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 
jan said,
November 17, 2009 at 6:09 am
“Now are these abilities the work of progressions of mutation, “selection”, and/or somehow accomplished changes in “gene expressions” in addition?”
Of course, COUNTLESS changes are required. Human imagination capabilities can systemically combine with human expression and communication AND comprehension capabilities to promote (on practical human conciousness levels) ASSERTIONS that support the organisms preferred philosophical presuppositions REGARDLESS OF THEIR SUBSTANTIATED VALIDITY. (for example p meyers and r dawkins in their endless pursuit of whatever it is that is held so near and dear to the philosophical predispositions they espouse) have abilities they are absolutely unable to “scientifically support” to any significant degree the origination and development of the mechanics and overall realities of…. But continue to utilize these phenomena to promote the physiological well being of themselves. Where do their highly publicized ill-substantiated propositions leave the rest of the population of the world? Many humans throughout the world, are subjected to the results of the actions of individuals in a position of power torture and kill them. Obviously, there are not restraints of those in power to do what-ever they please. (look at many African nations etc.) Including torturing and killing who ever they please. Perhaps there is a “religion” if allowed to be followed, would help to mitigate the philosophical predispositions of people “in power” to torture and kill the needy they have under their control.
Support for the elimination of restraints of torture and murder (aside from, gee, I really don’t like this!)…..because, if all we are, (and perhaps this is the truth, but perhaps not) are the consequences of what is claimed, then WHY NOT IF YOU CAN? Dawkins, I hope you continue to get HUGE SATISFACTION OUT OF MOUTHING OUT YOUR PHILOSOPHY AND THE MONEY YOU GET!!!!!!!
Radhacharan Das said,
November 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm
kenneth miller is a devout catholic christian and an evolutionist? wow! that sure is interesting
jan said,
December 4, 2009 at 6:19 am
Steve? are you there? Why aren’t you responding my friend?
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2009 at 8:37 am
I am being a conscious observer. You can have ADparker. He is super-brainwashed. Beyond hope.
Matthew said,
January 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Steve, Ive read your article and maybe 2 thirds of the comments on this page. I respect your questioning nature but you are really approaching everything with such a human mindset.
You keep asking RIDICULOUS questions like “Why shouldnt the T-rex evolve bigger arms?”. Thats about as relevant as me asking “If there is an intelligent creator, why should he create a laryngeal nerve that loops back over a huge distance in a giraffe? Why should he create a vas-deferens that takes a stupidly long route? Why should he create birds without wings? Why are there cave-dwelling animals that are blind but still have eyes? Why is earth full of animals with useless parts?”
Surely anyone with basic reasoning ability could see how pointless these questions are. Evolution states plainly that no intelligence guides the process. Suboptimal systems evolve (and we see them everywhere) and no intelligent force decides to correct them. In fact, if the population survives, despite its defects, the defects often persist, because the evolutionary cost/risk is too great compared to the immediate benefits of changing the systems.
The main reasons things do change drastically is when populations are exposed to NEW environments that drive natural selection. Its also quite easy to understand when something (like T-rex) gets to the TOP of the food chain, the effects of natural selection get weakened greatly unless the environment changes extensively. T-rex had little evolutionary incentive for natural selection to drive forwards the process of lengthening its arms, since the arms were so small and any change from one generation to the next would be so insignificant it would render no specific advantage to that generation hence would NOT be selected for. Even species NOT at the top of the food chain, if their habitat stays relatively stable, arent always going to be affected by natural selection at the same rate.
Anyway, evolution does not, and never did, DEMAND that populations MUST change at a specific rate. I have the common sense to admit that the countless sub-optimal systems in nature SEEM to indicate AGAINST a super-intelligent designer, but importantly these issues dont DISPROVE the idea of a super-intelligent designer. You should have the common sense to accept that static genomes over long periods of time do NOT, and never will, disprove evolution, and really they dont even present a problem at all as far as Im concerned.
On a side note, you seem to be ignoring a LOT of good responses to your rather poor arguments by focusing on attacking the people posting, or labelling science as brainwashing, as well as blowing smoke up your own ass. That seems pretty counterproductive to me.
And just out of curiosity, do you have an alternative idea? Im not saying that you are wrong unless you have a better option, thats stupid, but Im just wondering if you do think there is a better explanation…
stevebee92653 said,
January 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm
You focus too easily. I asked why the arms didn’t evolve in the context of why didn’t ANYTHING evolve. We humans supposedly evolved enlarged craniums, intelligence, human skin, constant growing hair, feet rather than opposed toes for grabbing, consciousness, in a few hundred thousand years. Why didn’t SOMETHING evolve on T. Rex in 3 MY? The arms are only an example that caught my attention. Why didn’t SOMETHING evolve on trilobites in 250 million years. Or SOMETHING on coelacanth in 410MY. Legs. SOMETHING. You are over interpreting. The arms did catch my attention first, but if you are right, something should show up on something. Nothing does, sad to say for you and your belief. So you will keep on ignoring and pretend things did, and keep believing. Just like I did.
stevebee92653 said,
January 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm
RE: Anyway, evolution does not, and never did, DEMAND that populations MUST change at a specific rate. AND your static genomes.
This is your excuse for the fossil records not showing ANY changes that prove evolution.
I don’t attack unless I have been. And I do it with manners. You think the pro-ev comments are “good” because they follow your belief system. I go over every one and respond to most. Most repeat dogma, just like yours. You accept no evolutionary change and make excuses for it. I did as well, but got tired of it. And took a good look at what I was saying and believed for many years. I argued for ev just like you are doing.
My idea? (1) Evolution is bullshit that many believe. A huge experiment in group psychology. Of which you are a cog.
(2) I have no idea about the formation of nature, except for the fact that intelligence is necessary for bio-systems to be invented, designed, assembled, and improved. Darwin was wrong, and as long as science doesn’t recognize that fact, we will never know.
And that in a nutshell is my total stance. And why I am here doing what I do.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
July 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm
isn’t THAT the truth. I went over and saw the treatment you were given at RD.net and whooa It is the single most blatant example of what can happen when science is over taken by its own bias or more specific, its fears of religion. That seems to be what is at the heart of what is the matter with all of them.
I know you are not a religion guy and all that but I do find God easier to believe in than all that crap was told “happened” millions of years ago.
