, to me, is an expression of your insecurity. The old “argument from authority crap that these evolutionary philosophers rely on so heavily. In my experience, most reports of “scientific” results, at a sufficiently “deep level” are totally inadequate to represent substantial foundation to the claims being made. (which is an understatement from any resonable persons estimation.
    I’ll get back to you as possible.

    I

    Reply
29. 

    jan said,

    October 29, 2009 at 4:15 am

    I mean, after all, most of these people, i would suspect, like you, are making, or made a living trying to substantiate a philosophy that funding sources championed regardless of some sort of concept of adequate evidence in the scope of what really is required to demonstrate the assertions being made………. (damn it, more periods) please don’t hurt me…………(oh shit, more periods)

    Reply
30. 

    jan said,

    October 29, 2009 at 5:07 am

    I mean PET, demonstrate that any of the above cited wishful thinking suck assess have adequately shown that they have EVEN REMOTELY (IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEMS AT HAND) HAVE ADEQUATELY, CONCEPTUALLY, developed an appropriate integrated model of all the variables necessary to substantiate proper measurements in determining concepts such as “fitness” and “selection values” at all of the significant points along the chain of biological configuration space development……..(damn it, i need more medication…..too many periods…shit NURSE NURSE PLEASE HELP ME……..)

    For example, take what might be described as “evolution concerning the pre macro phylogenetic biological structures that exist today………(shit more periods…….) Let us, for simplicity sake describe (what an asshole like you) might describe as the world of “microcosmic evolutionary configuration space” oh shit, this is sooooo scientific sounding. But think about it. Prior to multicellular organisms, there must have been cells that had evolved to the capabilities of becoming “multicellular” But has “science” demostrated FROM THE GROUND UP how the simplest LIVING CELL, first of all became a living cell (oh shit, the inconvenience of accountabilty such as an adequately “scientifically” demonstrated substantiation of any alleged BEGINNING BALANCE, so to speak which is the foundation of all of the “evolutionary science” philosophy, which, apparently serves as substantive authority to allow you assholes to claim you have adequate “evidences” to support you assertions???????YOU dumb son of a bitch…… go ahead and …….

    Oh well, if you think about the above statements, I think you will be enlightened.
    But I doubt that you will. Because you are caught up in the rhetoric, and not the realities…….

    Reply
31. 

    P.E.T said,

    October 29, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    You ask for citations then call me insecure for providing them to you. You continue to call be inappropriate names for no other reason than you disagree with my scientific conclusions. You make broad statements in an attempt to throw a straw man at me and make me tear it down. You don’t trust scientific experimentation yet want every step of evolution demonstrated. You tell me to slow down but you refuse to answer any of my previous questions.

    Read the articles I provided if you want some answers…I included many that deal with pre-multicellular life, including a detailed book. There’s nothing to address in you last post that can’t be addressed in the articles you requested.

    PET

    Reply
32. 

    jan said,

    October 30, 2009 at 3:25 am

    “You ask for citations”. I don’t remember asking you for “citations”. I could be wrong.
    My conclusions from looking at “citations” addressing the propositions of chemicals to living systems through natural selection is: nowhere near enough scientifically corraborated data and conclusions drawn through the filter of personal preferences by those providing the data.
    .

    Reply
33. 

    stevebee92653 said,

    October 30, 2009 at 4:53 am

    This is a comment by PET. This is not a forum for listing fifty articles that no one will read. Don’t waste your time and my space. So, please cite your own thoughts, and limit your citations to a couple if you feel they are necessary.

    You are perfectly entitled to criticize my evidence. logic and rationale, but, as you said, we can do it through conversation, NOT with derogatory comments like “Motherfu**er, A**hole, Son of a Bit**, or buttwipe” (how old are we??). I have done nothing to offend you and only offer information, so watch your language or this will end because of YOU.
    I don’t understand what you have against experimentation: early Earth climate is based on geological samples and isotopic reconstructions as well as mineral content. Conditions based on empirical evidence leads to nucleic acids and you call it circular reasoning? I’m curious, how do you know what happened before you were born? Do you take someone’s word for it? At what point do you consider “history” reliable: only with textual evidence? How far back into prehistory? Is chemistry fallible? How about physics? Are climatic and geological processes that operate now different from those that operated in the past, if so, how do you know that? When do you consider experimentation appropriate (i.e. you probably use a cell phone and definitely a computer so that goodness for quantum physics…something we CAN’T see but we can see the results of!)?

