2. How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming
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.
Since I graduated from dental school in 1967, I had been a firm believer in Darwinian evolution. I thought anyone who did not was naive. It seemed like such a logical way that we humans, and all other species had arrived on earth. I have always been fascinated with the subject, and study and think about it often. I was so comfortable with the TOE as the only logical explanation for how we got here. I was in awe of the genius of Charles Darwin. When visiting my son who was studying medicine at Chicago Medical School in 2004, I visited the Field Museum and saw Sue, their T. Rex fossil. What a great experience. But a puzzle came to mind. Why didn’t T Rex’s arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the three to four million years that it roamed the earth?
To further embolden my thoughts about T. Rex’s arms, recently a group of fossil hunters found a precursor to T. Rex that roamed the earth 130 MYA. And, wouldn’t ya know it, the arms on the precursor were the same damn short arms carried by T. Rex! Expanding the non-changing non-growth of arms by 60 MY! And the exact same body type as T. Rex for over 60 MY. Stunning.
In the article on the subject (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/17/tiny-t-rex-fossil) they stated:”The beast, named Raptorex kriegsteini, roamed the Earth 130m years ago, tens of millions of years before the giant T-rex became the most fearsome predator in history. The finding has stunned paleontologists because the skeleton resembles the larger tyrannosaurs in every respect except its size. Measurements of bones recovered from the site reveal that the new species was one hundredth the size of T-rex…..” “The discovery overturns scientists’ thinking about how Tyrannosaurus rex evolved. Many of the most striking features of the beast, such as its puny forearms, were thought to be a trade-off during the evolution of its enormous size, but Raptorex shows these features had already evolved more than 60m years earlier.”
Wouldn’t natural selection and mutations have evolved longer arms for T. Rex and Raptor kreigsteini, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For these species, there was virtually no evolution for millions of years, six hundred times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes.
Centipedes have roamed the earth for 400 million years showing only minuscule changes.
Trilobites (above) showed only minor changes over a 300 million year period, more than 2,500 times longer than it took man to evolve from hominid species. Crocodiles have lived on the planet earth for over 100 million years with little change. Cockroaches over 280 million years! One would think in that time cockroaches would have developed language skills, intelligence, clothing……What differences are there in the seahorse fossil and seahorse above?
The Coelacanth is a living fish which first appeared 410 million years ago. (Fossil above left) It was thought extinct but recently has been found live in many locations throughout the world. (Above right) Coelacanth shows absolutely no sign of evolution since it first appeared, 2,000 times longer ago than it supposedly took man to evolve from hominids. Why didn’t it grow arms or something? The explanation on an evolution website: “This situation is still under investigation by scientists.” I’m certain that scientists are wor
king around the clock trying to figure this one out! Actually, what’s to figure? Th
ere was absolutely no evolution with Coelacanth. Nothing to “investigate” here. What truly objective scientists should say is, “This certainly is additional proof that Darwinian evolution may not have occurred at all.” In Darwin’s own words: “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin’s theory to be correct. Where were they? Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in fossil finds should be the norm. Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven’t been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with. It is truly a strange experience realizing that something that I believed and defended vociferously for over forty years was nothing but layers and layers of conjecture; a fantasy. For me, when Darwin started going over the falls, the fall was fast. Suddenly, I started seeing, in every corner that I looked, an immense illusion perpetrated by the brainwashed, wishful thinking “scientists”, writers, and professors, and avid anti-religionists. It was a real shock. This website will pretty much log my thoughts and readings about evolution since my visit to the Field Museum.
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one species into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlane, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about “appearing”? There is no current objective and scientific answer.
Another thing about evolutionary science that is very difficult to imagine: The early earth, 4 billion years ago, was completely sterile. Earth and no entity on it had any “idea” what life was. It was probable that there was no life within trillions of miles of our planet. So, there was no model for life. It is easy for us to imagine life forming, because we are here, and part of it. Life is all around us. We take it completely for granted, so it doesn’t take much to imagine the formation of life. But when the earth was sterile, and there was no “idea” what life was, why would this completely inconceivable event of abiogenesis take place? Why would all of the atoms and biochemicals required for life come together in just the right manner to form living cells on this celestial body when every other celestial object that we know of is completely sterile? The earth could have simply remained sterile forever. Life would have to be considered a completely unlikely “invention” for the planet earth. The cause and reason for life is what I call the Puzzle. And in writing this blog I hope that I can come just a little bit closer to comprehending the solution, even though I know that’s impossible. At least I can eliminate ideas that are not remotely close, such as evolution, which is a start.
One final thought: When Darwin put together his theory, he thought cells were as simple as grapes. He had no idea about the complexity of the biochemicals or their numerous cycles that were needed for life to exist. He had no idea about the incredible fine-tuning of the physical and chemical laws of the universe that makes life possible. Since Darwin’s time, we have discovered the four forces of nature, and we know how they exist in just the exactly correct and immensely perfect and unlikely ratios for life to exist. We know that cells are thousands of times more complex than Darwin had realized. We know that proteins and other organic chemicals necessary for life are millions of times more complex than Darwin ever knew. We know that hundreds of thousands of newly found fossils don’t match Darwin’s theory, even though evo-illusionists tout that they do. We know how biological systems function, such those that produce vision and hearing, and that they are far more complex than anything Darwin could have imagined. If Darwin had known what we now know, he probably would have terminated his own theory. Darwin was intelligent enough to realize the limitations of his ideas using the knowledge that he had at the time. Random mutations and natural selection being responsible for all of the incredible wonders of nature would not come close to being proportional to thinking one could use only a screwdriver to assemble the space shuttle. The answer to the Puzzle is far more complex than any man who lives or ever lived on the face of the earth is capable of understanding.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
Mike Batchelor said,
April 29, 2008 at 11:48 pm
You realize that Darwin is dead since 1882, and that a lot of work has been done since then? 150 years of research, and not a peep about any of it since Darwin?