They were licking their chops in anticipation of you going there and pulling out the big names they think are there big guns for debate and what I saw is one man, come in there and one by one, piece by piece, item for item, you dismantled more years of the so called mountain of evidence for evolution and exposed it as nothing more than a landfill of pure GARBAGE one would have to be as desperate as a dumpster diver to believe that crap anymore.
Even the things they say creationists do all the time, is even stuff they made up. I had googled the phrase “God did it” and for the life of me, I couldn’t find all these creationists that allegedly use that in any way to explain anything about origins. What I saw is hundreds of religion hating websites that say creationists say it all the time. Like most of the beliefs they have that they borrow from each other, when enough of them all say it, they all believe it so it must be true.
That is how the peer review process has become a joke and how scientists have garnered all the prestige of slick talking used car salesmen anymore.
It would take years and a whole lot more of people like yourself to knock down the army of atheists that think they are protecting science.
In the mean time, evolutionoid’s continue to be everything they have warned us about that creationists would do if they ever got a foot in the science dept.
They have held science back so much they are so stupid they are dangerous.
If I ever run into Dick Dawkins or Crissy Hitchens, I’ll make a lasting impression on their thick skulls and if they are still conscious enough to hear me, I am going to do it in “atheism’s name” just to prove a point in one of the many items up for debate they don’t seem to understand.
The reason you getting banned from RD was obvious to many there.
You were a logical thinking individual who re-gained the capacity to see things as they are and not how they “might be” or “could be”. It isn’t that their aren’t people like that over there now, but their isn’t many there that know how to frame arguments in such a way that makes your opposing interlocutors appear so stupid and woefully immature.
I hope you are writing a book Mr. Stevebee, I can tell you right now, they are very worried about that over there and your name is being tossed around at the highest levels of science as someone they need to nip in the bud before he becomes a real problem.
The fact they hate you so, should tell you, you’re on the right track.
They know such a book would be a run away best seller and I know you would destroy much of the landfill of evidence, exposing the true stench underneath as the putrid smelling pile of pathetic piltdown paleontology practices, manufactured evidence and faux fossilized fraud which is at the foundation of this theory.
It is also, unfortunately, its legacy to live down.
What a hoax and what a shame it continues to be supported as a legitimate component to science using my tax dollars to pay for the continuing process of “stupidification” of our young people today.
Let me know if you are writing that book
I want an autographed copy if I may
stevebee92653 said,
July 1, 2010 at 8:51 pm
The book idea has crossed my mind. I think I could write a good one. Thanks for planting the seed. I wish I had more of you. My goal when I started this was to get just a couple of evo-indoctrinates to actually think. The amazing thing is they are so brain locked, it just about seems like an impossible task. I was blocked for a week at RD because I called one of the users a fool. That’s it. The words they used to describe me were unbelievable. They invited me over “c’mon stevie, we won’t bite” thinking they would eat me up. Instead they got their clocks cleaned, so they reverted to personal attacks. What a laugh. Doesn’t bother me in the least. Water off my back. But they thought they were so smart. Groupthink does strange things to people. I finally left after a month of their ranting about my name and my patents. They said I was a liar about my patents. Then half of them found them on the net, the other half didn’t know they WERE found and kept up the rant. What a laugh again. I got tired of trying to talk to them. Anyway, again THANKS for the great note!
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
July 1, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Steve, write the book. You may recall in the story of Jesus of Nazareth, he had beguiling answers to some of the most clever logic traps they could tick him into appearing as a fool. All his life it was like that. Until he was asked to jump through some hoops like some circus pet but Jesus didn’t chop chop for those who had the authority to set him free without punishment.
You notice he doesn’t say much after his arrest.
Jesus Christ never argued with idiots.
Nor should you.
You are going to have to have faith in something that can’t be proven.
until you write the book, just as you are, the same as your mind thinks, explained in the same way, the same manner you have here. Write the book.
I have a boat load of emails full of reprisals from people suggesting I not tell you what it is they already know. Publishers have been to this place like a scout looks for talent in baseball, they hear things, visit people, read some of the things talented writers have created, etc,. All you will accomplish here is more of the same and read by those who refuse it and not those who can benefit from it.
You may not be a Christian and I couldn’t care less but I happen to know you would have instant success from an audience just dying to meet you.
Your humility is refreshing and funny. I don’t mean that in dis-respect, it’s just funny because, you don’t even know who you are yet.
When you’ve argued with one Darwit you have argued with them all and you know every trick in the book and catch them in the act every time. You’re going to rock the boat Steve. I have seen thousands of writers that are skeptical of evolution but you got something most don’t have and you’re damn good at it.
You write the book making an argument to challenge Dover VS Kitzmiller and I think the your common sense approach to this issue will get you further than this blog.
It just might get you to the SCOTUS.
You write a “how to” for those who need to re-gain the ability to think, it will make you famous among those with concerns about what is happening in the Dept of Education and why no child left behind is why all children are not left behind.
They are abandoned
Do you know their is an agenda in progress as I speak that is having children asking to be taught how to think? Yeah seriously, this is what our taxes have resulted in. Of course they are asking for money and of course it’s for “the children” and of course Darwits will dumb them down even more and of course they will blame it on Christianity when the SHTF
I have showed this site to some friends who have back rounds in such areas and they all agree..
write the book.
It will be one of the smartest choices you have made and one of the most influential books on this subject from this perspective to come out.
Talk about it with your wife, it is why she married you and why it will out sell Dicks book of delusions and bad behavior in biology. (no body liked that guy at Oxford)
Turn the ignorance and hatred of people like those you met at RD.net, into profit. Hell Steve, it isn’t like you aren’t going to write all this stuff anyway.
So why not write it where it counts?
write it,, you’ll see.
stevebee92653 said,
July 2, 2010 at 12:53 am
Ya know what’s funny? I sent your comment to my wife. She read it and said “You gotta write a book”. She actually wants me too as well. I think I have a pretty good “pre-book” with this blog. Publishers want a 25 page mini-version to see if they are interested. This subject sure deserves one. Dickie’s book on “Selfish Gene” was one of the worst books ever written. BORING! And his book “The Blind Watchmaker” (reviewed on this blog) is the best book I have ever read supporting Intelligence. Dick did a great job for intel, only he is too dim to realize it. Anyway, right now my wife is in the other room saying “Why waste all that time on those evos?” “You gotta write a book!” haha Well, I will spin it. Thanks for the great support. I think I could write a really good one, and my point of attack is really far different than all the others I have read.