    Reply
34. 

    P.E.T said,

    October 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Steve,

    Jan said the following earlier: “Please cite the studies that, cummulatively,( without speculation and conjecture ) adequately demonstrate the necessary constraints, whatever they may be, in order to for selection processes(please confirm these on all necessary stages) (at all given levels, one at a time, or even simultaneously, however they can be identified and measured and”scientifically ” demonstrated ) to have the abilities to work upon the necessary traits, in the fashions required to go from nonliving matter to living systems that are observable at this point in history.”

    Believe me, Steve, I know that all of you reading this are not going to go and actually do the research into the evidence, but if she ASKS for them, why can’t I PROVIDE them to her?? With your permission, I would like to put the list back up simply so that people visiting the site and interested in the debate will understand what kind of information is out there for them if they choose to pursue it. Please, since Jan asked, let the list stand.

    PET

    Reply
    • 

      stevebee92653 said,

      October 30, 2009 at 5:40 pm

      I fully understand your point. And I don’t want to censor here with few exceptions (personal information, excessive rambling). And you can see that I don’t. But putting a long list of books here that you know no person will use just takes up space. You can make the list as long as you want on your own blog, which takes only minutes to put together, and give them a link here. Go to WordPress.com and set up an account. It will take five minutes of your time. And a link from here is fine with me.

      Reply
      • 

        P.E.T said,

        October 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm

        Steve,
        I appreciate your understanding, but honestly, this is kind of the point of all of this debate…you see, I HAVE read all of these sources, as well as literally thousands of others that come from my personal bibliographic library. I understand that most people, you and jan included, are not going to seek all of this out, but it puts you at a disadvantage in debate and this is exactly why many of the people you debate throw their hands up with incredulity…because you throw out points that have been researched and don’t bother with reading the research!

        I simply thought that by putting a VERY brief (if you think 50 references is long, you really need to read more papers) list of available references to topics covered in the debate on this page, that others reading would have the means by which to actually pursue the subject in more detail in they want to. Don’t you think that is a good thing? I suppose I will post this list on my own site, but it’s so relevant here on this page. Honestly, it’s this kind of behavior that bothers me with these debates, you want to debate but don’t want to do the research! I

        f you understand my position, just leave the list alone! I’ll remove all the extra spaces so it isn’t so long, okay?

        Thanks for hearing me out!
        PET
      • 

        stevebee92653 said,

        October 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm

        PET It won’t stick. The comment section is for just that. Comments. Hopefully thoughtful ones. You are off on a tangent of your own. This is not your site. No one will buy or search out the books that you think are so important and read them. If you think they will, you are in dreamland. I have read hundreds of “peer reviewed” papers and articles and books that support TOE. I know what they say. Read my review of The Blind Watchmaker. A summation of lots of those papers you think are so great. I have posted reasons why I feel that Darwin was way off. Feel free to attack my points and show me where I am wrong. Take any point that I make. Show the world. Quote papers. Your books and articles supposedly show things that no man or woman who ever lived or lives knows. And that grinds on and on and on. Same stuff. You just haven’t figured that out yet. The evolution of a complex visual system, or the Krebs cycle are good examples. Papers on those describe anatomy, embryology, physiology, but never how they formed. Never. No one knows. Not you, me, Darwin, Dawkins, Einstein, or the writers of those papers. And the evos who debate then “throw their hands up” don’t have evidence to back up the nonsense that they espouse, so they get frustrated and usually revert to “read a book on it”. Like you are doing with your long list.
35. 

