4b: Ten Impossibilities of Evolution (con’t)

The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

(5) Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. The maxillary teeth mutations would have to know what the mandibular teeth mutations were doing to an exact degree. That would require intelligence, and evolutionists say there is no intelligence.

You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entirely separate set that fit the mouth size of the juveniles of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.

Below is a video I made on YouTube about the evolution of teeth. Click on the lower left arrow if you want to stay in the blog.

One of my favorite rebuttals from evolutionauts is that I should read a “peer-reviewed paper” on the subject. That will “teach” me how evolution formed teeth. What a laugh. So, here is the abstract of a well known peer-reviewed paper on the subject. Feel free to spend (waste) your time reading the entire paper. You will not find one sentence on how teeth actually evolved. As you can see, it is full of “teeth got more complex, teeth have diseases, teeth….blah blah blah”. Not even one sentence on how teeth were invented, how they evolved, how ameloblasts formed (cells that knit enamel), how odontoblasts formed (cells that knit dentin), how these cells placed themselves in the jaws, how they know exactly how and when to start and stop knitting so that a perfectly sculptured tooth will be the result……and on and on. Nothing. And every other peer-reviewed paper is just like this one. The writers have absolutely no idea how teeth evolved. None. But, they are peer-reviewed and accepted as top-notch science in the evolution community. Why don’t these people realize they are writing NOTHING? They are certainly intelligent. Why don’t the peer reviewers realize they are writing NOTHING? That they are wasting their time? That this isn’t evolution science? It is science, but not the science of evolution. I never cease to be astounded.

Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:226-243 ©Ivyspring International Publisher

Review

A Curriculum Vitae of Teeth: Evolution, Generation, Regeneration

Despina S. Koussoulakou, Lukas H. Margaritis, Stauros L. Koussoulakos^✉

University of Athens, Faculty of Biology, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens, Greece

Abstract

The ancestor of recent vertebrate teeth was a tooth-like structure on the outer body surface of jawless fishes. Over the course of 500,000,000 years of evolution, many of those structures migrated into the mouth cavity. In addition, the total number of teeth per dentition generally decreased and teeth morphological complexity increased. Teeth form mainly on the jaws within the mouth cavity through mutual, delicate interactions between dental epithelium and oral ectomesenchyme. These interactions involve spatially restricted expression of several, teeth-related genes and the secretion of various transcription and signaling factors. Congenital disturbances in tooth formation, acquired dental diseases and odontogenic tumors affect millions of people and rank human oral pathology as the second most frequent clinical problem. On the basis of substantial experimental evidence and advances in bioengineering, many scientists strongly believe that a deep knowledge of the evolutionary relationships and the cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating the morphogenesis of a given tooth in its natural position, in vivo, will be useful in the near future to prevent and treat teeth pathologies and malformations and for in vitro and in vivo teeth tissue regeneration.

(6) The Krebs Citric Acid Cycle is a series of enzyme-catalyzed chemical reactions of major importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration. To see an animation of how the Krebs Cycle works, go to http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/Bio231/krebs.html. In aerobic organisms, the citric acid cycle is part of a metabolic pathway involved in the chemical conversion of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into carbon dioxide and water to generate a form of usable energy. The steps of the citric acid cycle are pictured above and will enlarge by clicking on the diagram. Each and every step of the citric acid cycle is critical for the release of energy, and to allow the chemicals to recycle inasmuch as citric acid is both the first reagent and the final reactant, being regenerated at the finish of one complete cycle. For this incredibly important cycle to function, each and every step, of course, must be taken. No step can be missed or the entire cycle will collapse and life will not survive. Since that is the case, how could this cycle evolve in small steps? The early evolution of the cycle would most certainly be missing steps until the full cycle is reached. The cycle certainly could not go from one to two to three steps because without all of the steps present, the cycle dies. To even think of the Krebs cycle evolving in tiny steps is unimaginable. Ev-illusionists make up how earlier steps “could have possibly” evolved into the full cycle, but again, they are made up, as is the case with most “evidence”.

Here is a fun thought. Evolutionists teach that all steps of eye evolution are represented in species today, proving that eyes evolved. Of course, even the “simplest” eyes are incredibly complex, and that fact is not noted. And, proof of evolution from “nothing” to “simple eyes”, is nowhere to be found. However, if the Krebs citric acid cycle evolved, shouldn’t all of the “steps”, or “simple” cycles be present in nature today also?

(7) All weather covering: All primates are/were animals capable of living and surviving in nature in immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animal species who ever existed on the planet Earth who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn’t “survival of the fittest” allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans are currently the weakest species on earth, and for the entire multi-billion year history of biology, as far as all-weather survivability goes. They can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? This is a completely impossible scenario. An evolutionist may answer that humans didn’t “need” fur in the equatorial regions where they evolved, and so they dis-evolved their all-weather coats. The question would then arise: Why did primates evolve fur in the first place if they didn’t “need” it, and why do equatorial apes of today still have their heavy outer coating? When humans migrated to the northern cold climates they should have re-evolved fur. They didn’t. Of course, the “evolving fur, then dis-evolving fur, then not re-evolving fur” scenario isn’t plausible. Could clothes gradually appear? How would the lady above do if she were dressed that way and had to survive for a year in the wilderness anywhere in North America? Just give food to a dog tied up outdoors, and it would do fine in almost any weather conditions.

On Tuesday, August 26, 2008, the History Channel aired their program “Evolve”. This particular show was on skin, and how it evolved. Of course, I couldn’t miss this one. I always think maybe I will find some fantastic new information about evolution that will change my mind, and embarrass me into removing my blog. But that never happens. What usually shows in these programs is that evidence is always bent to fit the theory. And this was a perfect example. Dan Leiberman, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard had been running experiments to show that skin evolved from furry species so that humans could run! And chase animals! Animals that couldn’t sweat through their tongues while running, because for some reason, they had to run with their mouths closed. And if the humans could chase them for ten or fifteen minutes, the animal would become hyperthermic, and die. Making a good meal for the human! Nina Jablonski Ph.D. also described how humans dis-evolved their fur so they could stay cool in the hot Africa equatorial areas. And that sweat would help keep our brains cool. So we evolve larger and more intelligent brains, so we dis-evolve all of our all weather coverings? It seems quite strange that no humans today have furry outer coats. If this scenario were true, wouldn’t it be logical that at least some human groups would have kept their covering, and not needed clothing? Also, I was trying to imagine the number of species that we humans could run down. In reality, we can’t run down rabbits. The only ones I could think of were barnyard animals. And running ten to fifteen minutes? It turns out that there is a group of African natives who do chase down a particular animal that does become hyperthermic and die. Is this the type of minor event one that would cause the incredibly major shift in traits that would remove all weather coverings from humans? We are way low on Mt. Improbable here.

(8.) Hemoglobin: According to Richard Dawkins, hemoglobin, the body’s oxygen-carrying biochemical in the blood, is made up of 140 amino acids that must link in a perfect sequence. Amino acids do not have a large affinity for each other, which makes their linking more difficult. Dawkins, in his book “The Blind Watchmaker” discusses the “hemoglobin number” which is a 1 to 1 with 192 zeros after it. That is the odds of all 140+ amino acids connecting in just the correct sequence to produce hemoglobin. Dawkins made a computer program which randomly connected “digital amino acids”, and when the correct connection was made, computer “natural selection” would keep that link, and go on to the next. That way, he was able to reduce the hemoglobin number to 42 steps, which he felt made the evolution of hemoglobin tenable. By any reasonable thinking, either way is still not in the range of possibility. And of course, I would put this one in the category of “how did evolution know” it was making hemoglobin. And, by the way, mutations in the genes for the hemoglobin protein in humans result in a group of hereditary diseases termed the hemoglobinopathies, the best known of which is a sickle-cell disease.

Chemical Complexity
One simple problem is the fact that randomly-forming amino acids will be an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules, but 99.999% of amino acids used in living things today are left-handed. Right-handed amino acids do not work in the bodies of living things. This chirality cannot be the product of natural random processes.

A second chemical problem is that of reactivity. Proteins are formed from a very specific sequence of many amino acids (all of which must be left-handed, of course), but these sequences do not correspond at all to the reactivity of the amino acids with each other. In a randomly-forming protein, the most reactive amino acids will bind together first, and then less reactive ones later. Also, there are many different orders of the same amino acids due to the way they could bind to either end of the chain. Producing a specific protein for a specific function randomly is mathematically and chemically impossible even without the chirality problem.

(9) Insects and arachnids (spiders): Another impossible “mind experiment” regarding Darwinian evolution: the evolution of insects. Life formed in the oceans and waterways of the early earth. Water-based organisms eventually evolved into the many thousands (millions?) of species that represent early underwater fauna. Some of these early animals supposedly had a need to leave their watery environment, and try their luck and health on land, so they evolved legs. They eventually became land-based animals. Try to imagine how these early amphibious animals eventually evolved into ants, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, daddy long legs, etc. I am sorry, but this represents just another impossibility of evolution. It could not have happened. Most insects float on the surface as they are unable to sink due to their lack of enough weight or specific gravity, or because they can’t break the surface tension of water.

Try visualizing the evolution of spiders and their webs. A spider, or spider precursor, had to fully evolve a fully functioning fully web-making organ before the first string of the first web could be constructed. How would evolution “know” that by evolving a web-making organ, millions of years later webs would result in the trapping of insects? Webs are not evolvable either. Try the same mind experiment with butterfly cocoons, or beehives, or…………

There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in generational micro-steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that most or all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have “irreducible complexity”. Evolutionists diminish IC and act like they can show that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. Their problem is that virtually every man-made electro-mechanical device on earth is “irreducibly complex”. Try working your stereo with 30% of the key parts missing. Will you get 30% of the music? Try to drive a car with 70% of the key parts (wheels, motor, crankshaft, steering wheel, etc.) not present. Evolutionists say that all biological electro-mechanical devices are not irreducibly complex and that there is some use for each of the thousands of steps required during their evolutionary formation. It’s one thing to say there are uses, but to list these uses is not possible. Which of the parts of your eye would you like to live without to test the theory? The retina? Optic nerve? Cornea? Also, try to imagine the hundreds of thousands of steps required to evolve each of the various biological E-M devices, plus blood, biochemicals, biochemical cycles, coverings, filters, tubes, nerve connections, and on and on, and there would have to be billions of “useful intermediate steps” that need to be accounted for evolution to be real. Evolutionists have come up with outlandish tales of how these E-M parts evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.