BlakeRedfield said,
January 20, 2010 at 10:24 pm
(1) Evolution is bullshit that many believe. A huge experiment in group psychology. Of which you are a cog.
You are quite wrong on this, evolutionary theory is not really an experiment in group psychology, it is an unifying theoretical framework explaining the function and development of biological organisms.
I do not “believe” in evolution, I Understand the concepts and evidence that points to applicable science. There are many loose ends in evolutionary theory, this does not say that evolution is completely invalid, it is just not formed completely.
(2) I have no idea about the formation of nature, “except for the fact that intelligence is necessary for bio-systems to be invented, designed, assembled, and improved.” Darwin was wrong, and as long as science doesn’t recognize that fact, we will never know.
Here is your problem in a nutshell. You are a dentist, you do not have the proper background to speculate properly in Evolutionary Biology, your statements do not contain proof of your hypothetical frame work, your ability to experiment is limited by the equipment you use (philosophical statements are not a replacement for experimentation).
The reason you have no idea about the formation of nature EXCEPT that there has to be some kind of intelligent agent involved leads to the assumptions that you are not even attempting to analyze the data before you. This seems to state that you have no idea how nature can arrive at its current status, not interested in any theory or proccess that could be opposing to you point of view and are unwilling to explore the framework of the theory to the full extent.
Darwin was wrong, and as long as science doesn’t recognize that fact, we will never know.
Yes, Darwin was wrong, or to put it more accurately, he was incorrect based on facts that had not yet surfaced in his time. As a product of the early 19th century, with limited technology, limited understanding of biological processes on the microscopic level and limited on material information. He theorizing, however, is quite valid, that things change as a result of environmental variables, seems after careful consideration, thought, analysis, interpretation, and historical facts, to be dead on.
I am not trying to disparage you, but you are are looking at things through the lenses of disinformation, invalid arguments, outdated material and outright deception.
When I teach a child that the pet mouse they have is the product of countless eons of modification, I am not indoctrinating them into a “belief system” or world view. I am teaching them to understand the variability of nature, and that things like mice do change over time given the environmental pressures. It also teaches them to question, experiment and draw conclusions. ( I fail students who just spout statements without showing either experimentation or self reasoning)
I have extensively experimented with biological evolution, and have successfully initiated a speciation event, have you?
The reason T-rex’s arms have shown little development over millions of years is because the environment and habit did not necessitate a change to the arms. Unfortunately we also only have about 17 total complete arm sets of the t rex, this is very little information to come to a proper conclusion, and we will never really know the extent of the modifications developed during the totality of the t rex’s existence on earth.
stevebee92653 said,
January 21, 2010 at 12:34 am
Re: Loose ends?: No. Impossibilities that take evo out of the game completely. Impossibilities that are ignored by the believers. Like you. And you will continue ignoring. just like I did.
Re: Here is your problem in a nutshell (3): There is no experiment that you could run that would prove that natural selection invented and assembled heart/lung systems, complex visual systems, intelligence, consciousness. I don’t care how much education, equipment, or money you have. And if you think I am wrong here, you are a dreamer.
Re: The reason you have no idea….(4) I WAS an evolutionaut for many years. You, I, and no man who ever lived on the face of the earth knows the answer. It’s laughable that you think you have it. And all evo-believers. The notion that something as simplistic as natural selection et al did it is a joke being played on science. And science and you fell for it.
Re: Darwin was wrong(5): Of course I mean Darwin and all the other new stuff. It should be obvious, and unnecessary for me to add that in every time I mention “Darwin”. And just like pushing a button, you fill in with your wasted paragraph of explanation. My gawd.
Re: I am not trying to disparage(6):….of course you are. You think putting down my education and experience will prove you right. You are way off. I had a great education, and followed with a lot of current study. So don’t waste your time with this most typical evo-argument. It just makes you look bad.
Re: When I teach a child….. (7) You are teaching them YOUR indoctrination. YOUR belief, just like any Sunday school teacher. You are the indoctrinator, and that is sad. You don’t teach them how to think and be open minded. You teach them your belief. And how to close their minds on that, just like you have.
Re:your new species (8) Sorry I don’ believe you have formed a new species. I have dissected a human body. Have you? And when I looked inside, I saw design. Tubes, pumps, filters, ball and socket joints, digital cameras…….
Re; (9) Please don’t tell me why T. rex didn’t evolve arms. You can’t be so naive that you think you know. Can you?
wolfgang said,
May 28, 2013 at 8:36 pm
“”When I teach a child that the pet mouse they have is the product of countless eons of modification, I am not indoctrinating them into a “belief system” or world view””
Yes you do. Darwin killed God, he emptied the church in the western world. The reason muslims do not leave their mosques is they do not belive in Darwi.
Now I am not a christian but stating you ‘re not giving this child a world view or a belief system is preposterous. There are many people believing freemasonry sponsored darwinism. I am not saying that they did, but freemasonry and the catholic church are like fire and ice.
Freemasonry heavily supported darwinism and thus helped emtying the church (once again, I don’t care, although some respect for a creator, a designer is much better im-humble-o. than we are god, we came out of rock and then lightning struck and now we are on top of the life chain, we are gods who understand all.
“The reason T-rex’s arms have shown little development over millions of years is because the environment and habit did not necessitate “change to the arms. ”
So do we have to understand that the environment and habit changed to make his little precursor 25 times bigger? What environment was that, that T Rex became just inflated 2500% except it’s arms?
The point you evonauts never get is that according to your own theory we need millions of random mutations all the time in every organism to come one single still hypothetic worthwile one . That is your system. Period. And even if there is no climate change, as that is just the selector. So where are the small changes that did not make it?
Where are all the in between sizes of T Rex?
And if the small changes were just that, minor and not beneficial and thus erased by selection, how did the big change occur?
Matthew said,
January 21, 2010 at 1:51 am
Well steve, it really does seem pointless to continue talking to you. Its as if once, your mind was molten like lava, able to move in completely new directions and entertain new ideas… it was in this state that you decided evolution was impossible, and i respect that. However, for some reason, after that, your mind cooled and solidified and is now as inflexible and impervious to modification as an enormous rock.