The less you focus on Darwin, the less of a fundy crackpot you will seem.
Mike Batchelor said,
April 29, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Have you presented any evidence that T. Rex’s arms did not evolve?
No?
OK.
Mike Batchelor said,
April 30, 2008 at 12:02 am
Ceolecanths evolved plenty in their “prime.” The fossil record shows many genus arising and disappearing. Then during the Cretaceous, they started dying out. No fossils of the living species have ever been found. In fact, no fossils from the order coelecanths have been found that are earlier than the Cretaceous. The living specimens today are not the same species as the extinct species found in fossils. It is a popular misconception that the modern coelecanth represents a living fossil. It does not. It represents the last remaining living species of a nearly extinct order.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
June 18, 2010 at 6:23 pm
The slippery and slick semantics of Darwits never cease to amaze me how it is they can’t step back from the text box an look at what they say and just die from embarrassment. For example, you said and I quote:
“It is a popular misconception that the modern coelecanth represents a living fossil. It does not. It represents the last remaining living species of a nearly extinct order.”
Ok so is that what they are calling it now days? The Last remaining living species that they thought was extinct? So in other words it means the same thing as what evo’s used to say it meant, or living fossil. So what is your point homicide?
The way we say it is “out of style”?
Mike Batchelor said,
April 30, 2008 at 12:09 am
“Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years.”
Wow! What a gigantic error! Heackel’s Recapitulation theory was found inadequate over a century ago. You’re debunking science that scientists discarded long before you and I were born!
stevebee92653 said,
April 30, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sorry, not “a gigantic” error. The error is yours, and it is in your reading comprehension. When I said it “SHOULD LOOK LIKE” and it doesn’t, where is the error? The error is in evolution “science” because the evidence doesn’t fit the theory; the fossils didn’t look like they should to prove Darwin and friends. If evidence doesn’t look like it should, it is then tossed out and discarded, but the theory marches on untouched. But nice try!
BTW: Haeckel was another evillusionist with fake evidence, only he got caught. His fake evidence was promoted in most Biology textbooks and force fed in schools throughout the world, just like mythical evidence is today. Haeckel’s Recapitulation talked about the embryonic stages of a species representing the earlier stages of evolution that the species supposedly went through, (which is not what I am talking about).
diuryl said,
August 15, 2009 at 9:51 pm
about haeckel: it’s even worse, his illustrations are STILL being shown in modern text books today. SAD!
stevebee92653 said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Actually, astounding. You should see their bird clade drawings. It’s on PBS.com and I show it in my first bird vid. The precursors are completely out if sequence. Tens to over a hundred million years out. Remarkable what these people will do to prove their fantasy.
Glacier said,
June 11, 2010 at 1:46 am
Wrong.
Ever since the 1980s those drawings have been replaced with micro-photographs that show the exact same developmental history that Heachel envisioned. Darwin himself also believed that Embryological development showed compelling evidence for evolution but he studied REAL embryos long before Haeckel did his drawings.
Whatever books that still use his drawings now come with a disclaimer on the bottom that points out the flaws in Haechel’s initial hypothesis.
If Embryology is so wrong then you’ll have to explain why human embryos have gill slits that are morphologically identical to the gill slits found on fish.
stevebee92653 said,
June 11, 2010 at 3:40 am
You are years behind. The “gill slits” are developmental and not fish gill copies. Anything that looks like anything else in evolution is proof. That’s how hard up this science is for something….ANYTHING to prove itself.
stevebee92653 said,
April 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Regarding Coelacanth: Take a good look at the fossil and the current photo. Nuff said. Regarding T. Rex above: not worth a comment.
reluctantfundie said,
August 17, 2008 at 1:54 am
Larty said,
November 16, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The living habits of Tyrannosaurus Rex are still being debated. There’s a perfectly fine explanation why the T-rex had small, useless arms despite being a predatory dinosaur: it wasn’t. T-rex could have been a scavenger, as it had an excellent sense of smell and couldn’t run or catch prey at all, being so slow.
Oh, and your claim that it did not evolve is rubbish. Comparing the newest and the oldest discovered T-rex skeletons together show that the animal evolved towards long distance walking rather than running and cathing prey, further supporting the theory that it was a scavenger.
stevebee92653 said,
November 16, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Two possible explanations for T. Rex non-evolution:
1. There is evolution, but T. Rex just didn’t “need” bigger arms.
2. There is not such a thing as evolution forming new species and devices, such as arms and eyes.
Two possible explanations for coelacanth non-evolution:
1. There is evolution, but coelacanth just didn’t “need” arms and legs.
2. There is not such a thing as evolution forming new species and devices, such as arms and eyes.
Two possible explanations for giraffe non-evolution:
1………………………….
Larty said,
November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Two possible explanations for coelacanth non-evolution:
1. There is evolution, but coelacanth just didn’t “need” arms and legs.”
Totally true. No change in environment = no need to adapt to a new environment = no competition = no natural selection = no evolution.
“Two possible explanations for T. Rex non-evolution:
1. There is evolution, but T. Rex just didn’t “need” bigger arms…”
I’ll be waiting until you notice and read my previous message.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 3:28 am
Larty said “Totally true. No change in environment = no need to adapt to a new environment = no competition = no natural selection = no evolution.”
Awe isn’t that convenient. First we hear it changed plenty, then we hear an excuse why it didn’t change at all. By the way the excuse he gives is the always the same for every single living fossil discovered to be still alive. That would have to be the case for all those insects we have found frozen in time in amber for millions of years also. Virtually every insect we see today hasn’t changed an IOTA. NOT ONE BIT other than some were larger. So what do we garner from this ?