Irreducible complexity is actually pretty correct but difficult to defend with some of the silly attacks that evolutionists come up with. There are many things that IC really does work for, for example, the Krebs citric acid cycle would not function without every step being in place. The heart-lung-brain-nerve-vessel system could not function at all without all parts being present. Blood clotting mechanisms couldn’t either.

In reality, a far better term for irreducible complexity would be essential irreducible complexity. One problem with IC is that it works backward. That is, it takes a complete and functioning organ and, by removing any part, supposedly the organ would be rendered useless. When an organ evolves, it goes from nothing to the functioning organ. The parts are gradually evolving and being added to the organ or organ system from nothing, rather than the organ parts being reduced from a fully functioning organ. Also, organs can function with parts missing. Eyes could still provide vision without the iris, just not very well in bright light. A liver can function without a large portion of its cells missing. IC should look at evolving organs from nothing to a semi or full functioning organ, rather than taking parts away from a fully functioning organ.

With essential irreducible complexity, an organ would be simplified down to its bare “essentials”. That is, the non-essential parts would be discounted, so that the parts left would be the ones that the organ or organ system could not possibly function without. In the case of the vision system, the retina, optic nerve, thalamus, visual cortex, and visual code together would be essentially irreducibly complex. There would be absolutely no vision if any one of these parts was removed or not functionally evolved. Translated, that means evolution in microsteps could not possibly put together a vision system. The evolving system would be useless until all of the above parts were present and evolved enough to provide some function. There would be no “advantage” to the individual during the process from nothing to partial function.

(10) The Disappearance of Bird Teeth

archaeopteryx According to http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htmbird the first birds such as the Archeopteryx had teeth. Bird teeth then disappeared (dis-evolved?) because birds simply didn’t need them. Amazing that evolution would spend millions of years evolving teeth, then do a 180 and dis-evolve teeth:
The website says, “Because flight requires a highly centralized body mass with light extremities, a bird’s head must be very light. Teeth and the jaws that hold them are cumbersome and, for birds, no longer necessary. (I wonder if we (humans) will evolve beaks since the invention of the blender makes chewing unnecessary?? Further, why would Archeopteryx evolve teeth in the first place, since they are deleterious to flight?) Instead of using teeth to tear food into pieces, birds use one of two strategies; they will either eat only food items of a size they can swallow whole, or, as in raptors, they will have a beak adapted for tearing food. In general, a bird’s beak is adapted to the kinds of food it eats.”
(Does anybody believe this one? The teeth of birds just disappeared? Are there fossils showing the disappearance of bird teeth? Did the teeth get smaller and smaller with each generation and finally vanish, or did they disappear one by one? Of course, evolution scientists have found fossils that show boney jaws morphing into bird beaks. Of course.)

There is a more thorough discussion of IC on: https://evillusion.wordpress.com/irreducible-complexity-revisited/

DARWIN’S 100% PROBLEM: EVERY ONE OF THE ITEMS DISCUSSED HERE, as well as thousands of others that I haven’t mentioned, would ALL have to be evolvable for the theory to be functional. In other words, IF ONLY ONE ITEM WAS NOT EVOLVABLE, THE ENTIRE THEORY IS OUT THE WINDOW. That makes Darwin’s theory weaker than a spider web.

64 Comments

ADParker said,

May 19, 2009 at 8:37 am

Amazing. Basically ten consecutive arguments from ignorance (Your most favouritist Logical Fallacy huh?):

“I can’t figure out how this coulda happened through evolutionary means. Therefore…” what, it must have been magic?

I could go into details but your history here already demonstrates that your aim is to preach not engage in discussion. That is why you were invited to a discussion based forum rather than a comment based blog; to actually engage in actual argument of your pet hypothesis. Which happens to fly directly in the face of all modern science.

Reply
- Nicolás Vera said,
  
  November 16, 2015 at 6:57 pm
  
  Ludicrous. Your argument is even worse:
  “Nobodoy on Earth can figure out how this could have happen through evolutionary means, therefore, it did”
  You asume evolution, and try to proof evolution with your assumptions. Circular reasoning.
  
  Another laughable argument from you is “I know no alternatives for evolution, therefore, it was evolution”.
  
  You in XIV century: “your lack of imagination does not make spontaneous generation false, since i know no alternatives to spontaneous generation, spontaneous generation is true”.
  
  Reply
Pontius-ft said,

May 25, 2009 at 5:47 am

Hey hey it’s magic, ya knooooowwww

Reply
gene said,

June 10, 2009 at 3:05 am

Hi ADParker,

you may be right….

why don’t you give us some logical answers ……OK?

Reply
ADParker said,

June 10, 2009 at 4:09 am

Hi gene (must…avoid…the pun….)

I am right; it’s logical fallacy after logical fallacy (fundamental error in reasoning) with this guy.

Logical answers; sure, to what specifically?
The key point here is that Dr. Steve is just muttering nonsense arguments, that simply confirm that he does not understand how X evolved (and why; because he has no understanding of the facts or science involved, and feels quite free to cherry pick then twist things to try to push his attempts to justify his ant-evolution dogma.) This says absolutely nothing of the bigger question; did they evolve, not a blasted thing.

He doesn’t believe or accept the theory of evolution? Fine. But spouting off a bunch of scientifically illiterate,dishonest, twisted, and ultimately empty anti-evolution rhetoric, is not the way to go about it.

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  June 10, 2009 at 4:26 am
  
  ADParker, you are full of crap. (Cali quote mine) You know nothing, you tell people how teeth evolved with no education whatsoever on the subject. You are an indoctrinated believer and gullible to the allowable limit. And a know-it-all. You gloss over the points I make by saying they are “scientifically illiterate” without so much as a mention of which points are. Ya know why? Because you are totally incapable of answering the simplest of my challenges. Your discussion on the evolution of teeth was less than scientifically illiterate. You are an enthused fake going for attention from your fellow evolutionauts. You and your buddies could have brought any of my questions over from my site and tried to answer. You couldn’t so you did nothing but attack me personally for page after page at dawk.net. And, this isn’t a boo hoo. I could give a shit. Quit trying to pretend to be such a damn genius and put up or shut up.
  
  Reply
ADParker said,

June 10, 2009 at 6:16 am

>ADParker, you are full of crap.

Thanks, I luv you too stevebee92653

>(Cali quote mine)

Still haven’t quite figured out what “quote mine” means, have you Steve?

>You know nothing, you tell people how teeth evolved with no education whatsoever on the subject.

Wait; I told people how teeth evolved?! Really?!

>You are an indoctrinated believer and gullible to the allowable limit.

Projection, I am thinking.

>And a know-it-all.

(Oh for a few chioce smilies.)
There is a hel of lot of things that I don’t know, and I am more than willing to admit that.

>You gloss over the points I make by saying they are “scientifically illiterate” without so much as a mention of which points are. Ya know why?

Yes, I do know why.

> Because you are totally incapable of answering the simplest of my challenges. Your discussion on the evolution of teeth was less than scientifically illiterate.

I don’t know what “less that scientifically illiterate” means, perhaps similar to your assertions of things having a probability of less than zero?

Your “challenges” as you call them, have been farsical.
And your blog comments DO display a complete lack of understanding of that which you argue against.

Want one example? Okay, looking at the end of your entry on this page ()because it’s close to hand):

“why would Archeopteryx evolve teeth in the first place, since they are deleterious to flight?”
Now that is just inane and demonstates your blinding ignorance on the matter, which you feel qualified to rail against.
The Theory of Evolution’s current explanation of the evolution from theropod dinosaurs to birds, specifically Archaeopteryx, of course DOES NOT say that Archaeopteryx evolved teeth, but that it evolved FROM animals (theropod dinosaur reptiles) which had teeth.

This isn’t a bad place to start reading about dinosaur to bird evolution (that just sounds wrong ; birds are dinosaurs):
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Adn that this is why Archaeopteryx and other early birds had teeth; they had not evolved away yet. And, by the way, why even modern chickens today have still have all of the genes for making teeth, which can be “switched on.”

Listen to this audio file on chicken teeth (and a little more as well):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230538

Accept the theory of evolution or not, the theory specifically of bird evolution or not; but do not misrepresent the science to make your case; that makes it a Straw Man argument (as what you are arguing against isn’t the real science) and only makes you look foolish. At least TRY to understand what it is you have such problems with, before asserting it’s impossibility!

>You are an enthused fake going for attention from your fellow evolutionauts.

Like I care about “attention.” In truth, I still get embarrassed by praise (one of those hangovers from my childhood I guess.)
I am kind of liking “evolutionaut” though; makes it sound (as is the case) that we are on a grand voyage of discovery, but of life instead of space!

>You and your buddies could have brought any of my questions over from my site and tried to answer.

I directly asked you to bring over, or suggest, your favourite or “best.” You ignored the offer.

As in all cases from you; the “answer” is that your reasoning is inadequate at best, and often just plain laughable. We don’t have to explain (nor does anyone else on the planet) how X evolved to establish that your arguments are rubbish.

>You couldn’t so you did nothing but attack me personally for page after page at dawk.net. And, this isn’t a boo hoo. I could give a shit. Quit trying to pretend to be such a damn genius and put up or shut up.

Oh grow up (And you repeatedly laid this “personal attack” charge, but never once backed it up with a single example.) You have nothing. I don’t have to make any arguments of my own, I can just sit back and laugh.

This has nothing to do with the truth value of the theory of evolution, nor the various explanations they have on each of the things to have brought up (and horribly misconstrued), but on the simply atrociously poor quality of your rhetoric. Such that even if you were right, what you have written would not even come close to validating that.