You pick on those who think evolution is currently the best scientific model to describe what we observe in the natural world, in dna, in fossils, in comparative anatamoy, in embryology, and so many other fields (that you no doubt have decided are all completely false). You accuse them of spouting dogma, yet you mindlessly prattle off the same questions and ‘issues’ despite several people giving you very reasonable answers. You repeatedly state garbage like “The fossil record never shows any change” yet there are many fossils we have found that show body parts in the process of modification. Of course you would totally discredit all of these fossils because your mind is made up and no information or logic seems to be able to penetrate the rock you now carry around in your head.
So all this nonsense is really completely irrelevant and pointless. Youre raising an issue that doesnt even exist. And making wild claims like “its IMPOSSIBLE for a lung to evolve” when you have no idea, you have no business talking in absolutes like that, it just makes you look stupid.
Enjoy carrying that rock around, I hope it heats again sometime 😉
stevebee92653 said,
January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am
Thanks for trying. Look at all you have written. Funny that none of your writing addresses any points I make in this blog. Because either you didn’t read them, or you couldn’t respond. Probably both. Well, that is typical. Either way you fail at your attempt to show me where I am wrong. You say I am, but you have no specifics. Welcome to the wonderful world of evolution. I have had phd bios look and fail. And all of richarddawkinsl.net and PZ’s group and…..and none have addressed any of the points I make. So don’t feel bad. You are exactly tied with them. Here I am, a complete sitting target for any evolutionaut. And nothing. No takers. So the beat goes on, and the beat goes on…….. Same fluff. Bye, and have a nice life. I will see “you” again and again. “Natural selection diddit.” Amen
Charlie said,
November 19, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I came to your site because I was wondering how the appearance of evolution can become such a convincing illusion. I had actually thought that evolution had more scientific completeness than it does, and was giving it more credit than it was due. So I thought that the illusion of evolution would be convincing in its own right- but that it could be proven that such an illusion could come into being even when examining scenarios in which the cross-species evolution was indeed impossible. An illusion driven by the human ability to draw up patterns around missing information that don’t always reflect reality.
I am seeing now that it isn’t even that solid in the first place. That the illusion is not even that convincing when one takes an honest look at the evidence. That is indeed what has attracted me at your site. Your arguments are consistently logical (for the most part- I’ll bring those up some other time), and fair. The ‘experts’ that I keep expecting to see arrive to address some of your/my confusions and questions are absent. Instead, shells arrive that sound good at first but then quickly begin repeating tired arguments and mantras loaded with logical fallacies.
For example, one doesn’t need to be a scientist to see that his use of a microscope doesn’t prove an assertion that the microscope wasn’t designed. (It wasn’t designed quite obviously, because no one can identify who was the designer of the designer. {sarcasm intended})
Of course, I should state that myself, I am a Christian. I came to Christ this year after symbolically accepting his ideal teachings but denying his deity for most of my life. Many separate examinations and experiences over the past few years have led me to the evidence that he can logically and rationally exist. That is a thicket that my specific path required me to cross. But ultimately I am a firm believer that we as humans can never achieve this belief on our own. And that faith in salvation itself is a reward that we receive on God’s timing- and one that we may never realize until we submit to Him completely. That is how the real relationship in Christ begins.
I’ll hold out hope for you, but must admit that your denial of Christ and all things religious at this time is useful toward dealing with the religion of evolution. The reason being that they ‘evolutionauts (?)’ hide behind science and the perception of intellect by casting superstitious stones at ‘unintellectual’ religion. They can’t seem to do that with you. It’s a very interesting situation.
Anyhow, thank you for combating science with science and logic with logic. I’ll be reading avidly.
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Thanks for the note. We all have to find answers in our own way. You have found yours, and whether it’s correct or not is not an issue. It makes you content in some way so it’s good for you and you will keep it. I grew up with that belief, and it didn’t work for me, so I moved on. Personal religious/philosophical thinking is so independent and in the “eye of the beholder” category as it should be. There is no reason you cannot be a Christian, and still look for answers to our origins on a purely scientific and objective vein.
We need to completely separate science and religious belief to have any real shot at figuring out our origins. Philosophically I think the golden rule is king and it seems to have a good answer for practically every situation one can run into.
Charlie said,
November 19, 2010 at 4:01 pm
(Write your book. It sounds like the right path for you to take.)
Matthew said,
January 21, 2010 at 4:44 am
I have addressed some of the issues you raised, several other people here have also addressed lots of the issues. And of course, phd bios, people on richarddawkins and pz’s group, etc, have ALL spent much time collecting and collating mountains of information, but you instead choose to stick your fingers in your ears and go ‘na-na-na-na im not listening, you cant answer my objections, na-na-na-na-na’.
In short, youre a dunce, an insignificant intellectual blip who thinks you can debunk anything by offering halfbaked objections and then ignoring any corrections. No-one in the REAL scientific community will take you seriously, and its no wonder cause youre really not worth the time. Science will progress and move forward, and you will continue to straggle in its wake, confused, ignorant, and irrelevant, the boulder in your brain impervious to change. You have a nice life too.
gene said,
January 24, 2010 at 1:17 am
youre a dunce, an insignificant intellectual blip blah blah blah
Here we go again…
Steve you da man for taking all this crap
stevebee92653 said,
January 24, 2010 at 7:02 am
And again and again. Same stuff. Thanks.
Al Barrs said,
May 14, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Author;
Regarding your statement about the “arms” of T-Rex and a much smaller likeness, I too agree with your proposition that no change or “evolution” took place over those some 60 million years. That prompted me to ask, why not today’s primates and humans?
Let me explain. If chimps and modern humans branched off the same tree some 6 million years ago and modern humans evolved into what we are today, why didn’t the chimp species evolve too. They are essentially the same today as they were 6 million years ago…and not one had manufactured a tool.
I think the “origin of species” is overdue for a review and revision…
Al Barrs
albarrs@wfeca.net
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Chimps didn’t NEED to evolve. That is always the answer. T. Rex didn’t NEED bigger arms. Yours is an excellent point. Anything pro or anti ev is converted into pro evolution. An amazing science. Thanks for the comment.
Al Barrs said,
June 11, 2010 at 10:15 am
I think the author made his point. Why else would so many attack him so viciously rather than give their proof for evolution? I don’t know the answer, but I have often wondered, as I researched my ancestry after having my DNA tested, why modern humans are who and what we are today among the animal kingdom. Evolutionist scientists say humans branched off from Chimpanzees some six million or so years ago. That would imply that Chimps and humans were identical six million or so years ago. If that is the case why are Chimps still Chimps and we are far advanced modern humans. Why don’t Chimps have homes, cars, ships, airplanes and agriculture? Why are Chimps still chimps and humans are masters and caretakers of the earth??? Why?
stevebee92653 said,
June 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Great to see the question “WHY”. Never asked by evolutionauts. I answered your other comment first. This one says the same as my last answer. Good comment!