That Dragon fly evolved into Dragon Fly’s
Lady bugs into Lady Bugs
Fruit Fly into Fruit fly
and so on and so on
Same goes for the coelacanth which certainly experienced the needed selection pressures that would have caused it’s evolution. After all, something was going on there to bring it to the extinction level it is at yet no change. Perhaps it is because evolution doesn’t happen like you’re so desperate to believe eh larky
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 3:57 am
HellaStyle said,” So to summarize 1a, you’d rather have people come in and kiss your butt than give you a heavy dose of reality. It’s official.
You are completely out of it.”
Really?? That’s funny because I haven’t seen evidence of anyone kissing his but unless agreeing is what you call “kissing butt”
still waiting for the heavy dose of reality I’m afraid
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Read page 7 of my blog.
Alejandro said,
December 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm
You’re intellectually honest, and the real evidence has changed your mind, from darwinist to genuine scientist searching for real proofs and objective observation.
Congrats and keep on working.
Ben said,
February 9, 2009 at 11:17 pm
From reading this, you appear a largely dishonest person.
I don’t know how you could “support” evolution for 40 years without ever understanding it. Turns out that this is exactly what you must have done…
The biggest flaw in your argument stems from complexity and abiogenesis; I will explain…
Darwinian evolution is not abiogenesis. It suggests a common ancestor, but does not go beneath that. 40 years not knowing this? You’re a liar.
Molecular complexity does not disqualify evolution, amoeba proteus has 290 billion base pairs, we have 3 billion. Hypothetically, your god* could have put a unicellular organism with almost 100 times our capacity for genetic information in a rock pool millions of years ago and that would still be Darwinian evolution.
It looks like you also try to make arguments from probability. This is one of your grosser mistakes, but I’ll save a response in case I am actually misunderstanding your position.
The T-Rex arms argument is also weak. It is as though you approached evolution from the “men will become gods” philosophy. What you have to acknowledge (and I am pretty sure you already do!) is that evolution isn’t guided, moreover genetic mutations are entirely purposeless. Beyond this, you are assuming a mutation or mutations should have given the T-Rex longer arms… is this because you know so much about the environment and lifestyle of the T-Rex or because you have a thorough understanding of its genome? Maybe if you’d some time in that 40 years understanding the mechanisms that build life you wouldn’t have written such an embarrassing blog in the first place…
I’m going to guess you know absolutely nothing about say, the ultrabithorax gene? I didn’t think so.
This is a gene that “modulates the shape and size of the third leg of Drosophila” and also “regulates the decisions regarding the number of wings and legs the adult drosophila melanogaster will have”…
Funny how what a tiny example of experimentally deduced evidence says about your abysmal understanding of genetics.
This would be where you tell me what genes would make a T-Rex have bigger arms without jeopardising the rest of it’s anatomy.
…I won’t hold my breath.
* I know you pretend not to be religious, but I have seen your videos and read your misrepresentation of Einstein and Dawkins.
If you do have anything informed to say, find me on youtube at the URL I provided in the form. I hope you do respond, it would make a refreshing change to meet an anti-evolutionist who actually stands up for himself and his arguments.
Ben.
stevebee92653 said,
February 10, 2009 at 3:25 am
“you appear a largely dishonest person”, “You’re a liar.” Didn’t you write a book on how to have a lively and honest discussion with someone you disagree with? Your bullshit is overwhelming. You are a typical evolutionaut know-it-all, and you spout the same dogma and think you are so smart doing it. You don’t address any of the points and challenges I raise, which REALLY puts you in the “typical evolutionaut” mode. The first T-Rex’s couldn’t clap because of their forearm stubs, and 30 million years later they still couldn’t. And you make the typical “excuse after the fact” just like your peers. “the reason this didn’t evolve is that………”. In reality, no species went through much change over long periods of time, and I won’t over the list here because it’s in my blog. Your “rest of the anatomy” for T. Rex excuse doesn’t come close to flying. Obviously most other quadrupeds found a way to have functional forelimbs. Whatever anatomical changes that were needed were made. But, not T rex in 30 MY. I’m sure that doesn’t bother you in the slightest, because you have been indoctrinated thoroughly. It slobbers all over your writing.
Mis-representation of Dawkins and Einstein? How so. What a laugh. Evolutionauts hate anyone quoting their heroes, because their doubts that you don’t have come through.
I love the bullshit excuse you evo’s use in separating abiogenesis from evolution. AB is the birth of EVO, but this fake science (AB) is so weak, it makes evolution (the other fake) look bad. Hence the separation.
What really makes me ill is the constant reference to fruit flies, bacteria that eat nylon, and scum with “light sensitive cells”. You can relate those to the evolution of hearing, consciousness, the heart, the alimentary canal et al? Or theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds. You have to leave your brain at home to go for this, What really astounds me about someone like you is that you go for this obvious nonsense, and think I am stupid. That always gets a wow from me. Hard to believe you don’t seem to have a lick of skepticism. Congrats.
Ben said,
February 10, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“Didn’t you write a book on how to have a lively and honest discussion with someone you disagree with?”
Didn’t you research evolution in the forty years you “supported” it?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but is your real objection to evolution something neurological? Like Haggard had his homophobia, are you in denial somehow hoping it erases some of your unsavoury natural inclinations?
“You don’t address any of the points and challenges I raise…”
I addressed the T-Rex points didn’t I. I talked about complexity and touched on probability too. Did you consider all of this when you said… no…
You’re an ignorant liar.
I shouldn’t say that, sorry – you may very well be delusional or mentally handicapped.
“The first T-Rex’s couldn’t clap because of their forearm stubs, and 30 million years later they still couldn’t.”
No, but they broke their arms a lot; one might almost come to the conclusion the arms were a hindrance, wouldn’t one?
“In reality, no species went through much change over long periods of time, and I won’t over the list here because it’s in my blog.”