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  June 10, 2009 at 8:11 pm
  
  Re: ADParker, you are full of crap. (Cali quote mine) Thanks, I luv you too stevebee92653″
  
  I’m just communicating to you the way your hero Cali communicates with me. And, just wondering: a rather innocent Christian type, christjesusisking, came on your site with a challenge or two, and was called a “fucktard”, told to “fuck off” by your hero the blue butterfly. He is the moderator there. I was censored for saying Shrunk is a fool. Why didn’t anyone have the class to tell cali he is out of line? Or to censor himself? Not ONE of you did. Pretty astounding. A real testament to the class of people there. They celebrated another great cali victory instead of telling him what he needed to be told. He is a bag of wind, but a hero there all the same.
  
  Sure I know what quote mining is: quoting any evolutionaut. THAT is quote mining.
  
  You, ADParker, know nothing about teeth, but you have no problem proselytizing about how they formed from nothing. This is a quote mine from me to you: “both the jaw, teeth, and the entire organism, evolved from ancestor organisms, all with different but quite functional eating apparatus. There is no big deal there at all! I see no problem with imagining the Primate jaw and tooth structure evolving slowly from ancestral origins, none”. ADParker, May 2009. All I can say is HAR HAR HAR.
  
  BTW. I’m glad you CAN imagine “it”, with all of that knowledge you have on the subject.
  
  You are qualified to say my skepticism regarding the evolution of archeopteryx teeth then the dis-evolution is “inane”. And what gives you that power? Since there is absolutely nothing but conjecture on the subject. You must think your indoctrination is better than my skepticism I guess. Better in your uneducated mind.
  
  Hey, and thanks for the peer reviewed sci fi papers. That really helps. And, next time when you are out in nature, and see a woodpecker or hummingbird, just remember, those are really theropods! Run for your life! My question: why would a mature and supposedly intelligent adult believe that story? Why? Without skepticism? I don’t get it. Sorry.
  
  I brought questions over to dawk, and they weren’t answered. Not even close. But the congregation cheered the non-answers, and claimed victory. What a laugh. Fun to watch. And when y’all couldn’t answer my challenges, y’all did the evo-thing. Reverted to personal attacks. This is really sad for what is supposed to be a science. My challenges are still there, just sitting, unanswered. No point in bringing more. They won’t be answered. I am writing a detailed analysis of your answers, in case you or any of your buddies are curious. It will post in a week or so. Be sure and read what failures cali, you ,and your other buddies are. Excuse me, the blue butterfly.
  
  I love how you call arguments that you can’t answer “rubbish”. Did you get that from cali?
  
  You: “…each of the things to have brought up (and horribly misconstrued), but on the simply atrociously poor quality of your rhetoric. Such that even if you were right, what you have written would not even come close to validating that”.
  
  Ya know what proves you wrong? That you guys keep coming back for more. If I was so idiotic, you wouldn’t spend a minute on me. But you and your fellow evolutionauts spent well over fifty pages ragging on me, and a couple of hundred comments here. THAT is truth. Your deeds trump your dialogue.
  
  I don’t know how your comment posted with all of those links. It may dissolve.
  
  Reply
ADParker said,

June 13, 2009 at 1:26 am

>I’m just communicating to you the way your hero Cali communicates with me. And, just wondering: a rather innocent Christian type, christjesusisking, came on your site with a challenge or two, and was called a “fucktard”, told to “fuck off” by your hero the blue butterfly. He is the moderator there. I was censored for saying Shrunk is a fool. Why didn’t anyone have the class to tell cali he is out of line? Or to censor himself? Not ONE of you did. Pretty astounding. A real testament to the class of people there. They celebrated another great cali victory instead of telling him what he needed to be told. He is a bag of wind, but a hero there all the same. <

Relevance?

…

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  June 13, 2009 at 8:38 pm
  
  Hey AD, could you please let me know the relevance of the statement below in the light of your ho hum comment above? Do you have two faces, or even more?
  
  ADParker » Fri May 22, 2009 7:16 pm
  stevebee92653 wrote:Gee, I mention chahuahua terds an get a full scolding.
  
  ADParker wrote: And yes; you DO get a scolding when you DIRECTLY BREAK the very simple rules of this forum. We have a saying here: attack the argument, not the person.
  “Ragging” is fine (this is a forum for matures adults – no matter the physical age) but personal attacks are not acceptable, because they undermine proper debate.
  Has anyone actually attacked or insulted you personally? If so please report the offending post, and/or point it out to us.
  
  Me: Maybe when a moderator tells an inquirer to “fuck off”, of calls him a “fucktard”, that doesn’t count? Just wondering. I really don’t care how you run your site, but it just seems a bit curious.
  
  Reply
  - ADParker said,
    
    June 13, 2009 at 11:48 pm
    
    Relevance: NONE.
    
    I was responding to your equally irrelevant blathering on about you being told off for making a personal attack on a forum member, on a forum where that is expressly forbidden in the rules.
    
    But as you CAN NOT get off this irrelevant nonsense (wasn’t this supposed to be about evolution or something like that?) I took the effort to look this “fucktard” charge of yours. The search function is quite simple over there.
    
    There has been a grand total of FOUR posts from Calilasseia with the word “fucktard”
    1. (July 07) was simply a reference to a YouTube video called “Kent, You’re a Fucktard”
    2. (Mar 08) He said Kent Hovind was a fucktard. Which he is, and the rule only applies to form members.
    3. (Jun 09)He referred to Ray Comfort as “fucktard Bananaman.” Another non-member evangelical creationist apologist; fair game, and again well deserved.
    and finally 4. (Jun 09) HE asked YOU “Oh by the way Steve, in which post did I call this individual a fucktard? Got a link? Only I think you’re blowing smoke as usual. Put up or shut up.” – This was AFTER I posted the reply to this claim of yours that he had done so. It’s a lie stevebee92653; pure and simple.
ADParker said,

June 13, 2009 at 1:29 am

…

>Sure I know what quote mining is: quoting any evolutionaut. THAT is quote mining. You, ADParker, know nothing about teeth, but you have no problem proselytizing about how they formed from nothing. This is a quote mine from me to you: “both the jaw, teeth, and the entire organism, evolved from ancestor organisms, all with different but quite functional eating apparatus. There is no big deal there at all! I see no problem with imagining the Primate jaw and tooth structure evolving slowly from ancestral origins, none”. ADParker, May 2009. All I can say is HAR HAR HAR. BTW. I’m glad you CAN imagine “it”, with all of that knowledge you have on the subject.<

Cheap shots aside; sure I can imagine it. Unlike you I have done some reading up on evolution.

…

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  June 13, 2009 at 2:14 am
  
  Hey, I am glad you read up on evolution! I like science fiction too. Did you see The Alien? Re: Relevance: Absolutely nothing Cali says is relevant. Silly question.
  
  Reply
  - ADParker said,
    
    June 13, 2009 at 5:27 am
    
    I responded over on the RD forum, as this site screws up or fails to load comments too often:
    http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2072072#p2072072
ADParker said,

June 13, 2009 at 1:34 am

>You are qualified to say my skepticism regarding the evolution of archeopteryx teeth then the dis-evolution is “inane”. And what gives you that power? <

I have the "power" (That sounds a little too "He-Man" doesn't it?) due to by skills at critical thinking. Perhaps I have not professionally studied teeth or Archaeopteryx, but I have done in philosophy and formal logic. And if you had actually looked at my post properly you would have sen that it was your reasoning, not your "scepticism" that found to be of poor quality.

But since you didn't bother to actually address what I said at all, guess I have to reiterate the point:

When you asked:
“why would Archeopteryx evolve teeth in the first place, since they are deleterious to flight?”

This question WAS inane, due to the gross misunderstanding of evolution that its wording revealed about the questioner (that would be you.)

The question itself CAN not be answered, not in a straightforward manner, because the structure revales a number of confused assumtions on your part. Making this to be what is known, in logical fallacy terms, as a "Complex Question." (If you don't know what that logical fallacy term means either; then look it up!)
The erroenous assumption being :
1. That the Archaeopteryx evolved teeth. The ToE shows that this bird evolved from ancestors with teeth already, so the teeth evolved BEFORE the Archaeopteryx. And its descendants (direct or otherwise) are the ones who evolved toothless beaks (Just like those chickens.)
2. That for some bizarre reason their evolution of teeth (which they never did) had to be connected to flight?!

Reply
jan said,

October 15, 2009 at 4:56 am

Layers of layers of layers of layers of layers of layers of speculation regarding ancient history which absolutely will never in any humans lifetime be demonstrable in an;y kind of real scientific sense……..AD you continue to make an ass out of yourself and all of those that sympathize with your philosophy……Look, many of us resent the concept of religion. but don’t waste the resources of real science, and what could actually be accomplished for us and our descendants to improve our lives…. You f—–g idiot……..back off and lets devote all the resources to the attempt to eliminate suffering and pain…..not to try and do the impossible task of supporting, for your selfish reasons, some sort of contention that “there is no god” GROW UP YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!

Reply
- ADParker said,
  
  October 15, 2009 at 7:09 am
  
  More insults jan? Oh well done.
  
  Reply
jan said,

October 16, 2009 at 2:53 am

AD…..Snap out of it. Look at the message behind the words……….don’t take it so personal…..be an objective “scientist” consider the “information content” of the message and what it implies…….

Reply
jan said,

October 26, 2009 at 5:02 am

“I have the “power” (That sounds a little too “He-Man” doesn’t it?) due to by skills at critical thinking. Perhaps I have not professionally studied teeth or Archaeopteryx, but I have done in philosophy and formal logic.”

AD Parker, what does any of that have to do with “evolution” being the scientifically demonstrated answer to chemicals to living systems……………….observed by our unexplained capabilities?????? what an ASSHOLE YOU ARE….. BUT YOU ARE NOT ALONE…..YOU ARE A DOWNSTREAM “FISH” SUCKING UP WHAT EVER YOU THINK YOU NEED……. AD GET YOUR CHICKEN SHIT ASS BACK HERE WITH SOME SORT OF RESPONSE………….

Reply
- ADParker said,
  
  October 26, 2009 at 5:57 am
  
  What?
  What does that post you snipped that little bit from have to do with that? Nothing. It was about stevebee92653’s confused ramblings about archaeopteryx evolving teeth.
  