Arctic said,
June 11, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“You are years behind. The “gill slits” are developmental and not fish gill copies.”
You’re right, I screwed up the name. They’re called Pharyngeal pouches but they’re still morphologically identical to the gill slits found on modern fish embryos and their divergence from one land vertebrate to the next has been doubly confirmed by what’s been found in the fossil record.
“Anything that looks like anything else in evolution is proof.”
You obviously have no idea how taxonomy works and this video lays it all out for you.
Sorry, but no amount of covering your ears and screaming “LALALALALA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA” will change that.
It’s by looking at the similarities between different species that we determine how they’re related. Creationists try to tell people to look at the differences in order to counter this field of biology while trying to denounce human prejudice. It’s hypocrisy at its worst for creationists.
“That’s how hard up this science is for something….ANYTHING to prove itself.”
EVERYTHING is proof in and of itself, from changes in past environments and the way the plants and animals adapted to those changes, all the way up to us humans and the negative impact we’re having on this planet.
Your understanding of biology is clearly at the sub-layman level so you’re probably better off not trying to denounce evolution.
stevebee92653 said,
June 11, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Oh, give up the sermon. I don’t believe the bullshit that you do, therefore I don’t understand biology? I love yours and your peers holier-than-thou take on everything. Evolution breeds false superiority complexes. And you have one. What a laugh. And fetal “slits” look like fish gills, therefore we used to be fish? What a huge leap. So why aren’t the trillions of fish today forming legs and coming on land like their forefathers did? Not any? Not one? Why did that scenario stop dead? Don’t they find the need to get away from those pesky sharks? Why don’t you, my self proclaimed intellectual superior, wonder? I do. And did. Which is why I am here. And you are there. You lost your skepticism. You don’t ever wonder. You just believe. That is what evolution does to a person. And it did it to you. And it did it to me, but I escaped. You can’t.
Anarctic said,
June 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“Oh, give up the sermon. I don’t believe the bullshit that you do, therefore I don’t understand biology? I love yours and your peers holier-than-thou take on everything. Evolution breeds false superiority complexes.”
This is akin to the common theistic misconception that atheists are more arrogant then they are. This claim is false for many reasons. Atheists don’t wear super-fancy holy garb and treat their professors as infallible. There are many atheists that don’t agree with Richard Dawkins or treat him with the same regard as Catholics do with their pope.
Arrogance is defined as an inflated opinion of one’s own self-worth or importance. Monotheistic religions teach that we were made in some incorporeal super-being’s image, that everything on this planet was put here just for us, that we’re the super-being’s chosen people, that we’re special. These attitudes are the very pinnacle of arrogance.
The harsh reality is that everything we know about this planet simply does not support that superiority idealism. Over 98% of everything that’s ever lived on this planet is extinct and now serves as fodder for the fossil record. We humans can’t breath underwater because we made the complete transition to land over 300 million years ago. Over 99.9999999999% of the universe in uninhabitable because we can’t survive intense radiation or the vacuum of space.
If your idea of arrogance is anyone shooting down your arguments with ease and in a tone that you don’t like then that’s your personal problem and not theirs.
“And you have one. What a laugh. And fetal “slits” look like fish gills, therefore we used to be fish? What a huge leap. So why aren’t the trillions of fish today forming legs and coming on land like their forefathers did? Not any? Not one? Why did that scenario stop dead? Don’t they find the need to get away from those pesky sharks?”
To summarize, you basically asking why there are still fully aquatic fish if all modern land vertebrates originated from them in the late Devonian. A better question would be to ask that if most Americans originated from Europe, why are there still Europeans. You still believe that evolution is a one-way path for all life and not even Darwin himself endorsed that idea.
Evolution is all about branching out and going in all kinds of different directions depending on what the environment demands of the organism. Fish developed tetra-pod limbs because it was a survival strategy that worked and enabled them to reproduce and exploit the new world that waited for them on land. Fish that remained in the water simply devised other means of survival such as reproducing in larger numbers, developing more efficient bodies for better swimming, or gathering in large schools that had a better chance against a single shark or a small pack.
Before Tiktaalik, you had other lobe-finned fish like Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Even if they couldn’t walk on land just yet, powerful lobe-fins were quite useful for navigating through shallow water.
The lobe-finned fish we have today don’t need to set foot on land because there’s no environmental pressure for them to do so. In the Cretaceous period coelacanths started moving to deep ocean waters where fossilization rarely occurs which explains their lack of fossils in the strata since then. Just because a creature population can evolve doesn’t mean that it has to.
“Why don’t you, my self proclaimed intellectual superior, wonder? I do. And did. Which is why I am here. And you are there. You lost your skepticism. You don’t ever wonder. You just believe.”
Evolution has survived the gauntlet of intense scientific scrutiny for 150 years now, rendering your assertion that we’re all brainwashed as utterly meaningless drivel.
“That is what evolution does to a person. And it did it to you. And it did it to me, but I escaped. You can’t.”
You were never really an expert on anything biological to begin with so playing the (escaped reformed cultist) card is not going to earn you any sympathy from people who see right through it.
stevebee92653 said,
June 12, 2010 at 1:17 am
Re: “This is akin to…” Perfect example of your superiority complex. You are going to teach me about religion? If you spent a few minutes reading page 1 or 2 you would know that I am not religious. Waste of time and space. What would make you think I don’t already have that information? Pretty naive.
Re: “Shooting down my arguments” You haven’t scratched the surface. I have hundreds on this blog and you failed at fish gills. You are gullible. Someone told you the fish gill story and you swallowed it like bait on a hook. No skepticism. You believed.
Re: Americans and Europeans: Surely you jest. Horrible comparison. Evidence that you have fully swallowed the bait. My gawd. Defend no matter how bad you look. Right? And of course you changed my question to one you think you can answer. “Why is there fully aquatic fish today” wasn’t the question.
Re:”Fish developed tetra-pod limbs because…..” No fossil record of those growing legs. Tiktaalik is a sucker deal showing how you truly have forfeited your skepticism. That is why evolution thrives. The back half of Tiktaalik wasn’t found. Didn’t you know that? So even mentioning it in a discussion on quads is foolish.