1. Species are an artificial device. Professional biologists (not the religious type) understand the limits and risks associated with such a taxonomy – something Darwin didn’t really anticipate. Darwin saw a tree of life branching and diversifying, isolating species – perhaps paying too little attention to hybridisation. The theory has since evolved, as you would know had you really learnt anything. I expect you know absolutely nothing about the luidia sarsi, so take advantage of this opportunity to enhance your understanding. In your infinite knowledge you would also know it is estimated 40% of the human genome arrived horizontally with viruses… wouldn’t you?
Amazing isn’t it, how much you have realised you didn’t know anything about in just the last ten minutes.
2. The other problem with the speciation and “no change” argument is pretty obvious; but as you’ve proven yourself an exemplary simpleton I should probably give you a nudge back into reality:
Species are lines drawn by humans after the fact. Deciding a species hasn’t changed doesn’t disprove evolution because it isn’t meant to say all species will always change. If an organism is comfortable in it’s environment then slight variation may not help or hinder it. Even island dwarfism or gigantism breed their pros and cons… but why am I telling you, you know everything about all of this already don’t you.
Secondly, it looks like you are promoting gaps-in-the-record as a charge against evolution. You fail to understand that every new find is classified as a new species artificially. Finding a new specimen that lay somewhere between A and B is exactly what is expected – this is exactly what evolution predicts. It doesn’t disprove anything that many things are similar nor that many things are vastly different – all it suggests is either pressures hardly changed, or pressures vastly changed. Again, exactly what evolution predicts.
“Your “rest of the anatomy” for T. Rex excuse doesn’t come close to flying.”
Thank you for not actually addressing anything. As expected, you remain the stubborn liar.
“Obviously most other quadrupeds found a way to have functional forelimbs.”
Contrary to your attestation evolution doesn’t happen. A hypocrite too! How interesting.
“Whatever anatomical changes that were needed were made.”
You sure like to rub your own nose in it don’t you…
“But, not T rex in 30 MY. I’m sure that doesn’t bother you in the slightest, because you have been indoctrinated thoroughly.”
It didn’t change sufficiently to benefit its survival. It’s pretty elementary really.
Try and remember, genetic mutation happens before it proves its worth. It doesn’t happen so to prove its worth, it happens and then it proves its worth. Are you understanding this yet?
“It slobbers all over your writing.”
Whereas your schizophrenic rambling is cool right.
“Mis-representation of Dawkins and Einstein? How so. What a laugh.”
I was hoping we’d actually learn something from each other, so if I can spare you the humiliation I’d rather I did that.
“Evolutionauts hate anyone quoting their heroes, because their doubts that you don’t have come through.”
Quote whoever you like, Dawkins certainly isn’t a hero of mine. The only thing I hate is that you deceive the readers and viewers who’re too lazy or otherwise engaged to actually follow the leads.
“I love the bullshit excuse you evo’s use in separating abiogenesis from evolution.”
They are two different sciences. Subatomic physics is the birth of chemistry, but that didn’t keep us from studying it until after we’d built atom smashers.*1
I love how you religious loons try to pin as many other studies to the one you wish wasn’t so in a pathetic attempt to discredit by association.
“AB is the birth of EVO, but this fake science (AB) is so weak, it makes evolution (the other fake) look bad.”
Case in point.
“Hence the separation.”
*1
“What really makes me ill is the constant reference to fruit flies, bacteria that eat nylon, and scum with “light sensitive cells”.”
Yeah, how dare we study genetics!
“You can relate those to the evolution of hearing, consciousness, the heart, the alimentary canal et al?”
Yes. You might too if you weren’t so damn stupid.
“Or theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds.”
Why bother hey, why can’t we just accept god did it. God does everything, why bother exploring anything.
“Hard to believe you don’t seem to have a lick of skepticism.”
I think that last bit speaks for itself.
I’d be grateful if you could concede you had no idea what you were really talking about when you wrote this post, then I can look at the other pages on your blog. Who knows, you might actually teach me something…
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:03 am
Ben said: ““What really makes me ill is the constant reference to fruit flies, bacteria that eat nylon, and scum with “light sensitive cells”.”Yeah, how dare we study genetics!”
Huh? how does that say anyone dares anyone to study genetics Ben? Or are you just doing your best ASSHOLE act so typical of Darwits. The rest of your post is rife with the same juvey styled garbage so you’ll have to forgive my not taking time to repeat myself and my assessment of your monosyllabic diatribe. Frankly, it bores me to no end to keep seeing the same tactics used by the so called “science community”
stevebee92653 said,
February 11, 2009 at 3:05 am
People who KNOW EVERYTHING can’t learn. Like YOU. I see how you “win” arguments. You throw out miles of bullshit, assign a belief system to your hated opponent, call them absurd names, and no one wants to waste their time answering. Like ME. So, keep believing in your fruit flies, and theropods that evolved into hummingbirds, delude yourself into thinking you are super smart, and above all, keep writing long nonsensical comments. You will win all of your “debates”.
Ben said,
February 11, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Steve,
I didn’t explicitly claim I’d “won the debate” – in fairness, it isn’t a debate.
This is what has happened:
Steve makes arguments.
Ben makes a counter arguments.
Steve throws the teddy out the cot.
You might have a real case against evolution, but it isn’t anything you wrote in this post.
Either concede, or refine your arguments.
For starters, you could tell me why the T-Rex broke its arms so often and what degree of mutation would leave it sexually compatible whilst giving it arms that were of a significant survival advantage.
I don’t think you can do that and I reckon you’ve realised that too…
If I’m wrong put me right, don’t just flail around.
stevebee92653 said,
February 12, 2009 at 4:22 am
“For starters, you could tell me why the T-Rex broke its arms so often…” I need to explain this to you?
Ben said,
February 12, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Absolutely! I don’t think you realise the evolutionary significance.