  And also nothing because the theory of evolution is not about “chemicals to living systems.” You have your scientific fields crossed. That would be “abiogenesis” not evolution.
  
  And no, no matter how much you SHOUT, I have better things to do, and better places to do it in. If you (or stevebee92653 again) actually want an actual discussion, or decent argument on the subject, then try a place such as the richarddawkins.net forums. A place set up for discussion as opposed to comments on a blog entry.
  
  I gave up (that post was four months ago!) because stevebee92653 showed no signs of any interest in engaging in proper discussion. Note that I gave that last response, and got nothing from stevebee92653 or anyone else, it wasn’t I who was the ” CHICKEN SHIT” as you so nicely put it. It is not I who owe the response, my post is the latest in the discussion, if anything it is I who am owed a response.
  
  And that is about the most response I can give to a post with so little content.
  
  Reply
  - stevebee92653 said,
    
    October 26, 2009 at 4:51 pm
    
    ad, your site is a bunch of prissy zombies who march alike, think alike, and attack alike. All out of the same mental mold. And if you get a question you can’t handle, you block. Or you rag on the challenger personally. You live in a dream world. You (d.net) invited me over thinking you would clobber me. You got your ass kicked so you reverted to your bullshit unscientific ways. And you blocked me.A ship of fools. Isn’t it fun to be all together believers? Indoctrinates? What a snore you guys are. I read calissa’s rules of engagement. What an embarrassment.He thinks he such a goddam good scientist. He is a blowhard, and your leader! The scary butterfly! Laughable.
ADParker said,

October 27, 2009 at 3:22 am

It’s not my site, I just spend some time there. It’s a good place to discuss and argue religion, atheism, science and philosophy. You know with all those “prissy zombies who march alike”: The creationists, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans ( a couple at least), deists, Evolution acceptors and detractors, and even some with honest questions and doubts, philosophers and philosophy haters…

In fact one reason I go there is to look at creationist and anti-evolution arguments, and theistic arguments, and engage sometimes. As those are areas in which I have specific opinions, so I seek to have them challenged.

Got our asses kicked?! Must have missed that, where was that?
And blocked you, what do you mean by that? You haven’t been banned or anything.

calissa…Calilasseia that is. He’s okay I guess, some people like him. He does offer some interesting titbits and papers from time to time, a bit too snippy for my tastes though, and argues at too high a level much of the time.

I don’t have a leader, sorry.

Any actual examples of those charges you have laid against me? Or just more empty ravings?

That was a very emotional rant there stevebee92653, need a lie down or something?

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  October 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm
  
  Of course you got your asses kicked. You were incapable of answering any question posed by me. Feel free to take an objective look see if you can find anything that resembles an answer. I copied the stuff onto my blog to save you time if you wish to look. Pretty pathetic stuff. So you (pl) reverted to demeaning my name, my patents, my blog server. My family was threatened. I was temp-blocked twice for saying those revered peer reviewed papers that you think are proof were nonsense. For using the word “fool” to describe one of your members. That is an ass kicking. An admission that you can’t answer questions on a scientific basis. And the fact that you can’t see that is sad for you (s). If you think they answered any questions I posed, feel free to let me know where. Those papers described dental anatomy and embryology. And said nothing about the evolution of teeth except they came from fish. Nothing. You have a brain. Tell me where I am wrong. Why can’t one of you or your buddies see that the questions weren’t answered? Not one? THAT is astounding. Group psychology at its best. And you are part of it.
  Calilasseia is nothing be a bag of bullshit. He has nothing. He brags that he “Presents papers”…what a laugh. That makes him an expert? The famed blue butterfly. This isn’t emotional or a rant. It’s just facts. So don’t waste your time with the inevitable crybaby thing that the zombies always revert to. That is expected. Try using you intelligence instead
  Evolution has captured your brain, and once it gets it it is rare to get it back. I got mine back. I supported this nonsense for many years, just like you. But odds are 99% that you will never get your reason and objectivity back, and you will remain indoctrinated and continue to believe Darwin’s bullshit for the rest of your life.
  
  Reply
  - ADParker said,
    
    October 28, 2009 at 12:47 am
    
    >. I copied the stuff onto my blog to save you time if you wish to look. Pretty pathetic stuff.<> For using the word “fool” to describe one of your members.<<
    Still on that?! That’s right stevebee92653; the forum rules that you agreed to in registering clearly state that “You may challenge and criticise posts robustly but personal attacks on other members are not permitted.” You broke that rule.
    And it was the forum administrators that acted in accordance with those rules to discipline you (with naught but a couple of short suspensions as best as I recall), not everyone else who happened to be in on the discussion, get over yourself.
    
    They were stupid muddle headed questions. Accusations disguised as questions really.
    
    >>I supported this nonsense for many years<> believe Darwin’s bullshit<
    Heh! I just love that one. Like anyone with half a brain relies on the work of Darwin anymore. That was just the beginning, impressive as such, but time moves on.
  - stevebee92653 said,
    
    October 28, 2009 at 5:57 am
    
    Asking how a selected mutation could:
    yield ameloblasts and odontoblasts that knew where to position themselves to form just the correct tooth in just the correct position?
    yield the ability of ameloblasts and odontoblasts to begin and shut off “knitting” at just the correct moment to yield the incredible sculptures that are teeth?
    form teeth that are designed to articulate against each other, maxillary against mandibular, from SEPARATE genetic pathways?
    You consider these stupid muddle headed questions? Accusations disguised as questions?
    You are wholly indoctrinated and have forfeited you ability the reason to Charles, Richard, and Cali. And there is no way of getting it back. You are stuck. Only about 1% can escape. So odds are highly against you. Sorry.
    I broke your prissy-ass rules when I said your peer reviewed paper inserted by Cali had no answers. boo hoo
    You guys are a joke on science. And a bad one. And someday I hope more people AND scientists will realize how much of a joke so real science will have a chance to advance.
  - stevebee92653 said,
    
    October 28, 2009 at 6:05 am
    
    Asking how a selected mutation could: yield ameloblasts and odontoblasts that knew where to position themselves to form just the correct tooth in just the correct position? yield the ability of ameloblasts and odontoblasts to begin and shut off “knitting” at just the correct moment to yield the incredible sculptures that are teeth? form teeth that are designed to articulate against each other, maxillary against mandibular, from SEPARATE genetic pathways? You consider these stupid muddle headed questions? Accusations disguised as questions? You are wholly indoctrinated and have forfeited you ability the reason to Charles, Richard, and Cali. And there is no way of getting it back. You are stuck. Only about 1% can escape. So odds are highly against you. Sorry. I broke your prissy-ass rules when I said your peer reviewed paper inserted by Cali had no answers. boo hoo You guys are a joke on science. And a bad one. And someday I hope more people AND scientists will realize how much of a joke so real science will have a chance to advance.
stevebee92653 said,

October 28, 2009 at 6:04 am

Reply to ADparker:
Asking how a selected mutation could:
yield ameloblasts and odontoblasts that knew where to position themselves to form just the correct tooth in just the correct position?
yield the ability of ameloblasts and odontoblasts to begin and shut off “knitting” at just the correct moment to yield the incredible sculptures that are teeth?
form teeth that are designed to articulate against each other, maxillary against mandibular, from SEPARATE genetic pathways?
You consider these stupid muddle headed questions? Accusations disguised as questions?
You are wholly indoctrinated and have forfeited you ability the reason to Charles, Richard, and Cali. And there is no way of getting it back. You are stuck. Only about 1% can escape. So odds are highly against you. Sorry.
I broke your prissy-ass rules when I said your peer reviewed paper inserted by Cali had no answers. boo hoo
You guys are a joke on science. And a bad one. And someday I hope more people AND scientists will realize how much of a joke so real science will have a chance to advance.

Reply
ADParker said,

October 28, 2009 at 7:27 am

Yawn (time three apparently.)

This is going nowhere fast.

But; 1% eh? Where did you get that statistic from? The same place as your comments of probabilities less than zero etc. I suspect.

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  October 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm
  
  Just like your fake science. And, ah, another blind faith skip over by you. So were those “stupid muddle headed questions. Accusations disguised as questions really?.” I would say your chance is less than zero of getting your brain back. Too bad. Tragedy. Bye.
  
  Reply
jan said,

October 30, 2009 at 5:04 am

“But; 1% eh? Where did you get that statistic from? The same place as your comments of probabilities less than zero etc. I suspect”

Parker, your arrogance overshadows any degree legitimacy of you and your army of publicly and otherwise (rich sons of bitches who want to promote their philosophies) funded patriots claims that could possibly provide the amount of “scientifically verified”data needed to support the assertions made that “natural processes”, let alone any other processes, (supernatural), (extra-natural), (yet to be discovered natural) (contra natural) (semi natural) (who the hell knows natural) on and on and on and on……….fully describe or “prove” how the hell living systems that are observable, somehow ARE PRESENT……… YOu stupid son of an earthworm…… or something else (creation of something?)PULL YOUR FUCKING HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS…..and realize that all the data that has “scientifically been accumulated”
and biasly “interpretated” is just unimaginably inadequate to support the vast array of speculations you assert in order to support you FUCKING PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCES, YOU PRICK…… I

Reply
Radhacharan Das said,

November 12, 2009 at 4:39 pm

hey steve, just thought I’d show you a link, you may or not have seen it.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Interesting statements:

“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories”

“It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later.”

But then they have this article:
Beaked, Bird-like Dinosaur Tells Story Of Finger Evolution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm

Reply
Radhacharan Das said,

November 12, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Let’s scrutinize Miller’s “prediction of evolution” more closely. Miller’s prediction seems to be that taking different orthologous genes found in various species and using them, one at a time, to construct phylogenetic trees, will produce very similar and congruent trees. While perhaps this is found to be true for a few blood clotting factors, anyone who follows this field knows that systematists regularly bang their heads against the wall because this “prediction of evolution” commonly does NOT turn out to be true. To give a few examples:

# The Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree is often touted as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups, and this is said to bolster the case for common descent. But evolutionists rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: “the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied…an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. CATS AND WHALES fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.”

source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/

Reply
- ADParker said,
  
  November 12, 2009 at 10:29 pm
  
  A cut and paste from those known “liars for the cause” The Discovery Institute?! Oh come on. Do you have any source to back up their assertions? They certainly provide none.
  