Re: your fish discussion: This is called an excuse for why there is no fisholution today. You fell for it again. Someone told you the excuse to use, and here you are. Or did you make up the excuse? Either way it’s a horrible one.
Re: sympathy. What in the hell would make you think I want sympathy? I want to find an intelligent evolutionaut who can think on his/her own. Independent of the indoctrination they have suffered. I haven’t found one yet. It sure isn’t you. You believe the whole enchalada. Why? Why would you believe such a preposterous tale? Why did I? That is embarrassing for me. It should be for you.
Dolza said,
June 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“Re: “This is akin to…” Perfect example of your superiority complex. You are going to teach me about religion? If you spent a few minutes reading page 1 or 2 you would know that I am not religious. Waste of time and space. What would make you think I don’t already have that information? Pretty naive.”
All you have are baseless denialist claims and creationist talking points and since pretty much all anti-evolution arguments are religiously driven, it’s safe to assume that yours are too. Either that or you have some kind of mental condition that forces you to call people names and push your ideas on everyone. You can call us naive or whatever you want but it won’t prove anything on your part.
“Re: “Shooting down my arguments” You haven’t scratched the surface. I have hundreds on this blog and you failed at fish gills. You are gullible. Someone told you the fish gill story and you swallowed it like bait on a hook. No skepticism. You believed.”
You need to focus on the science behind embryology BEFORE saying that someone missed the mark on it.
“Re: Americans and Europeans: Surely you jest. Horrible comparison. Evidence that you have fully swallowed the bait. My gawd. Defend no matter how bad you look. Right? And of course you changed my question to one you think you can answer. “Why is there fully aquatic fish today” wasn’t the question.”
Stay on topic here Stevie. Anarctic gave you an explanation that’s scientifically acceptable and all you’re doing is resorting to more petty name-calling. If accusing people of being “indoctrinated” or brain-washed is all you’ve got for a defense, then it’s proof positive that you’ve got absolutely no evidence to support your side and therefor have NO grounds for demanding that everyone agrees with you.
“Re:”Fish developed tetra-pod limbs because…..” No fossil record of those growing legs. Tiktaalik is a sucker deal showing how you truly have forfeited your skepticism. That is why evolution thrives. The back half of Tiktaalik wasn’t found. Didn’t you know that? So even mentioning it in a discussion on quads is foolish.”
Tiktaalik also possessed tetrapod limb and wrist joints, a movable neck that’s only found on terrestrial vertebrates, tetrapoidal ribcage and lungs for respiration. They don’t consider it a transitional just for the front limbs alone and now you know why.
It also wouldn’t be the last transitional. Go ahead about 5-10 million years and you have Acanthostega which was still technically a fish due to gills, lack of ribcage, and poor land adaptations, but still has the four early limbs that you demanded.
Shortly after Acantostega, we have the closely related Ichthyostega which possesses all the features needed to help in the transition from sea to land such as a fully enclosed ribcage for protecting the heart and lungs, legs and skeletal features better suited for load-bearing.
The switch from sea to land also required changes in the way these creatures reproduced and the development of the amnion in one of the Anthacosaurian sub-sets made this transition possible and as a result, all modern land vertebrates including reptiles, birds, and mammals are part of the amniote taxa.
“Re: your fish discussion: This is called an excuse for why there is no fisholution today. You fell for it again. Someone told you the excuse to use, and here you are. Or did you make up the excuse? Either way it’s a horrible one.”
“fisholution” is not a real word, and going on another brain-washing rant still won’t give your argument any objective weight.
“Re: sympathy. What in the hell would make you think I want sympathy? I want to find an intelligent evolutionaut who can think on his/her own. Independent of the indoctrination they have suffered.”
The evidence we have for evolution is all acquired by many institutions that all operate independently from each-other. Scientific findings are proven through rigorous testing and observation, not built on popular demand or opinion. Do you think we actually WANT to believe that we’re the descendants of fish? Of course not, and why would we? These factors remain whether we want to believe in them or not.
Humans are still primates. Primates are still placental mammals. Mammals are still synapsids for only having one temporal fenestrae behind the optical orbit. Synapsids are still part of tetrapoda. Tetrapods are still gnathostomes. Gnathostomes are still vertebrates. Vertebrates are still chordates. Chordates are still part of bilateria. Bilateria is still part of metazoa, or kingdom Animalia. And animals are still eukaryotes because it’s a verifiable FACT that everyone of our cells is initially nucleic.
What do you have to explain our taxonomic place in the animal kingdom and how we’re related to every other living thing? Your claim that things had to be designed by some invisible engineer and come out of nowhere in the fossil record is utterly devoid of any depth. It’s just one big cop-out.
Sorry, but evolution is the only thing that accounts for any of this and it explains it all.
“I haven’t found one yet. It sure isn’t you.”
You’re looking for people who flunked out of remedial biology for preschoolers.
“You believe the whole enchalada. Why? Why would you believe such a preposterous tale?
Because all other hypothesis that try to present themselves as legitimate science fail at an extremely basic level to understand what’s required in order to debunk a dominant theory.
In Kitsmillar vs Dover, the ID proponents failed to provide any details supporting Intelligent Design that evolution hadn’t already explained very-very well. When presented with many a great volumes of peer-reviewed literature on the development of the immune system, Behe did what you’re doing right now by pretending that none of it was good enough. Like you, Behe also decided in advance what conclusion he was going to come to and reject any evidence that ran counter to it.
“Why did I?”
You were likely confused and didn’t know much of anything to begin with. You had a lame experience at a museum where you didn’t ask any questions about the T-Rex arms and jumped to a hasty conclusion because of it.
“That is embarrassing for me. It should be for you.”
No, not by a long shot. I love this planet’s natural history with all my heart and the way that evolution unifies so much in this beautiful biosphere is as Dawkins likes to call it, “The Greatest Show on Earth”
stevebee92653 said,
June 13, 2010 at 1:49 am
What fun. Another evo-indoctrinate essay. Do you guys cut an paste from one source? Anarctic gave me an answer? And I am supposed to accept his answer? Why? Because it’s pro-evolution, and all pro-evolution answers are good ones. That’s part of the indoctrination. Accept all pro-evo “anything”. Right?