Please explain the T-Rex arms *without* the evolutionary model and also explain why they couldn’t have happened the way they did *with* the evolutionary model.
stevebee92653 said,
February 13, 2009 at 1:50 am
There is no “evolutionary model” or “evolutionary significance”. The arms didn’t evolve a lick. Which means you have to come up with an “excuse after the fact”. So, what “evolutionary model” are you fantasizing about?
Ben said,
February 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“There is no “evolutionary model” or “evolutionary significance”.”
There is an evolutionary model. If there wasn’t then how would you find yourself writing a web log about how you don’t believe it?
As I said already:
Please explain the T-Rex arms *without* the evolutionary model and also explain why they couldn’t have happened the way they did *with* the evolutionary model.
Pretty easy really, should I go first?
stevebee92653 said,
February 15, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Since you know what you want, and think Evolution Is Great, have at it. BTW, what is the aerodynamic model for a grand piano?
Ben said,
February 20, 2009 at 1:32 am
The idea was that it would make you think rather than “believe” or whatever it is you use instead…
Have you giving up or what?
“BTW, what is the aerodynamic model for a grand piano?”
You’re a real card aint ya…
stevebee92653 said,
February 20, 2009 at 4:16 am
You asked if you should go first. I said go. The ball was in your court.
gentledude said,
April 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm
If the arms of T. rex should be longer, because evolution would select for improvements, then what about the creator? He must be a bad designer if he gives his creations substandard arms.
stevebee92653 said,
April 15, 2009 at 12:11 am
He?. Does “he” have male sexual organs? I have no idea who “he” is. Maybe you do? I see intelligence that has nothing to do with our perceptions of personage.
Phyerbyrd said,
May 22, 2010 at 12:48 am
Beside the point, why would an intelligent designer make a t-rex with arms that short ? You say because the t-rex having longer arms would be good they should have evolved that way, by the same token they should have also been designed that way.
DeadMonkeys said,
May 11, 2009 at 1:50 am
I’m confused where you get the idea that there’s no evidence of the evolution of the T-Rex arms. Throughout the Tyrannosaurid family, you’ll find all sorts of evidence that the arms had been getting progressively shorter and the there was generally a progression towards greater jaw power and overall size. And indeed, as powerful as they were, there is reason to think that they may well have been scavengers. Or at the very least, hunters which scavenged in the event of frequent failed attempts — much like many animals we think of as predators.
This obsession you have with “stopped” evolution is really driven by a simple misconception. The whole idea of natural selection is that nature provides the pressures for further development. It’s not a question of mutations happening or not happening, it’s a question of their significance and their value to the survival and likelihood of the animal’s reproduction. If a modification proves to be inconsequential, it won’t really make a difference and the chance that said mutation will make it through is no different with or without it. There’s not such a thing as “no mutations”, but rather “no mutations important enough to produce a measurable evolutionary advantage.” At that point, it actually does start to become a matter of chance whether a particular modified gene survives or not. There’s absolutely no puzzle here whatsoever, as you’re talking about a question that was long solved when Darwin first proposed his theory. Even Lamarckian evolution, which is well-known to be false accounted for the problem of lack of pressures to adapt, though he modeled it as an individual struggle rather than pressures due to environmental niches and conditions.
When we selectively breed animals and plants, we end up creating very very strong pressures, and that’s why the results happen much faster than in nature, which doesn’t often express rapid changes in selection parameters. If we end up with a resulting variety of plant or breed of animal which we’re happy with, we no longer provide pressures for change, though depending on the application, we create artificial niches that provide pressures for limiting further changes… though it’s artificial (and therefore not really “Darwinian” in the truest sense), it’s still technically evolution, and serves as a valid analogy.
stevebee92653 said,
May 17, 2009 at 7:58 am
So T Rex’s gave up grappling power for teeth and jaws? Sorry, I just don’t see it. Why not both? There is actually little or no change over 20 to 30 MY for those tiny arms. And if you see change. great. I don’t and I have to go with what I see, not what I want to see. Trilobites showed almost no change in 250 MY, thousands of times longer than it took man to evolve from earlier primates. So, your story just doesn’t pass the reality test. But if you think it does, great.
Phyerbyrd said,
May 22, 2010 at 12:51 am
Listen, if evolution is caused by adapting to your environment, and the environment doesn’t call for change, why would something evolve? The logical conclusion would be that it wouldn’t. This isn’t an excuse, it’s what’s expected.
guhma said,
May 23, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Hey steve, i agree with what ur saying about coelacanth, seahorses, trilobites etc. But i think T – rex didnt roam earth (according to scientists) for as long as you say. Could you please check up on that, maybe there is a similar dinosaur to t rex, that theyve put as a different species, but you deem it to be same as T-rex. Anyways pls check up on the number of years.
Thank you
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Good point, thanks for the heads up. The correction has been made. Thanx.
gene said,
June 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Keep hammering simple ,great questions steve ,mumbo jumbo answers from evolutionists
stevebee92653 said,
June 9, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Thanks gene. So nice to get a positive note.
Latimeria said,
June 15, 2009 at 6:13 am
I don’t know if you realized it, but Latimeria is the genus name of extant coelacanths. That is my name here and on RD’s website and you never directed your coelacanth diatribe at me. How intensely did you study coelacanths?
How is it IMPOSSIBLE in the theory of evolution that a species can retain a basic body design for millions of years? The fact is, we don’t know what changes occurred that are not preservable in the fossil record. Furthermore, did you quote-mine from THE QUOTE BELOW, and only choose to use the last sentence?
“The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record. This situation is still under investigation by scientists.”
(I found it on wikipedia in 5 seconds, but I at least read the previous sentence. Shameless, steve, just shameless.)
stevebee92653 said,
June 15, 2009 at 6:31 am
I’m glad you were able to name yourself after an extant fish. I just love how you evolutionauts spend all your time scolding and ranting. It’s so scientific! What fun. Go back to the doggie shows. And no I didn’t get the quote from wiki. But congratulations on your incredible speed and fabulous skills at assumption like your friends at rd.net. Try The Blind Watchmaker for one. But I’m sure Dawkins didn’t really mean what he said, as always.