  That Cytochrome b is Mitochondrial should have rand a bell or two, but never mind, in the actual scientific literature (as opposed to the apologetic literature) cyt-b appears to be most useful in evolutionary studies. Like so:
  
  http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d670xmdtu38ry677&size=largest
  
  Reply
  - Radhacharan Das said,
    
    November 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    
    Hey Parker, thanks for the response.
    
    Their source (i.e. the study can be found on the net, they weren’t the ones who made the conclusion that cats, whales, primates are all bunched together in that particular phylogenetic tree.
    
    Also what about the body segments of fruit flies and wasps for example being considered homologous. I think evolution would predict that these are due to the same gene logically anyways. However there are different genes that account for their development. So does the fact that their body segments are homologous but developed by different genes assert that it was undue to common ancestry in this particular instance?
    
    Also there is the gut in verterbrates, In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. It “seems” that this discovery that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor.
    
    Also a random question, but are there are any 2 celled organisms or 3 etc? If not what is the next step up from single celled organisms? May sound like a silly question somewhat, but I admit that i’m not greatly knowledgeable on such topics. Hare Krishna, thanks for reading
    Radhacharan Das
  - Radhacharan Das said,
    
    November 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm
    
    Hey Parker, hope your well.
    
    First of all I wanted to say that the evolutionary biologists/supporters can be accused of being liars for the cause, for example: fake fossils, Dawkins STILL showing haeckels embryo drawings in his documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrgo06dO3M hackel’s drawings appear at 7:30 mins.)
    
    Charles Doolittle Walcott/smithsonian hid cambrian fossils for 70 years, piltdown man etc, silencing virginia steen mcintyre about Hueyatlaco, i could go on. But it is not necessary.
    
    Secondly you claimed that they provide no source for their assertions, interestingly enough you are wrong. The reference is “Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular phylogenies become functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14:177-178 (1999)”. And also the reference they pointed to is the one wherein the statement “Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting (Synonym = frustrating, upsetting).” THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE DID NOT MAKE THIS ASSERTION
    
    So the fact that within the reference itself, the author says the Cytochrome b results are surprising and both disconcerting, tells us that it was a big deal to the author and not something he just overlooked.
    
    Now your next point was to somehow attempt to discredit the results of the Cytochrome b tree, you mentioned that the fact that it is mitochondrial should have rang a bell or two. Then you posted a link to show how Cytochrome b is useful in determining relationships etc in Cichlid Fish.
    
    That Journal of Molecular Evolution paper simply tries to resolve relationships within closely related species of cichlids. So what? No one denies that these highly similar species are related. The fact is that when we try to resolve the relationships between larger groups, the cytochrome B tree conflicts with the cytochrome C tree. That’s a fact and that’s a problem. Whether it’s mitochondrial DNA or otherwise doesn’t matter. It’s a major problem. Cytochrome C is also largely expressed in the mitochondria so what’s your point? We’re comparing like versus like here, and mitochondrial DNA is often used to try to demonstrate phylogenies (with many problems).
    
    And here’s some other interesting quotes for you:
    _______
    One authoritative review paper by Darwinian leaders in this field stated, “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.”
    
    [17.] Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 24, pg. 179 (1993) (emphasis added).
    ______
    
    Another set of pro-evolution experts wrote, “That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent.”
    
    [18.] Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence,” Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 44, pgs. S117-S120 (Supplement 1, 1997) (emphasis added).
    ______
    
    You will probably respond by saying that the ID proponents are quote mining, but I think that the underlying fact is that the papers and scientists who have been reffered to are themselves saying molecular evidence and morphological patterns are often incongruent. Thanks for reading, sorry if any of the comment is a little sharp, but I just wanted to formulate an appropriate response.
    
    Here’s a few links for more information:
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651#fn17 (A Primer on the Tree of Life)
    http://www.discovery.org/a/5431 (Barking up the wrong tree)
    
    Regards, Radhacharan Das
ADParker said,

November 14, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Radhacharan Das
I can answer all of your questions, direct and indirect, with your own words:
“’[You’re] not greatly knowledgeable on such topics.”

That was not intended as an insult – you said it yourself, so how could it be. But those claimed challenges to evolutionary theory, that you DID pull from an anti-evolution apologetics site, do not challenge it at all, but rather do what they are designed to; convince the scientifically illiterate, to think they have.

If you wish to change that lack of knowledge; apologetics sources is NOT the way to do it. Read some real science.

They paint a fallacious picture of how evolution supposedly works (this is known in Logical Fallacy terms as a Straw Man) and expect you to just blindly accept their assertions and implications that they contradict evolutionary theory, without doing a lick of research yourself.

I have no time, and nor is this a very good place for lengthy discussion (Notice how the apologist can just throw out a bunch of such assertions in a few words, and the opponent require screeds of research and time to explain it, to counter any one of the assertions.) but the short answer is that evolution of such things is not as straight forward as implied by those claims.

But just one little point: Flies and wasps are both insects (class insecta) but each are of entirely different orders of insect (Diptera and Hymenoptera respectively) there is no reason not to expect this homology to be an example of convergent evolution.

Reply
- Radhacharan Das said,
  
  November 18, 2009 at 4:01 pm
  
  Hey Parker, I just knew that you would call out for and summon your secret weapon, convergent evolution 🙂 Anyways I will look into the different arguments for and against the case of flies and wasps myself. To me it seems Evolution is a non falsifiable theory, there’s always some story, or theory within a theory that is used to “explain” contradictory evidences. At least Intelligent Design is falsifiable, which is a requirement according to Karl Popper’s definition of scientific theories. I will post something up for you about all of this sometime in the next few days. Meanwhile here is another contradictory evidence in regards to the eyes of arthropods.
  
  Here’s the peer reviewed paper:
  http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1426.abstract
  
  The main point is that Ostracods (small crustaceans) and Dragonflies both have compound eyes that have DETAILED SIMILARITIES.
  
  The paper also says “Our analyses of DNA sequences encoding rRNA unequivocally indicate that myodocopids-the only Ostracoda (Crustacea) with compound eyes-are nested phylogenetically within several groups that lack compound eyes.” Another problem!
  
  EVEN the authors of this paper have to admit that the convergence in this case is a very unlikely evolutionary event. It would be beyond credulity to think that random chance mutation would produce this complex organ exactly the same way multiple times.
  
  {According to Stephen J. Gould the famed evolutionist, you can never “replay the tape of life” and get the same result even with the slightest change. In support of Gould’s hypothesis, here is a paper published in Nature 420, 810 – 812 (19 December 2002) “Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs”. The conclusion of this paper is that “Thus, even in this simplest of situations, the outcome of evolution can be any of several genotypes, and it cannot be predicted which will emerge in any particular realization.”. In other words convergence is not the natural outcome of Darwinian evolution.}
  
  The authors of this paper even had to say this: “These results illustrate exactly why arthropod compound eye evolution has remained CONTROVERSIAL, because one of two seemingly VERY UNLIKELY evolutionary histories MUST (how about considering a third option?) be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups or compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages. So as I said Parker, convergent evolution (excuses) may work some of the time, but in cases of “extreme convergence” they shouldn’t really be accepted. This makes evolution unfalsifiable.
  
  Hare Krishna
  Regards
  Radhacharan Das
  
  Reply
  - ADParker said,
    
    November 19, 2009 at 5:31 am
    
    Convergent evolution is hardly a story out of nothing. It is a well documented and understood occurrence. And for reasons that are fairly obvious.
    The Australian marsupials, of course, present the most striking examples.
    
    I don’t know it the fly/wasp thing is a matter of convergent evolution, I wouldn’t be surprised is it was some degree of that as well as some common heritage.
    
    “To me it seems Evolution is a non falsifiable theory, there’s always some story, or theory within a theory that is used to “explain” contradictory evidences.”
    
    You are mistaken. But it is hard to explain because you seem to be under the common anti-evolutionist misconception that “The Theory of Evolution” is a singular theory, which stands or falls in it’s entirety on single little examples, such as those you present. Rather than a multifaceted cover term for a great number of related theories, hypotheses and facts.
    
    The famous sound bite response (originally due to being asked it so many times from creationists etc.) is “Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian.”
    You are correct in one sense however: Evolution can no more be falsified that Gravity can – because they are NOT theories, but facts (sets of facts actually) which are best explained by their theories. As such they will never be falsified, only their theories changed in some way.
    With Evolution all the evidence currently suggests this will only be one of refinement of details (of which there are a lot of course – what with 4,000,000,000 years of history). Gravity’s theory on the other-hand is in need of something of a major overhaul.
    
    “At least Intelligent Design is falsifiable,”
    
    It is” How exactly?
    I know that much within it is falsifiable, and has been falsified. But still the Intelligent Design Creationists stick to the same old claims.
    And that much of it’s championed ‘theories’ (I use scare quotes because they aren’t theories at all) are readily falsified without any actual science needing to be done at all, as they are actually nothing but arguments basd on ligcal fallacies and error.
    
    “which is a requirement according to Karl Popper’s definition of scientific theories. I will post something up for you about all of this sometime in the next few days.”
    
    Karl Popper’s ‘requirement’ is not as cut and dried as you might think. His criteria are not accepted as ‘gospel’ due to certain over generalisations, where more subtlety is required – the interplay of different facets mean that no single criterion is required in EVERY instance, as long as some particular set of them are. It’s kind of a combination of Popper being a bit to simplistic, and others interpreting what he said too simplistically.
    
    “Meanwhile here is another contradictory evidence in regards to the eyes of arthropods.”
    
    Interesting paper. So apparently compound eyes may well have evolved independently, fascinating.
    