Tiktaalik is begging to be accepted as evidence for something. It has eight digit bones. So it evolved eight, then got rid of three? Right. And its rib cage is that of a swimmer, not walker. Take a look at how long the fossil’s front “arms” are and how long they are painted in the renderings. It grows to about triple. THAT is evolution.
Fisholution IS a real word. I coined it myself. Isn’t that great? Tell all your evopeers (also mine) so they can spread it around. You need to stoop awfully low for your ammo.
Yes, I think you WANT to be a descendant of fish. It eliminates religion from the mix, which seems to have the only other idea on how things formed. You are happy having fish granddaddies.
You use “we” and “us”, very cultish, you “love this planet’s natural history with “all your heart”. You, of course left one religion, (you probably loved Jesus with all your heart), and are now in another. Just a guess. I would never use the word “we” or “us” when discussing science of any type with anyone. I love science, but not “with all my heart”. What the hell does that mean? Whether you like it or not, you are in groupthink.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
June 19, 2010 at 6:31 am
Jeeez guy I sure hope you are a scientist because as much as you like to see yourself as the social conscience of science Ill be as equally presumptuous as YOU were to Steve and assume you are a Godless atheist with an axe to grind, a chip on your shoulder and fixed opinions about one of thee most politically polluted piles of pathetically put together piltdown frauds, foibles and fables.
From the over zealous, dogmatic demagogues of atheism’s philosopher kings of science, we are basking in the presence the genus “Darwit”, the epitome of terminal self righteous arrogance and intellectual snobbery. They are in fact, everything they hate about fundamentalist Christians who by the way, don’t give a rats ass what you think of them as often as atheists do which is 24/7 . Why they blame their whole miserable lives on Christians actively disbelieving in God with the passion and religious like fervor of any hell fire and brimstone baptist preacher in any traveling evangelical salvation show.
They are drawn to any question to their sacred belief like flies and their usual presumptuous and stuck up foolish pride has served them well, establishing them as the “Pricks and assholes of the internet and the most dis-trusted segment of the population deserved or not, they certainly earned the title. You suggest Steve ask the question more accurate, saying: ” it would be more accurate to ask that if most Americans originated from Europe, why are there still Europeans. ” when that isn’t close,
it is more likely you would answer “Europe changed into America” over time and that is why we are in America now because that kind of absurdity makes sense to the wordsmiths of the religion of atheism and their doctrine of evolution. They would typically come back with some slick slippery semantics like “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby” as you high five your Godless friends the children of the grave that makes everything you say and do, all your accomplishments etc,. irrelevant for it is the grave that proves evolution a self refuting contradiction. Surely given enough time, immortality would have been one of the MOST obvious manifestations of natural selection and mutation.
I mean why not? Over time anything can happen, right?
So if our religion was the hobby and the stamps were our Gods, you can bet on it, that atheists, would make the hobbyist the center of his world as the atheist are now calling themselves “a-hobbyist’s”.
They would be writing hate filled websites blaming stamp collectors for everything from their bad breath to their restless leg syndrome, writing angry little bitchy books by metrosexual little professors with cute little british accents like “The Stamp Delusion” and other authors using the vodka vocalized vitriolic venom of vendetta titled “Stamps are not Great” while some poindexter looking emotional tampon writes yet another called the “The End of Collecting” .
Dover was a long time ago Hoss, and as I recall, it was going to be the death of ID, bust since then ID is getting more and more attention and it is evolving into a juggernaut that makes more academic sense than that witless, aimless, mindless, deaf, dumb and blind faith, in Darwinian evolution and natural selection, could ever hope for. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see how absolutely ridiculous your religion is son, but they DO have to be indoctrinated to believe in what could very well be the biggest hoax of the last 150 years as Science, thanks to the paranoia and bigotry of atheists, now has all the credibility and prestige of an ex-convict. You dumb asses actually believe you are going to raise the bar spreading the word of your faith by insulting the very ears you are trying to impress. Yeah that is “in-tellageent” .
Me on the other hand, I just came here
to give you what ya dish out
– Ultra
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
July 1, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Dolza don’t you have something more constructive to do than your usual tactic of overwhelming your “opponents” with a mile long post that says essentially “Blah Blah Blah” and more Blah” How you find the time on all the discussion boards you pull shit crap Ill never know. If I didn’t know better I would think cointelpro had hired newbies to disinfo for the NAS. That would explain the time you devote while not being on welfare or some kind of retirement home.
Steve don’t waste your time on this stuck up, self aggrandizing blow hard. he actually fed-ex’d a turd to a “fundie” just to prove his shit don’t stink.
It seems he is offering top dollar for him to have it sent back. Turns out he has shit for brains and doesn’t want anyone having any of his “intellectual property”
ISN’T THAT RIGHT Dolza!
pfft such a Moron
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
June 14, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Hi Steve;
I have been reading the “attack” from the in your face atheists on this blog or as i like to call them, the “Philosopher Kings of Science” something I picked up from a friend of mine named Vox Day. I know you don’t get much help here as I see the Darwits still using the same tactics they have always used when arguing that pathetic pile of piltdown fraud and faux fossilized fiction they affectionately call the “mountain of evidence” for evolution. You are correct when you say these poor pitiful pathetic people and their cookie cutter copy pasted comebacks all the conditioned responses I have seen for so many years still being used.
The cute quips and quotes they have “borrowed” in their obsession to make the creationist the center of their worldview. If anyone disagrees with them, well, then it’s just a world without you. Their is absolutely no point in this old debate and common sense is no longer that common. In fact I would say conventional wisdom has been selected out of the gene pool where people like you and I are in complete agreement. It is the masses that are the asses and that has always been the standard. The higher the you go on the I.Q ladder, the less people you find on each rung. I guess it is why they say it’s lonely at the top and atheists have plenty of company to share their silly ideas as they swing merrily from the vas defrens of their religions hero’s, Dick Dawkins and Chuck Darwin.
Two imbeciles. One the God of science, a man who stole pretty much his entire theory from other people and his dimwitted nitwit Prof. Dawkins, the cute little metro-sexual fem-boy from the UK whose only contribution to science was to make it less boring adding a whole new level of entertainment creating masses of new useful idiots that are riding on the coat tails of real scientific discovery as if they have anything to contribute.
They don’t. because all I have ever seen this so called science community do is protect a theory from being questioned at all costs. Using the silky slippery language of legion called semantics, they have merged micro and macro evolution in a wordsmiths attempt to extort mutual agreement on an observed phenomena at the expense of honest objectivity given up in-lieu of being ridiculed for the never seen, impossible to test macro evolutionary event.