    jan said,

    October 31, 2009 at 3:08 am

    “Please cite the studies that, cummulatively,( without speculation and conjecture ) adequately demonstrate the necessary constraints, whatever they may be, etc. etc. etc.”
    (my quote)
    PET, thanks for reminding me that I did ask for the citation of studies. I honestly didn’t remember. But what you failed to point out is studies without “speculation and conjecture.” I have read many studies over the years. Maybe not as many as you. But enough to know that there are incredible amounts of things that are not, and I believe, will never be known in the to the full extent of experimentation and observability in mankind’s history. The “evolutionary” community, by definition is so dependent on speculations and unverifiable assertions, that it is REDICULOUS TO CALL ITS ENTERPRISE, “SCIENCE”. Cant you see that?
    But something I have observed over the years in looking in on this debate, is that, generally, chemicals to living organisms “evolutionists” seem to really be hung up on trying to demonstrate that religion is a fabrication.

    Steve, I actually was looking forward to this weekend when I could take some time to look at some of the studies PET had mentioned…..I have no doubt that I would be able to critically evaluate them and show the insufficiency of the studies to significantly contribute to the questions at hand.

    Reply
36. 

    jan said,

    October 31, 2009 at 4:32 am

    “I simply thought that by putting a VERY brief (if you think 50 references is long, you really need to read more papers) list of available references to topics covered in the debate on this page, that others reading would have the means by which to actually pursue the subject in more detail in they want to. Don’t you think that is a good thing?”

    “good thing”

    PET, what is your objective? I think you assume that people, such as myself and Steve, have never looked at papers regarding these “subjects”. You seem to be “labeling” those of us who HAVE read “scientific” papers, and have serious questions regarding the vast array of undemonstrated assumptions that are at the core of the assertions being made as “uneducated” or somehow as “missing the points” because you think they have not read enough papers. My advice to you is to CRITICALLY EVALUATE YOUR OWN THOUGHT PROCESSES, INCLUDING THE INFLUENCE YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS HAVE ON YOUR CONCLUSIONS WHEN studying these papers, that you suppose are representative of adequately describing the history of life’s developments.

    Reply
37. 

    jan said,

    November 3, 2009 at 4:29 am

    PET said

    “I don’t understand what you have against experimentation: early Earth
    climate is based on geological samples and isotopic reconstructions as well
    as mineral content.”

    PET, I thought it was pretty well understood that pre-biotic earths atmosphere would have contained amounts of oxygen or at the very least, the probable production of sufficient oxygen to inhibit life’s precursor molecules from forming, let alone, forming in sufficient numbers to accomodate the linear development of such necessary to form what you might call, “proto” systems that could somehow be the fundamental basis of living systems, as we not can observe.
    Don’t you understand that oxidation is a process that would kill “proto” life’s molecules. This is why science has tried to explain the vents in the oceans floor might very well be a suspected environment to allow such developments. But of course that hypothesis is very problematic in it’s own right.

    I will continue to comment on you comments as I have time too. But I must say, glancing over the post that contained your above statements in quotes, I have no doubt I will be able to expose your statements as nothing more that speculation, based on legitimate interpretation of real scientific results.

    Best
    Wishes

    Reply
38. 

    jan said,

    November 3, 2009 at 6:41 am

    PET said,

    “Conditions based on empirical evidence leads to nucleic
    > acids and you call it circular reasoning?”

    Nucleic acids? Gosh, even the Stanley Miller experiments back in the 50’s produced some amino acids. So what?
    The experiment mainly produced inhibiting tars in a far greater degree. Human intelligence manipulating conditions that are improbable given what is known about pre-biotic earth environment and guiding this outcome. Look, there is no doubt that there are laws of physics and chemistry that are obeyed by all physical phenomena. But to conjecture that, somehow, these phenomena alone are capable in so many ways in establishing and guiding chemicals in all of the ways necessary to go from chemicals to living ecosystems is PURE IDIOCY, There is absolutely no sufficient scientifically demonstrated data, void of speculation and conjecture, that can support the necessary claims. Prove me wrong PET.

    The development of the necessary SYSTEMS that harness the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce living organisms through so called “evolutionary processes” have not been demonstrated by objective science to the degree necessary to support “evolutionary science’s” assertions. Prove me wrong PET.