    “The main point is that Ostracods (small crustaceans) and Dragonflies both have compound eyes that have DETAILED SIMILARITIES. ”
    
    Main point? Well it barely mentions other Arthropods that do have compound eyes, of which Dragonflies are a part, and actually focuses pretty much exclusively on Ostracods, and the rare set with compound eyes, to test whether it was likely that this was due to ancestry with earlier organisms, and thus multiple losses of compound eyes for the others, or an example of a separate evolution to compound eyes within this group. But you read the whole paper as well, didn’t you, so why am I telling you that?
    
    “The paper also says “Our analyses of DNA sequences encoding rRNA unequivocally indicate that myodocopids-the only Ostracoda (Crustacea) with compound eyes-are nested phylogenetically within several groups that lack compound eyes.” Another problem!”
    
    It’s the quote-mining game is it?
    Yes, obviously. That WAS the well known ‘problem’ that the paper sought to address. A problem of how this particular bit of phylogeny occurred, not of the entire theory of evolution of anything so ridiculous as that.
    A question, based on well understood and supported phylogenetic evidence placing them in that clade. Raising the question of – given that we know they evolved there, who did they come to have compund eyes, when those around them did not?
    What is it you are implying here I wonder? That they evolved, as all the evidence suggests, but their eyes where magically given to them, a special creation event, not of a group of organisms, but just their eyes? (And apparently the magical force that did it, did so by copying a lot from other arthropod DNA.)
    
    “EVEN the authors of this paper have to admit that the convergence in this case is a very unlikely evolutionary event. It would be beyond credulity to think that random chance mutation would produce this complex organ exactly the same way multiple times.”
    
    EVEN eh?! Wow, oh wait… I actually read the whole paper, so I don’t have to rely on your silly little jibes do I?
    
    Well not YOUR jibes of course, but another cut and paste from somewhere else.
    Here perhaps?:
    http://www.teleological.org/articles/Convergent_Evolution.htm
    
    And there conclusion, what was that? Oh that’s right: That this mostly likely (but not definitively, it still may have been an inheritance – ‘standard’ evolution) points to a separate evolution, and thus that a kind of convergent evolution was probably what occurred.
    
    “{According to Stephen J. Gould the famed evolutionist, you can never “replay the tape of life” and get the same result even with the slightest change. In support of Gould’s hypothesis, here is a paper published in Nature 420, 810 – 812 (19 December 2002) “Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs”. The conclusion of this paper is that “Thus, even in this simplest of situations, the outcome of evolution can be any of several genotypes, and it cannot be predicted which will emerge in any particular realization.”. In other words convergence is not the natural outcome of Darwinian evolution.}”
    
    You might want to try a different apologetics source (or even make the big leap to actual scientific literature!) as they clearly have a just awful grasp of what convergent evolution actually is. Or how to interpret a simple statement.
    
    “The authors of this paper even had to say this: “These results illustrate exactly why arthropod compound eye evolution has remained CONTROVERSIAL, because one of two seemingly VERY UNLIKELY evolutionary histories MUST (how about considering a third option?) be true. ”
    
    The CONTROVERSY described is WHAT the evolutionary pathways involved where, of course, not IF they did.
    A third option? Like what, Magic?
    
    “Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups or compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages. So as I said Parker, convergent evolution (excuses) may work some of the time, but in cases of “extreme convergence” they shouldn’t really be accepted. This makes evolution unfalsifiable.”
    
    No that doesn’t make evolution unfalsifiable. You presented a paper that concludes a form of convergent evolution to be the most likely scenario. It IS of course only one of many facets of the evolution of life on Earth, but an interesting one nonetheless.
    
    Reason over Faith
    Regards
    Andrew D. Parker
  - Charlie said,
    
    November 22, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    
    ADParker:
    >The famous sound bite response (originally due to being asked it so many times from >creationists etc.) is “Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian.”
    >You are correct in one sense however: Evolution can no more be falsified that Gravity >can – because they are NOT theories, but facts (sets of facts actually) which are best >explained by their theories. As such they will never be falsified, only their theories >changed in some way.
    
    “Evolution can no more be falsified that (sic) Gravity can – because they are NOT theories, but facts […which…] will never be falsified, only their theories changed in some way.”
    
    Seems like some very circular logic here to me. Actually, it sounds a WHOLE lot like a claim for Biblical Inerrancy to me. ‘God can not be false/absent because the Bible says He is true and does exist; and He has told us that the Bible is not false. Only the interpretations might be changed in some way.’
    
    Why is evolutionary ‘science’ in the business of such tautologies when this is clearly the realm of faith. At least faith does not restrict itself to such strict formal rules that preclude the use of any such statements of extra-natural knowledge. At least with God, he is by definition, able to operate outside of what we know in our natural world.
    
    One cannot claim that evolution is a fact simply because it is a fact. That’s ridiculous. And certainly not ‘rational’ or scientific.
- Charlie said,
  
  November 22, 2010 at 10:16 pm
  
  ADParker:
  >I have no time, and nor is this a very good place for lengthy discussion (Notice how the >apologist can just throw out a bunch of such assertions in a few words, and the >opponent require screeds of research and time to explain it, to counter any one of the >assertions.) but the short answer is that evolution of such things is not as straight >forward as implied by those claims.
  
  It is amusing to note that you recognize the apologist just throwing out a bunch of assertions and then the burden of proof and explanation is upon the ‘opponent’. If all of this is well established, then why is none of the evidence (scientific evidence) available to address any of these asserted questions?
  
  Why do you keep skirting every question with some sort of chicanery? Your insincerity is very transparent here. I don’t know if you’ve noticed that. You sound more intelligent than that. Do you have some sort of agenda? I can’t imagine that you really buy into all of this. There must be something that keeps you stuck on this diatribe. Whatever it must be cannot be that all-important of a cause to sell your soul over can it?
  
  Reply
  - ADParker said,
    
    November 22, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    
    “It is amusing to note that you recognize the apologist just throwing out a bunch of assertions and then the burden of proof and explanation is upon the ‘opponent’.”
    
    That is NOT what I said at all.
    The Burden of proof remains on those making the positive assertion (Stevebee in this blog.) All I said is that there is a common apologetic tactic, known by some as the Gish Gallop, where they spout off a number of quick short assertions. Assertions that actually require a great deal of work, time and explanation to counter. On Frequently including an education course on the basics of the science before one can even begin to address the challenge.
    
    “If all of this is well established, then why is none of the evidence (scientific evidence) available to address any of these asserted questions?”
    
    Complex Question. It IS available. Much of it is not, however, simple. Involving a great deal of exposition to get to the question. Stevebee for example asks questions of extreme detail, while demonstrating that he doesn’t understand, worse; has erroneous misunderstandings that need to be removed before he CAN understand, most of the more basic and general information required before one can even get to those specific finer details.
    
    “Why do you keep skirting every question with some sort of chicanery?”
    
    What?
    
    “Your insincerity is very transparent here.”
    
    Empty insult noted.
    
    “Do you have some sort of agenda?”
    
    Yes I do. I am a Reasonist. A lover of Reason. I have an agenda to address its abuses.
    
    ” I can’t imagine that you really buy into all of this.”
    
    Into what?
    
    ” There must be something that keeps you stuck on this diatribe.”
    
    I enjoy argument (informal debate.)
    
    ” Whatever it must be cannot be that all-important of a cause to sell your soul over can it?”
    
    My what?
jan said,

November 20, 2009 at 6:46 am

Parker said:

“You are correct in one sense however: Evolution can no more be falsified that Gravity can – because they are NOT theories, but facts (sets of facts actually) which are best explained by their theories. As such they will never be falsified, only their theories changed in some way.”

Hey Parker, have somebody drive your car over your foot. The results of that event can, immediately support the fact that gravity exists. The ability of current observations regarding certain physical phenomena (such as “gravity”) is ABSOLUTELY NOT DISPUTABLE “scientifically”. In contrast, engage in a scientific debate regarding how chemicals plus natural processes actually developed living ecosytems.
You are a perfect example of the arrogant assholes that “in the name of science” have been able to establish a prominent position in pop culture based on HUGELY UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATIONS and use, as metaphors, the undeniable scientific facts currently observable.

Are you retired? Is your income stream that keeps your pathetic ass alive based on the bullshit you promulgate on this site in terms of what you have done to achieve your retirement?

Reply
- ADParker said,
  
  November 20, 2009 at 6:53 am
  
  Hey; it’s not my fault if you are so deluded to confuse and conflate abiogenesis plus they full scope of the theory of evolution evolution itself.
  
  Almost interesting that you don’t conflate the theory of gravity with gravity itself. I wonder why that is.
  
  No I am not retired, I am a humble wage slave still, and will be for quite some time.
  
  Bored now.
  
  Reply
  - stevebee92653 said,
    
    November 21, 2009 at 3:05 am
    
    Yes everybody. Ev-abiogenesis is NOT part of Darwinian evolution. Remember that! Why? Because no one on earth has any idea how life began. And all of the RNA world theories are silly fantasies. So evolution has to separate that fantasy from their own fantasy. Or else the double fantasy thing may make people wonder. It’s hard enough to get people to believe the evolution fantasy. So, heed ADParker’s suggestion. The evolution of life and the beginning of life are to be separated! Or else!
jan said,

November 21, 2009 at 5:51 am

Parker said,

“Hey; it’s not my fault if you are so deluded to confuse and conflate abiogenesis plus they full scope of the theory of evolution evolution itself.”

Look, Parker, I have heard this stale ass argument over and over again. By your own admission large scale evolution, BY FUCKING DEFINITION, (except by the publically funded incubated bastard elite’s assertions on the suck ass public) has to involve “slight successive modifications from any and every thing involved in the history of chemicals to living organisms. WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT WHAT YOU AND THE OTHER SHITHEADS WANT TO ASSERT ON US????? The SEVERE PROBLEMATIC SCOPE OF SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATING YOUR SPECULATIONS INVOLVES THE WHOLE RANGE.,…NOT JUST WHAT CONVENIENTLY SELECTED TO BE THE PROBLEMS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE WHO HAVE HAD THE CONTROL OF THE AGENDAS FOR SO MANY YEARS!!!!!!!!!