Latimeria said,
June 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You are on leave from RD.net, but I responded there. Here is part of it:”
As I said, I found it on several other sites very quickly after that, but that’s not even the point. The point was not that it was taken from wiki, but that you omitted what led up to it because it was not supportive of your ideas. You did not deal with the explanation, but rather pretended on your website that there was no answer whatsoever that had even been proposed. A proper refutation would have said something about the habitat of the coelacanth or questioning how fossils are formed or SOMETHING other than selective blindness. Unless of course, there was a pro-evolution site that said only the last sentence and not the ones before it. If you found one, I guess you could loo…
“And, no, I am not going to look it up.”
Damn it! Your pre-emptive willful ignorance strikes again! Look things up about the theory you are trying to refute? Of course not, that would be a waste of time.
stevebee92653 said,
June 16, 2009 at 4:08 am
Re: Damn it! Your pre-emptive willful ignorance strikes again! Look things up about the theory you are trying to refute?
Simply astounding Lat. A perfect case of misintrepretation. Over and over and over. And you teach? I’m sure you took my comment back to rd.net and ragged on and on. How I won’t “look things up”. And your buddies made another mountain. Right? What fun. That bullshit is so tiring I don’t even want to look. I wasn’t going to “look it up” at your behest because it is ON WIKI, and all over the net in coelacanth papers. My point is if you want to, YOU look it up. I have been responding to dozens of rd.net members, while they have mainly me to respond to. Except for the overaddicted like cali. Communicating with you evolutionauts is, well, like not communicating at all. There is no communication possible. And if you did copy that over to rd.net, you better put this one on too.
Latimeria said,
June 15, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Steve said:
“I just love how you evolutionauts spend all your time scolding and ranting. It’s so scientific! ”
My response:
Scientists are bothered when people spread misinformation and lies about scientific theories. We would much prefer that if you are going to refute it that you maintain some intellectual honesty and not construct an internet empire of lies. The fact that you continue to uphold things that you know to be untrue is shameful.
Latimeria said,
June 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
One more thing I said on the RD.net site that you can’t respond to there:
“Oh were you wondering why I would take the time to visit your site and do that? Well, some educators like myself are tired of having to deconstruct misinformation, falsehoods, and misunderstandings gleaned from sources such as you when they walk into class. ”
Furthermore, it would be nice if you took down the video of Dawkins that is a well-known hoax.
stevebee92653 said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:14 am
Your problem Lat is that quote is preceded by a complete guess and fabrication, which is common fare for evolution. “The most likely reason for the gap…….” is total and unadulterated conjecture. If they haven’t found the fossils they need to explain coelacanth, evolutionauts make up what they would look like if they DID exist, and WERE found. The sentence stands on its own, and no context has been removed. . And you think that is good science? Are you kidding? What is shocking is your lack of scientific objectivity. You can’t look at that information, and see how absurd the statement is. You are indoctrinated, and your inability to look at the fantasy coelacanth fossils on a scientific basis shows it. You are angry with me, and not the ridiculous evo-alibi. Why?
To be objective, I put Dawkins explanation of his gaff on the page, and let the readers decide. I don’t know how I could be more fair. And we both know rd.net wouldn’t be that fair to me. No way.
You and your peer evolutionauts always talk about my misinformation without citing or discussing ANY. That is typical fare. So cite away. I am always open to changing information on my blog if someone can come up with any erroneous information. Which hasn’t happened, The only change so far has been the longevity of T. Rex, which isn’t much, but it was big in rd.net, of course. Any misspelling, or ANYTHING is made into a mountain there.
And give up the scold. Is that your favorite word? Shameful. You sure use it often. Try just “talking” sometime without all the scold bullshit. And, again, feel free to tell me where I am wrong. You teach this stuff? If evo is real science, you should be able to pwn me with ease. After all, I am JUST a dentist.
Latimeria said,
June 16, 2009 at 7:14 pm
To sum up, you have focused only on the harsh conclusions drawn by me (and others) about your site and your opinions while still not addressing any of the following points and questions I have brought up regarding why I am so harsh. I do not wish to be drawn into your rhetoric about indoctrination, as once it begins you have shown yourself time and time again not to be able to focus back on topic.
1) You mock a strawman Lamarckian evolutionary concept, not the real theory of evolution on page 19
2) How is it IMPOSSIBLE in the theory of evolution that a species can retain a basic body design for millions of years? What rule says that “macroevolution” will happen in all cases, all the time, everywhere?
3) The fact is, we don’t know what changes occurred that are not preservable in the fossil record. (This was referring to behavioral changes, coloring, soft tissue that is not preserved)
4)” It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. “ The quote above is part of what you ignored. Is this a complete guess and a fabrication? If we have since found more coelacanth fossils that refute this, please let me know.
5) What is the statute of limitations for humans reaching your various benchmarks for quality of camera design? How many years too late are we? The length of time it takes for technological improvements is inextricably linked to debunking evolution in several of your arguments thus far. I’m being serious
Believe me, there are more, but I’d like to you start somewhere. Anywhere. Here is your shot at “talking” which I tried many times to accomplish.
stevebee92653 said,
June 16, 2009 at 10:00 pm
1) Tongue in cheek dialogue. “Decided to go back…..” TONGUE IN CHEEK, Got it? It’ should be obvious to all with the exception of indoctrinated intense evolutionauts. Like you. Just read the article.
2) YOU need to tell me the rule. You are the believer. I think it’s mostly BS, so there are no “rules”. No species showed evolution over MOY’s.
3) If you don’t know, then don’t push what you don’t know as science. With this question you are admitting to pushing fantasy. But you are also indoctrinated, you can’t see it. Too bad.