    Reply
39. 

    jan said,

    November 7, 2009 at 6:27 am

    “The presence of abundant 2alpha -methylhopanes, which are characteristic of cyanobacteria, indicates that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became oxidizing.”

    The above is a quote from one of PET’s cited studies that he claims gives “proof ” or at-least significant evidence to the assertions regarding “evolution” from chemicals in the distant past to living systems observed today. Notice the assertion that “oxygenic photosynthesis evolved”. A classic case of fitting the evidence to support the claim. No mention that direct evidence supporting “oxygenic photoshynthesis evolution……. PET, do you still have the courage to look in on this. This must be EXTREMELY embarrassing to you. Assumptions upon assumptions upon assumtions…….

    Reply
    • 

      P.E.T said,

      November 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm

      Haha, Jan.

      So let me get this right: after hundreds of thousands of hypotheses tested, demonstrable evidence for evolution in action in modern life, corroboration of evolutionary predictions with modern behaviors and phenotypes and fossil specimens, the study you mention above uses the process of evolution as an explanatory device and you claim this as evidence AGAINST evolution? Please, explain yourself, because if you are accusing this study of circular logic, you need to reconsider your own way of thinking!

      Besides, it would be much better for your cause to synthesize the paper in question: what is it trying to determine? What methods did they use to determine it? What evidence was tested? What were the conclusions based on the evidence and methods? Put this into some kind of contextualization so that I know what your argument(s) actually are.

      PET

      Reply
40. 

    jan said,

    November 9, 2009 at 7:35 am

    Haha, Jan.

    So let me get this right: after hundreds of thousands of hypotheses tested, demonstrable evidence for evolution in action in modern life, corroboration of evolutionary predictions with modern behaviors and phenotypes and fossil specimens, the study you mention above uses the process of evolution as an explanatory device and you claim this as evidence AGAINST evolution? Please, explain yourself, because if you are accusing this study of circular logic, you need to reconsider your own way of thinking!

    Besides, it would be much better for your cause to synthesize the paper in question: what is it trying to determine? What methods did they use to determine it? What evidence was tested? What were the conclusions based on the evidence and methods? Put this into some kind of contextualization so that I know what your argument(s) actually are.

    PET

    Hey PET,
    You blithering boob. you STILL dont get it, do you? It doesn’t matter how many years of studies based on unsubstantiated assertions there has been relative to the scope of the claims being made. You just must have to, at some point, take responsibility in materially demonstrating the sufficiency and effectiveness of the major base components you claim are responsible, that have the capabilities to support your speculations. You must have to agree with this statement, don’t you? I mean, I have the sense that you, as naive as you seem to be, would have to agree with that .statement. Open mindedness is required though. From my perspective, that is you major challenge. The sufficiency of “natural selection” whatever the hell that means, in determining the choice of the vast array of co-dependent bio-physical results that lead to self replicating organisms and beyond. I mean, without your preferred philosophical presuppositions, you would just easily understand that there is a vastly unknown and undescribable realm of biophysical pathways that have vastly insufficient data to demonstrate an support the necessary steps and occurences.
    However, You apparently are so hung up on your philosophical positions, that i doubt you will even comprehend what is being said here. YOu dumbshit.
    The langauge fits your brain.

    Reply
    • 

      P.E.T said,

      November 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm

      Jan,
      Again, I’ve told you over and over that the foundational claims of evolution (that those organisms that possess the most adaptationally advantageous traits will survive, reproduce, and pass on those traits), have been demonstrated to be true for both living and fossil species. In terms of the origins of life, I have provided you with a good foundation of books and papers to start from that detail all of the evidence, including experimental evidence, for the first life forms. In other words, I agree with your statement that the claims of evolution need to be substantiated, after all THIS IS SCIENCE! So of course it has been substantiated!! You aren’t going to have 99% of biologists, chemists, physicists, anthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, sociologists, etc. etc. agreeing that the evidence for evolution is such that to deny it is evidence of ignorance. I can answer specific questions, but I’ve done the research and I’m not going to do it for you. You can continue to bury your head in the sand and tell me to provide you with evidence that I have already provided you with, or you can actually READ SOMETHING!