Reply
- ADParker said,
  
  November 21, 2009 at 9:52 am
  
  You mean the “stale ass argument” that evolution is not, nor has it ever been, the entirety of the theory of evolution (that is; the explanation of how it works, and how that then extends far beyond the observable occurrences of evolution to make reliable explanations, theories, hypotheses and speculations for how all life as we now have came to be in the forms that it is) plus that of how the first self-replicating molecules first arose (and whatever other things you want to lump in with that as well) but an observed phenomenon. As Berkeley University puts it:
  
  “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.”
  
  No need to shout by they way. Why all this emotion guys? Can’t keep to a rational discussion ? (Not that a blog is a good place for that anyway.)
  
  ” CONVENIENTLY SELECTED TO BE THE PROBLEMS”
  You mean like the ones presented by Steve here? Things like:
  “You can’t explain how Maxillary and mandibular teeth have formed through evolutionary processes – in fact I personally can’t IMAGINE how it could have happened. Therefore we should just forget that line of research (regardless of all it’s successes and the fact that no one has suggested anything remotely viable in its place) because if I can’t imagine it, then it MUST be a lie!”
  
  Because apparently Steve’s (and your) ignorance and personal incredulity on the matter trumps all of science and the mountains of amassed evidence (such as those matching phylogenetic trees etc.) doesn’t it?
  
  ‘except by the publically funded incubated bastard elite’s assertions on the suck ass public”
  Who?
  Oh you mean practically the entire scientific community of the planet? It’s all one great big conspiracy theory right? Not a single one of the 99.99% of all biologists on Earth for example, is at all interested in the fame and prestige that would come from toppling the most powerful and successful scientific theory (and paradigm) of all time. No; apparently they all toe the line, despite the fact that their entire framework is about competition, and the overturning (through disproof and replacement) of each others work.
  Yeah sure, that MUST be it, right?
  Yeah right.
  
  I understand that this science challenges you precious little worldview, and/or that of the apologists whose waffle you have brought into, and thus why this invokes such an EMOTIONAL (rather than rational) response from you all, but that’s just too bad. Reality is what it is, the evidence is what it is. Live in denial as much as you like. Until you can bring anything more that silly little augments from ignorance and personal incredulity (they are well known and established logical fallacies from formal logic for a reason) then you have nothing. And your getting upset about it won’t change that.
  
  You really need a basic education on evolution. Not that I think it will help, as you are so dead set on denying and refuting, you can only look for holes and confirmation of that which you already hold as Truth, and not what the truth might actually is – whatever it is, no matter which way. But try these for starters:
  
  Or try a bit more:
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
  
  Reply
jan said,

November 22, 2009 at 6:21 am

Parker said:

“You are mistaken. But it is hard to explain because you seem to be under the common anti-evolutionist misconception that “The Theory of Evolution” is a singular theory, which stands or falls in it’s entirety on single little examples, such as those you present. Rather than a multifaceted cover term for a great number of related theories, hypotheses and facts.”

Parker, in light of what would be required to scientifically support your assertions, your rhetoric, obviously, falls short of convincing any informed and open minded individual.
Go back and SERIOUSLY STUDY REAL SCIENCE, AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. YOU FOOL.

Reply
jan said,

November 22, 2009 at 6:21 am

Parker said:

“You are mistaken. But it is hard to explain because you seem to be under the ……..

Parker, in light of what would be required to scientifically support your assertions, your rhetoric, obviously, falls short of convincing any informed and open minded individual.
Go back and SERIOUSLY STUDY REAL SCIENCE, AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. YOU FOOL.

Reply
jan said,

November 28, 2009 at 6:01 am

“You really need a basic education on evolution. Not that I think it will help, as you are so dead set on denying and refuting, you can only look for holes and confirmation of that which you already hold as Truth, and not what the truth might actually is – whatever it is, no matter which way.”

You are extremely arrogant. You have taken an uncritical position of sympathy with the status quo. Even though you know, or should know, there are extreme lapses of scientific verifications for the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast etc etc arrays of unknown and unverifiable temporal, physical, spatial (laterally, forwardly and ??????) relationships between physio-chemical objects ON THE WAY TO LIVING SYSTEMS…… AND THIS, DESPITE HUGELY SPECULATIVE DECLARATIONS OF “SLIGHT SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATIONS” AS A SIGNIFICANT ASSERTION WITH ANY REAL SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY. YOU FOOL!!!!!!!! You are making a BIG ASS OUT OF YOURSELF… THE GOOD NEWS FOR YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE…..(IF THAT IS ANY CONSOLATION) LOOK, THERE ARE A LOT US WHO ARE WAY AHEAD OF YOU ASSHOLES. YOU HAVENT A CLUE.

Reply
Henrik Jensen said,

August 7, 2010 at 5:28 pm

This video made me laugh 🙂

Showing how complex human teeth are and pointing out that all the complexity could not have come about by itself in the present form is miles off the mark.

Teeth did not evolve in humans. The idea of showing a HUMAN scull with teeth evolving one at a time along with jaw and the muscles to operate it is so wrong that it hurts. Even if he did have a point about the complexity of the system the video is hard to take seriously.

And just because teeth are so old that we lack the fossil records to show how they evolved does not mean they are designed. Just because the people who have done the research on the subject were not good enough or needed more info to realize how the teeth evolved doesn’t mean the it didn’t. I am sure the answer is out there waiting for us.

With all the millions of wonders in the world that evolution has given us, it’s actually impressive that we have so many well explained examples of evolution as we do. In olny 1½ century we have come so far. The question is how long evoliutionists will keep voicing their scrill objections in the face of all the defeats they have suffered. Every time we find a new fossil of a missing link or a new genetic marker we push back the boundaries of ignorance a notch.

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  August 7, 2010 at 5:33 pm
  
  When you actually know or find out, then make the theory. Until you do, evolution is a fantasy.
  
  Reply
  - Henrik Jensen said,
    
    August 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
    
    I doubt that “I” will find out since it’s not my field of work.
    
    But if you want my opinion of a few of the questions in the video without me doing any backgrund research other that that which i can find on your own site i can come up with some.
    
    Since teeth is spread so much around in the animal kingdom it would be reasonable to assume that they evolved at a quite early stage. I don’t think that teeth evolved one at a time either as shown in the video – if I had to guess then evolution at some point made a hadened bone structure on the chewing side of the jaw. Later I imagine that the hardened bonestructure formed into smaler portions – perhaps to enable them to be more “sharp” and thereby more efficient.
    
    I think it a reasonable asumption that teeth evolved AFTER the jaw did since the jaw can actualy be functional without the teeth. I only mention this self evident fact because the video makes a mockery of it. I imagine that the jaw itself formed somewhere when first the other bones in the scull evolved.
    
    And before the jaw evolved there probably were some muscles since used for eating like we se with the mouth in some invertebrae today. As the jaw and later the teeth evolved these muscles co-evolved into the jawmuscles we know today.
    
    But this is me shooting from the hip and it is based on no research whats or ever. I am merely trying to ilustrate how i imagine it COULD have happened. I don’t see what the big problem is or how it should be “imposible” for teeth to evolve.
Dwilkes7 said,

September 24, 2010 at 12:10 am

Look guys, I have spent 40 years studying human and other animal dentition. I have taught other people all over the USA and stints at Germany, Canada, and Mexico. From my experience, to become a competent technician takes at least 10 to 15 years. Many people start out thinking that this is an easy subject to study and put to work their knowledge. They were and are WRONG! To do the job well, you MUST know about EVERY line, every peak, every direction and curve, because they are not there to look “PRETTY”, they are there for a specific function as well. You EVOs throw out so much jibberish haphazardly, that from the articles I have read, my ex students have pointed them out to me because I was hard on them and they now appreciate what they learned. They don’t take it very lightly when someone simplifies something to the point of ridiculousness. Why do they even read diverse articles about teeth? I taught them to.

Reply
Henrik Jensen said,

September 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm

This video on youtube is not specifically about evolution of teeth, but it does use teeth as a reference point throughout the video – I hope that you will at least acnowledge that it clealy shows teeth evolving and it will give you some god pointers if you want to dig deeper by yourself

so steve – I hope you will watch it – and I will look back in a weeks time to see if you have closed down your site

Henrik

Reply
- stevebee92653 said,
  
  September 24, 2010 at 8:57 pm
  
  This is just the same old stuff, over and over. They should stay away from Tiktaalik. Another hoax. Try p. 8 and 16. I wonder is this guy knows how ameloblasts and odontoblasts originated. And how each, I mean EACH, of those cells got the knowledge about exactly how to place themselves and when to shut off the knitting of enamel and dentin so that those incredible little sculptures would form in just the right shape and position. Do you have the answer? I sure hope so, because I, a dentist, cannot figure that one out. He didn’t say in this vid. What a disappointment.
  And he thinks you are an ape. Congrats.
  Your problem: proving common ancestry doesn’t come close to proving evolution. Sorry. You have much bigger problems. Common ancestry kills the theory anyway. You are shooting yourself in the foot.
  
  Reply
9pt9 said,

October 30, 2010 at 3:23 am

This entire commentary is brilliant. The issue concerning our lack of outer covering is particularly compelling to me. Did we lose our fur because we began to wear clothes? Why would we begin to wear clothes if we had thick fur????? I can’t believe evolution is considered good science.

Reply
ADParker said,

November 22, 2010 at 11:44 pm

@Charlie.

“Seems like some very circular logic here to me.”

I am not surprised. It is a common misunderstanding. One promulgated by Creationists, but also due to a level of disconnect between the scientific community and the general public.

“Actually, it sounds a WHOLE lot like a claim for Biblical Inerrancy to me.”

Really?! Wow!

“ ‘God can not be false/absent because the Bible says He is true and does exist; and He has told us that the Bible is not false. Only the interpretations might be changed in some way.’ “

Oh. No, that is just silly.
Evolution is a fact (a set of facts.)
The theory of evolution is a theory, an explanation, of those observed facts (actually it is a broad term encompassing the many theories and hypotheses of of those facts.)

Many of the facts of evolution have been known for centuries, even millennia.

“Why is evolutionary ‘science’ in the business of such tautologies when this is clearly the realm of faith.”

It isn’t. This is just your misunderstanding.

“At least faith does not restrict itself to such strict formal rules that preclude the use of any such statements of extra-natural knowledge.”