4) What? I should let you know?
5) Humans haven’t come close to reaching and synthesizing the designs of nature, and we never will. A million years won’t do the job.
You don’t talk. You scold, just like all of your buddies. Know why? Because that is all you have. You have to go after me personally, because you can’t beat my stuff. I really feel sorry for you. You are indoctrinated, you have no skepticism, you have forfeited your ability to reason and question to people like cali and Dawkins. You NEVER question. You couldn’t say, “hey, maybe this is wrong”. Look at your stuff. Nothing. No questions. Accept EVERYTHING. Don’t you even wonder why you do that? Can’t you see that you do? I was in your position, so I know. I wanted it to be right so badly, and I accepted anything and everything. So, I know exactly where you are. So do some self analysis. Try and be objective, and LOOK AT YOUR OWN WRITING. Mine shows skepticism. Yours shows lock step, and you scold the hell out of anyone who doesn’t go along.
Latimeria said,
June 17, 2009 at 6:59 pm
1) It is a common misperception for people to think the theory of evolution actually suggests something like what you have on page 19. That misperception is undoubtedly reinforced when people who don’t know any better come across it. It may be tongue-in-cheek to you and to me who know that it is not what the theory of evolution suggests regarding the ancestry of whales, but many people will come across it on the internet and actually think it has merit as an argument.
2) To begin (there is more to say on the topic), have you ever heard of stabilizing selection? Outliers are selected against, and the norm is best at surviving and reproducing. If environmental conditions do not change with respect to the selection against the outliers and the fitness of those in the middle of the bell curve remains high, you would expect the retention of the same trait(s).
3) You are misconstruing this and falling into a logical fallacy. I pointed out that there are things we don’t know which goes against your necessary premise of coelacanths not changing over time. I am not presenting a lack of knowledge as science, but a gap. You have filled in the gap, not I.
4) Yes, you should if you wish to take something out of context. I am putting it back into context for you. If you are a serious scientist you should refute it based on its scientific merit. You are dodging the question.
5) The complexity of nature is impressive to put it mildly, but your analogy is irrelevant.
Cut the indoctrination canard, will you?
stevebee92653 said,
June 17, 2009 at 7:43 pm
You, an evolutionaut, and rd.net contributor, are going to come on my site and tell me what I can and can’t put on? When I have been blocked there? You have no shame. You are dreaming, which is a requirement for evolution. “Yes, you should……your analogy is irrelevant……You are misconstruing….” You must be kidding. Right? Your OPINION isn’t worth chihuahua terds here. Go back to your “peers”. With all of my stuff here, all you can rant about is a quote and coleacanth? Which is a huge evo-fail. You are a loser. You have lost. So has rd.net. They can’t beat me so they play the ad hom card. That doesn’t work so they ban me. What a joke. Why are you not embarrassed? Why are you so indoctrinated that you can’t even see it at all? Why don’t you EVER question the veracity of the bullshit you spew? That thought can’t even come close to entering your consciousness. You are brain locked and stuck. It’s no canard. It’s truth. You are brainwashed.
Latimeria said,
June 17, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Wow, it truly is pointless to try to communicate with you. You purport yourself as a scientist and avoid discussions of science at all cost on a website designed to question one of the most robust scientific theories out there.
I am skeptical. Of everything. It is my constant skepticism that continues to inform my worldview. I am highly skeptical of you, and you cannot accept that. You seem to only want me to be skeptical of the theory of evolution, which you have yet to demonstrate that you properly understand.
I could rant about plenty of things on your site, but I chose one of them simply because of my username and for no other reason except that I needed to decide where to start.
You are so completely deluded that logical discourse is lost on you. If you could, you would focus on how you are not misconstruing something, why your analogy is relevant, etc. You do not, so you should be embarrassed.
I think your ban is for trolling, because you repeatedly made posts that ranted and raved without discussing the issues at all. “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
They have beaten you. You just don’t have the wits to recognize it. You are like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that gets his appendages chopped off with a sword but insists that he still has arms.
I’m done with you.
stevebee92653 said,
June 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Good riddance. Another completely wasted comment by you. All you have is personal attacks on me. How boring. I have piles of those. You think you are going to get to me by doing that? All you do is make yourself look stupid, I know you can’t be, but that is what you show. Nothing but Indoctrination. And the sad thing is you indoctrinate the kids you teach. THAT is sad. You say you are skeptical. haha You are skeptical of anything that challenges what you have been indoctrinated in. You can’t question evolution. As I said, you are brain locked. Tell the zombies hello.
Rad said,
November 11, 2009 at 3:04 pm
lmao “tell the zombies hello” haha
Today at work some guy said we evolved etc, we are all just freaks of nature etc.
I responded by putting forth many different arguments, some of which are from your website. His answer to all of them, was “evolution, evolution, evolution”. Sounded just like an indoctrinated zombie, then he just made statements about me (i.e. what i believe etc) which weren’t even accurate, as if to make me look dumb. Anyways I’m compiling a document with arguments against evolution that I will give to him, he will probably just ignore it methinks. Anyways just wanted to let u know. Amazing how people just follow evolution like people in the past followed religions blindly. Will let u know how he responds to the arguments I will put forward.
gene said,
June 18, 2009 at 12:57 pm
When they can’t answer evos get very frustrated
Latimeria said,
June 22, 2009 at 9:11 pm
gene, the structure of your sentence is confusing. Are you saying there is something I didn’t answer?
gene said,
June 27, 2009 at 3:31 am
You are right, my sentence didn’t evolve….
just kidding ….
I’m new here and i see lots of personal attacks on blog owner instead of staying with the point
louisa (aaugoaa) said,
September 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm
lol Steve that “Ben” in the early comments sounds an idiot.