      This is going absolutely nowhere, Jan. You continue to to be rude to me and use foul, inappropriate language. So good luck with your ignorant tirade against evolution. I certainly hope you can stop simply using key words and actually begin to understand the terms you include in your run-on, illogical, blatantly misinformed blog posts. I will no longer be responding.

      PET

      Reply
41. 

    jan said,

    November 10, 2009 at 5:29 am

    “Again, I’ve told you over and over that the foundational claims of evolution (that those organisms that possess the most adaptationally advantageous traits will survive, reproduce, and pass on those traits), have been demonstrated to be true for both living and fossil species.”

    You tire me out PET. No one could possibly argue with you here. But you are NOT GETTING IT!!!!!!!!
    The real questions have to do with adequately scientifically demonstrated (which requires a verifiably adequate COMPREHENSIVE QUANTITATIVE (fuck qualitative speculation that you and your coherts attempt to pass off as scientifically validated quantitative evidence) to adequately have the capabilities to provide the framework for describing and demonstateing the physical and chemical perameters, as well as the alleged “selective pressures” at all REQUIRED stages along the chain of events that proceeds from one step to the next in building a system. Systems in living organisms. Apparently, there must have been vastly numerous required development of concurrent components of any given “systemic development” including ASSERTED speculations regarding the vastly under appreciated CONJECTURES that claim stake to the obsurdly unsupported (in any real scientific sense that) “visual complexes are the result of conceptual “light sensitive spots”.
    The conceptual assertions regarding “scientific” speculations attempting to materially demonstrate the required evidences supporting how how “chemicals progressed to living systems” is no more that a series of unverified speculations.

    I have looked at a few of your sited studies and, based on my research, know that the conclusions made by the “researches” have no basis without the support of many different levels of unscientifically verified speculations.

    So long PET.
    Go back to the lab.

    Reply
    • 

      Nicholas said,

      April 17, 2011 at 1:46 am

      This is a great web site
      Truth is something I search for while other seem bent on inventing it.

      I would never play the lottery everyday for ten years straight expecting to win the grand prize everyday for ten years straight. How much more faith would it take to believe in evolution of unseen amounts of time and chance and energy and whatever else is required to sell the religion of the closet pagan atheists?
      How many times do they often refer to nature as mother or science as a person , or evolution finds a way . etc………… blah blah psycho babble by fools.
      these are the same people who preach pro choice/murder of unborn humans because they are not fit to survive or just not considered worhty to be called human
      and utter reject the reality of a creator.

      Reply
      • 

        stevebee92653 said,

        April 17, 2011 at 2:00 am

        Thanks! Glad you like it. Win the lotto everyday for ten years? That doesn’t quite describe evolution. How about every day for 13.7 billion years?
42. 

    Otangelo Grasso said,

    June 29, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    great site. my virtual library : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/

    Reply
43. 

    Henry Gobus said,

    March 25, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    Hi Steve – I like your site and comments – I am Henry – I am just like you – I attended Uni as a Darwinist and left Uni as an evolutionist but not agreeing with Darwin.I am a psychologist by the way. I noted your point that you are interested in a model of evolution that is realistic – I wrote Human Ascent – it is a model of evolution that argues that it is intelligence that is evolving. See the reviews – the first three chapters are free and available – share with me your thoughts – kind regards- Henry
    The website is http://www.humanascent.net
    You can contact me through the Human Ascent contact

    Reply
    • 

      stevebee92653 said,

      March 26, 2016 at 6:08 am

      “Stephen Gould’s research unequivocally showed that new species do not arise gradually, rather they appear
      instantly and fully formed (Gould 1977). In view of this, Gould
      remarked that Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy” (Gould, 1980).”