True. It is belief (conviction) through the (wilful) abandonment fo reason.
And it is something I find to be truly disgusting.

“At least with God, he is by definition, able to operate outside of what we know in our natural world.”

No, that is a definition people came to ascribe to this “God” character. In order to protect it from any attempts of falsification. Renedering it an even less rational proposition than it already was.
There is another word for that claimed ability: “Magic.”

“One cannot claim that evolution is a fact simply because it is a fact. That’s ridiculous. And certainly not ‘rational’ or scientific.”

It IS a fact (actually a set of facts – the facts you said that you accepted in another post in fact.) I NEVER said it is a fact because it is a fact. That is YOUR ridiculous (and insulting) straw man caricature.
Evolution is a fact, because it is those sets of observed objects/occurences, the things that we call “facts” and then base our scientific (and philosophical) endevours on.
Religions do that too, but tend to rely on imagination and emotion alone (missing out the third of that trinity; Reason.)

Reply
¿Darwin o DI? » ¿Darwin o DI? said,

January 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm

[…] imaginable se hayan organizado de forma espontánea para favorecer un resultado funcional. He aquí un ejemplo. No voy a ocultar sin embargo que el propio Behe en un artículo de 2000 titulado […]

Reply
aataxi (@aataxi) said,

January 30, 2013 at 2:41 am

Anyone still here?

Reply
- mamasemamasamamakusa said,
  
  October 6, 2013 at 8:40 pm
  
  You gotta love ADParker. Keep at it buddy. You give it to ’em. Show ’em REAL science! lol
  
  REALLY, Parker?!
  
  Reply
  - fellowprimate said,
    
    October 6, 2013 at 10:17 pm
    
    Wow, been a while. And now I get a reply to a comment I posted almost three years ago.
    
    Hi there mamasemamasamamakusa (do we know each other or something?)
    
    >>You gotta love ADParker.<>Keep at it buddy.<>You give it to ‘em.<>Show ‘em REAL science!<>lol<>REALLY, Parker?!<<
    Really what? You didn't explain what this is in reference to, so I can't answer that based on no context.
  - mamasemamasamamakusa said,
    
    October 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    
    I just admire your ironclad faith in ToE.
    
    I admire how people assume the only prove of God has been the bible alone. That He hasn’t continued to appear to His prophets (the hoaxes and ‘snakecharmers’ – improvise the list – provide a good cover i.e. those who doubt continue to find mountains of evidence against Bible).
    
    We barely fringe reality. No scientific feat will ever open our eyes to things hidden from the naked eye. (what we do on earth is use manifestation of whet began in another realm).
    
    If I were to tell you what’s currently happening in the spiritual realm you wouldn’t buy it unless the heavens meet your scientific T’s & C’s and criteria. We have ironclad logic as to how a deity should or would conduct its affairs. He’s a president desperate to keep those approval ratings in check.
    
    I love how He ALWAYS leave man to play the game of “hangman” with his soul when they refuse His guidance – we get coupla things (letters?) right then it’s downhill from there.
    
    We’re are +6000 years old, Parker but the earth is millions if not billions year old. It’s analogous to science discovering Noah’s Ark – the only thing (our) science can discover is that it was occupied by animals and humans, their diet, the make of an ask etc But the discoveries would be void of the inter-dimensional narrative; how the Ark came to be constructed (apt speculations would suffice for the keen mind).
    
    I know to the “scientific mind” this is gobbley-speak, claptrap etc etc
    
    What I’m saying is, Parker, my learned friend, the pre-Paradise age was another era no science will discover. If you notice, Paradise was created on a post-apocalyptic environment (probably thousands or millions of years after the destruction of the pre-historic era.
    
    Many things God left as they are for a purpose whenever they’d ask for interpretations/explanations He’d [instruct] that they be left as is. They become a snare to the know-alls. The Hangman. Even some believers are beginning to say the Book of Genesis is allegorical. See?
    
    I don’t expect this to be some epiphanic revelatory piece Evolutionists (let alone you…throw in there Steve – no offence nor goading friends – for good measure) will find remotely interesting. Just expect the Pharaoh narrative to repeat itself on a grant scale.
    
    Can you imagine Pharaoh’s reaction to Israel?: Moses, ahem, tent-poling isn’t exactly Pyramid science. Should your God have notched up your savvy? Look at Greek…Rome…and your guys with tent-pegs in this day and age claim there’s a God who actually elected you?
    
    Nebuchadnezzar is a perfect example. He looked at his global dominance, coupled with the fact the he kicked butt and exiled Israel, now they tell him there’s a God who is in charge of it all – that he, the king, is just an instrument.
    
    I tend to avoid getting into scientific debate cause that’s not how He said he’ll be found. At the crucifixion, the thief on the left made an “apt” commentary (if God is there why this, then why that, couldn’t just this be that..) he was not answered, but the one on the right. If your Nietzsche (and other greats) fuel your mantra and your content without “invisible means of support”, keep at it. Don’t let even a smidgenest (?) skepticism (or any other ism for that matter) cloud your enlightened critical mind.
    
    Egypt laughed at Israel for 4 generations (which God predicted anyway). Evolution LOVE their 150 Years milestone.
    
    Psst. I’ve just given you a hint as to how long it wont last.
    
    I’ve read about a few ex-evolutionists turn-around stories. Like a Queen of Sheba (whom is said will rise and judge the unbelieving generation of that time), One ex-evolutionist is enough. God wont do more. It’s the case of the blind leading the blind. That’s why only one person is quoted to be your judge. When a fellow scientist leave ToE claiming to have had a divine epiphany (not discripancies in ToE) you laugh it off, then keep your trusted philosophy, erudite mind, and wit. You wont get an answer you want. You determined an authority metric to life as a whole.
    
    Oh Things that come out of your mouths about Him because the thunder doesn’t strike right after you spewed them. The golden nonchalance. The confidence in our science whose end will be epitomized in “hoisted by own petard”
    
    Have you ever wondered why tower of Babel was stopped? We’d be rallying for WMD disarmament about 2 or 3 thousands years ago. Language not being the barrier, science would’ve have sky rocketed. You can say but we’re in the wake of WMD. Well, the time is right. Keep your eye on that petard, or the Hangman factor.
    
    I look forward to the stock of witty come backs. You and I can’t help ourselves. We’re both puppets (speaking for myself?).
  - fellowprimate said,
    
    October 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    
    “just admire your ironclad faith in ToE.”
    I don’t do faith. It’s science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    
    “I admire how people assume the only prove of God has been the bible alone.”
    You admire how people assume?! That would be silly wouldn’t it; the bible isn’t proof of God either, it starts with the assumption that God (originally The Elohim of course) exists, and makes no effort to substantiate that assumption. Why did you bring that up on a blog from someone who claims no belief in your god?
    
    “That He hasn’t continued to appear to His prophets (the hoaxes and ‘snakecharmers’ – improvise the list – provide a good cover i.e. those who doubt continue to find mountains of evidence against Bible).”
    What is this supposed to be, are you arguing for or against the belief in gods here? Your capitalization of His/He etc. is amusing though, makes no sense at all.
    
    “We barely fringe reality. No scientific feat will ever open our eyes to things hidden from the naked eye. (what we do on earth is use manifestation of whet began in another realm).”
    Another realm; any evidence for this, or is empty assertion good enough for you when it is for your side of the argument?
    
    “If I were to tell you what’s currently happening in the spiritual realm you wouldn’t buy it unless the heavens meet your scientific T’s & C’s and criteria. We have ironclad logic as to how a deity should or would conduct its affairs.”
    What is this, it’s practically gibberish. But you mention “ironclad logic”, excellent; I’ve studied logic in university. Unfortunately I’ve seen far too many theists claims of logical proof of god etc. fail miserably to be anything close to ironclad (most are just laughable.) And as a sane person I am not going to just accept that you have “ironclad logic” if you won’t even present it. If you did have it you would have presented it and this discussion would be over.
    And if you were to tell me about something as far out as “the spiritual realm” I would expect some reason to believe a word of it before I would consider doing so, to do otherwise would be Faith.
    
    “I love how He ALWAYS leave man to play the game of “hangman” with his soul when they refuse His guidance – we get coupla things (letters?) right then it’s downhill from there.”
    Huh?
    
    “We’re are +6000 years old, Parker but the earth is millions if not billions year old. It’s analogous to science discovering Noah’s Ark – the only thing (our) science can discover is that it was occupied by animals and humans, their diet, the make of an ask etc But the discoveries would be void of the inter-dimensional narrative; how the Ark came to be constructed (apt speculations would suffice for the keen mind).”
    You know you just sound like a crazy person, right?
    
    “I know to the “scientific mind” this is gobbley-speak, claptrap etc etc”
    Yes, to the rational mind it sounds irrational. Because it is. And empty rhetoric to boot.
    
    “Just expect the Pharaoh narrative to repeat itself on a grant scale.”
    Oooh; threats…empty threats.
    
    “I tend to avoid getting into scientific debate cause that’s not how He said he’ll be found.”
    So what are doing on a non-believer’s blog about an area of science then?!
    
    “Psst. I’ve just given you a hint as to how long it wont last.”
    Nah, you just made another empty assertion.
    
    “When a fellow scientist leave ToE claiming to have had a divine epiphany (not discripancies in ToE) you laugh it off, then keep your trusted philosophy, erudite mind, and wit. You wont get an answer you want. You determined an authority metric to life as a whole.”
    Actually on the rare occasions I have heard such claims I ask why, for their reasons. Thus far the explanations have been worse than poor, and I remain unimpressed.
    
    “Have you ever wondered why tower of Babel was stopped?”
    Are you assuming that I think that silly little story is true?!
    
    “I look forward to the stock of witty come backs. You and I can’t help ourselves. We’re both puppets (speaking for myself?).”
    Damn you talk a lot of nonsense! Barely coherent nonsense. If you can’t even make an argument for anything then you are just wasting both your and my time.
- mamasemamasamamakusa said,
  
  October 19, 2013 at 3:13 pm
  
  Thanks Parker 😉
  
  I sincerely wish you well.
  
  Reply