John G White said,
September 12, 2009 at 5:28 am
I like your stuff. It’s great. Have you looked at the time thingy at all. I read on your site the you are not a YEC. What about T-Rex blood proteins etc. I don’t believe in millions of years. I don’t believe that the layers of strata represent ages, rather they were deposited in years or days apart etc.
Andorinha said,
September 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I thought of your experience with “Sue” when I read this recent article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/17/tiny-t-rex-fossil?CMP=AFCYAH
stevebee92653 said,
September 18, 2009 at 3:44 am
Thanks. Very interesting article. Tiny arms tens of millions years before the big guy. That is a keeper.
stevebee92653 said,
September 18, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Check Page 2 again if you have a second. Thanks for the heads up!
MichaelBryant said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:35 am
MY THEORY OF NATURAL VARIATION can explain why the t rex. It says that even if there is advantage it has to be seen by natural selection. 1/2N=selection threshold (n is population size)is equation used see the minimum effect. Plus other variations in population can reduce selection pressure on one trait. More mutations happening in population means less pressure on each mutation. a trait is selectable in population with low mutation rate will be unselectable in population with a higher one. Plus certain type of phenotypes are have low heritability. It seems effect=pressure*advantage at least this is a guess. The main point the theory of natural variation as of 2009 says that nature selection has blind spot and certain things effect the size of the blind spot. any thing has to little effect will be in the blind spot and be unselectable. Note I still try figure out what role neutral mutation play but I think it minor. So the trait for longer arms was in natural selection blind spot.
jan said,
October 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“Even if there is advantage it has to be seen by natural selection”.
Michael, everybody knows that “the faster lion gets the prey and lives to screw another day”
And that particular example of selection fitness most certainly applies to the development of all of the process that we observe in living organisms today. Can’t you get that through your skull yet?
MichaelBryant said,
October 24, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“the faster lion gets the prey and lives to screw another day” yes that is natural selection and faster is the phenotype. now think about genotype. What change will help the lion run faster. bigger legs? big lungs?. these changes will have noticeable effect. How ever they my come with cost like have to eat more food. This will reduce the advantage that those traits have. soon the question rise why the lion is not running at speed greater than 100 mph because the prey will run faster to survived too. if push brick at force that not enough to over come static friction. The force is the trait’s advantage and static friction is the selection threshold. Anything that has advantage below natural selection threshold will not cause differential reproduction. But of course there are traits that have advantage that above the selection threshold like the mutations that help digest nylon.
jan said,
October 25, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Michael,
I was just being sarcastic above.
I think that too much weight is given to such a simplistic description. Gives the impression that an interplay between selection processes and the things necessarily “selected” for, from chemicals to living systems are empirically clearly understood and have been adequately demonstrated………based on some sort of idea of “survival of the fittest…….
jan said,
October 27, 2009 at 3:11 am
“What change will help the lion run faster. bigger legs? big lungs?. these changes will have noticeable effect. How ever they my come with cost like have to eat more food. This will reduce the advantage that those traits have.”
It could be something different that you think……”bigger” or whatever……maybe not something that requires more resources. but perhaps actually less…something having to do with physical leverage of limb components, or changes in metabolic processes etc.
It underscores my points,,, evolutionary “science” (really it is a philosophy) has insufficient empirical quantitative evidence to support it’s claims…….they just don’t know, and people like Dawkins and PZ Meyer are very disingenuous and perhaps even very dangerous………
jan said,
October 27, 2009 at 4:51 am
jan said in a prior post,
“and people like Dawkins and PZ Meyer are very disingenuous and perhaps even very dangerous………”
just a brief, arguable but (as much as anything) a valid observation regarding the the “evolution” of chemicals to organisms……
From what I can determine, the above evolutionists insist that humankind’s understanding of the concept of “God” must be a feature of the “evolutionary” processes….So somehow, the ability of the organism to conceptualize in that regard must have been, at some point in time, a “positive’ incremental contribution to survival of the species………So, why would that be any different now? (I suppose one could come up with a variety of reasons, atleast philosophically. But scientifically?) Why would they want to demonstrate differently? Are they mutationaly influenced deviants, that are infecting the population in a detrimental way that will bring the human race to extinction more rapidly that without that influence? I don’t don’t necessarily think so. But I do think that, human intellect allows freedom in many things, including interpretation of the ability of human intellect to comprehend and assert understandings of reality that may go well beyond the observable evidences required to support the assertions………… I am not sure what all of the potential answers to related questions to this statement are. But I believe these are questions worth asking…..Since these individuals insist on pushing their philosophical preferences in the name of “science” without demonstrating a significant body of “scientifically” demonstrated support for their assertions (even though i am sure they would insist that that is not the case)……… I would really like to invite these people on to this forum and discuss these issues….. but, I don’t think it will happen….I would imagine their schedules are filled with events that will continue to enhance their own material well being…. very similar to all those involved in the world financial grab bag……….
jan said,
November 11, 2009 at 3:46 am
Steve,
What do you think about what was said above?
jan said,
November 17, 2009 at 4:50 am
But I do think that, human intellect allows freedom in many things, including interpretation of the ability of human intellect to comprehend and assert understandings of reality that may go well beyond the observable evidences required to support the assertions…………
Please allow REFINE AND CLARIFY my above statement:
But I do think that, the state of “human intellect” is a feature unique in the “animal kingdom” that gives “humans” the abilities to imagine and assert and communicate, among many things, speculations regarding observations of “reality” that go well beyond the observable evidences required to support the demonstrable conclusions to a variety of things. Now are these abilities the work of progressions of mutation, “selection”, and/or somehow accomplished “gene expressions” in addition? I think many could agree THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE. BUT, many other well educated individuals would also conclude that, not enough is understood to be able to declare the required changes throughout chemical, phenotypical configuration requirements are sufficiently demonstrated by the accumulation of the studies put forth by “evolutionists” as necessary AND SUFFICIENT IN THOSE CLAIMES!!!!!!!!!