      Interesting. So Gould wasn’t a true evolution guru? The fossil record does show that species appear suddenly, without precursors. Which seems crazy but that’s what is. There is no plausible answer to the puzzle. Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium, but that certainly isn’t an answer either. It’s a band-aid for the inexplicable.
      Anyway, congrats on your book. I am working on book 2 about the evolution of man. However you may think or conclude, writing is certainly a learning experience. What I have found about human evolution is rather shocking.
      I got through your first chapter and half of the second tonight. I will check out the rest later. And communicate.
      Thanks for the visit.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

• Pages

  • My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)
  • 1a: About Me: How I Got Here
  • 1b: Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins Discuss Evolution
  • 2. How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming
    • 2a: More About Me
  • 3a. Evo-illusion and Irreducible Complexity Revisited
  • 3b. Evo-Illusion and Irreducible Complexity
  • 4a. Ten Impossibilities of Evolution
  • 4b: Ten Impossibilities of Evolution (con’t)
  • 5. I Peer Review Mountains of Peer-Reviewed Papers
  • 6. My Scenario for the Evolution of Hearts and Eyes
  • 7. Evidence FOR Evolution
  • 8. National Geographics Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?
  • 9. What Fossils and Current Species Should Look Like
  • 10. Sight and Sound: A Daunting Task for Evolution
  • 11. Abiogenesis Made Difficult
  • 12. What Should be Taught in Schools
  • 13. Species and Organs That Suddenly “Appear” in the Fossil Record
  • 14. Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, and Flew: Their Thoughts
  • 15. How the Smithsonian and NatGeo Fake their Hominids
  • 16. Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education, a review
  • 17. Richard Dawkins Stumped, ID Proponent, Fooler of Kids
  • 18. I Read “The Blind Watchmaker”
  • 19. How the “Raccoon” Became a Whale
  • 20. A suggested final exam (and answers) for Evolution 101:
  • 21. “Natural Selection Made Easy”, a Scientific Review
  • 22. More Stumbling Blocks for Evolution
  • 23. I Debate Ph.D. Evo-illusionists
    • B. I Respond to Evolution Lecturer at UCI 04/25/07
    • F: I Debate with a PhD Molecular Biologist 3/20/09
    • G. I Debate A University Biology Instructor Who Is In a PhD Program
      • (1) Round Two with EvoBiologist
    • M: I Debate Cdk007 and ExtantFrodoM
    • O: Arguing with Another PHD Biologist
    • (Q) A Scathing attack on me by another website
    • (R) John Torday PhD, the Head Evo-Biologist at UCLA, and I Discuss Evolution
    • S. I Discuss with a University of Washington Evolutionary Biology Professor
  • 31. Muscles of the Eye and Blind Cave Dwellers
  • 32. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
  • 33: The Population Paradox
    • 33a: Population Doubling Explanation
  • 34: Evolution Explodes, Gets Hung on a Phylogenetic Tree
  • 35. Algorithms and Evolution
  • 36. Ingenious Invention an Design:
  • 38: Entities That Had To Exist Before Life: Were They Designed, or Just Dumb Luck?
  • 39: My Criteria for Design
  • 40: My Videos Part 1 (See next page for more)
  • 41: My Videos Pt. 2
  • 42. Do Richard Dawkins and Hemoglobin Destroy Evolution?
  • 43: The DNA Code and its Codons
  • 47. Cosmos and Neil de Grasse Tyson: Evo-illusion at its Best
  • 48. A test for You: Which One Required More Intelligence?
  • 49. The Fate of Humanity
  • 50.Evolution Personality Disorder Test:
  • 51: Homo naledi: The Real Story
  • 52. How to Tell Ape from Human Bones
  • 53. I Answer a Challenge to my “the Smithsonian Cheats” Allegation
  • 54. Tiktaalik roseae-the Grand Daddy of All Land Animals
  • 55. Did Man Migrate Out of Africa and All Over the Earth Starting 60,000 Years Ago?
  • 56: The Denisovans… Another Evolution Fraud.
  • 57: Is Evolution Still a Theory?
  • 58: Evolution Didn’t Start with Darwin…

• Archives

  • January 2023
  • July 2010
  • August 2009

• Categories

  • abiogenesis
  • anti-darwin
  • anti-evolution
  • Darwin
  • evolution
  • intelligent design
  • irreducible complexity
  • natural selection
  • Uncategorized

• Search

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • RSS Feed

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.