It is a myth, and deep down,
they know it is too
count on it
stevebee92653 said,
June 15, 2010 at 7:07 am
What a great and intelligently written comment. So refreshing, but so rare. And, like your last comment, you are right on. I am really shocked at the number of evos that will defend and believe no matter what. Evolution does something to their brains. It re-wires. The have no hope of ever being skeptical or thinking rationally again. It’s permanent. They are brain locked. If you read much of my blog, you would know that I was the same. Without the cut/past lingo. But I was solid, and a good arguer, pro evo all the way. Until reality finally hit me. Again, thanks for the great and cheering comment. So nice to know there IS some intelligence out there.
Al Barrs said,
June 15, 2010 at 10:43 am
Steve;
After reading the many attack responses to your position on evolution it appears you have touched a sacred nerve, else why would evolutionists attack so viciously? I have never heard or read about any evidence where any particular species evolved into another species, which is what would have had to have happened if we are all the product of a single atom, which is the only similarity we share with all other life and non-life, I might add. Remember, Darwin even came to question his own work of proving evolution and wondered that creation may have been the process by which life began. Species can change over time and environmental, we have seen it all the time, but they have never been proven to have evolved from another species. For nature to have randomly assembled atoms in a manner that would produce all the species on Earth defies statistics. I don’t pretend to have the answers but shutting you down using theories and conjecture is not CONGENIAL discussion on either side and won’t produce any truthful answers. You have the right to your own beliefs and opinions as do I and others, but the only thing that really matters in the end is proof of evolution or creationism. We aren’t even close to that. Finally, if all life on Earth evolved why haven’t we found life evolving on other planets in the universe? We have certainly been looking… What we have is theories and hypothesis, neither proven beyond a shadow of a doubt…
stevebee92653 said,
June 16, 2010 at 1:13 am
Thanks for the great note. I have no doubt that life is all over the universe. The possible locations are just too far away for us to ever find. How life starts on a sterile planet, and forms complex organisms, consciousness, intelligence is beyond anything we are capable of figuring out. And I say DAMN. I really want to know. Wouldn’t a firm and proven answer be great? Never in my lifetime, and maybe never period. But it sure is the greatest puzzle ever. Anyway, thanks for the good discussion. Nice to read some good non-slanted intelligent stuff.
Al Barrs said,
June 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I agree Steve, there is probably life as we know it scattered all over the universe and beyond but as you say, far away. Water is the key, I believe. I have often wondered if the universe goes on forever, as some say. If it does, how can we humans conceive of eternity or eternal distance. Forever is a long, long way. If the universe does end someplace in outer space…what is holding it up? This postulates that it must be unending, which boggles the human mind, or at least mine. It can’t just be suspended in nothingness because nothingness should also logically have an ending or something holding it up. I can only conclude that the human mind is not advanced enough to understand that hypothesis. The same applies to the events of evolution or creation. The human mind can’t process or analyze that concept successfully either and proof is elusive. There is only theories, hypothesis and speculation. My most inconceivable hypothesis is that everything in the universe is made from atoms, from the smallest to the largest thing, including humans. An atom is, as everyone knows, a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. Atoms coalesce to form larger masses and so it goes. That being the case, perhaps the lowly atom itself is the image of God. In the Bible it simply says that God created mankind in his image. He didn’t say what that image was or looked like when created and humans have obviously changed over time. Look at our solar system as an example it is nothing more than a large atom structure with a central nucleus, the sun, and electrons, the planets but no different in structure than an atom. That being the case perhaps we humans and our solar system and universe are just a small element in a much larger system of coalesced atoms…perhaps we are even a tiny part of a living being, thing, or maybe even a God of enormous proportions within our ability to understand. If one projects the concept of size downward from we human’s perspective we have come to understand that the atoms that make up successive larger pieces of matter and finally us and our universe, we should be capable of understanding that the same concept goes on from our concept of size to an ever enlarging piece, from the basic atom to our solar system and then beyond to galaxies, universes and what ever is larger and made up of all the lesser pieces of matter. In fact what we know of our surroundings from the atom to the universe may simply be a small piece of matter in some much larger living being, which I will call, a humongous giant living being. There are just too many obvious questions that no human can answer accurately. We all speculate and dream of who we are and what is out there… Everyone has the right to their own opinion.
stevebee92653 said,
June 19, 2010 at 6:15 am
Thanks for the interesting note. An infinite universe just isn’t mathematically possible (see p. 22 The Idea of Infinitely Existing Matter). I have spun that one around as well as the solar system notion that we are particles of an even more immense universe which doesn’t match quantum physics. But still a fun thought. What a fun puzzle. Fun thoughts. The puzzle is such a great one, makes your brain spin and wander all over.
Al Barrs said,
July 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Steve;
My 70+ years of graduate degrees and many years of experience taught me that those who shout the loudest and most often are usually the ones who are wrong. I call them resisters to change”. There are only three kinds of people in the world; Change agents, Resistors to change, and Fence sitters. Resistors to change assume their best defense is a loud and obnoxious offense, but then to “assume” anything makes and “ass” out of “u” and “me”…
I assume nothing and I am not swayed by arrogance but am a Change agent which you, Steve, appears to be also. Fence sitters just sit until they see if the Change agent or resistor to change is going to win the day and then get down on the assumed winner’s side.
Atheists are entitled to their religion of nothingness but others have no need or desire to emulate their bad behavior and hissy fits just because everyone doesn’t cow-tie to their demagoguery. Atheists won’t be changed because they believe in nothing and one can not change nothing to something easily.
A belief in creationism is just as valid as a belief in evolution because neither have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. No atheists has ever put forth concrete proof that any species of animal, fish, bird or plant ever evolved into a new species…changed yes, but no new species…no evidence. Since the proof is lacking no one has any proof that every animal, fish, bird or plant on Earth began with one single species that evolved into the billions of diversified species we have had on earth for millions of years.
Happy July 4th…
#
stevebee92653 said,
July 2, 2010 at 12:41 am
Right on. Actually we are all creationists. Isn’t the entire universe popping out of a singularity smaller than a proton a creation? They say “who made God”. I say where did that singularity come from. They have the same problem. No matter how you cut it atheists are creationists too, only they are so intense about their beliefs they can’t see it. Thanks for the great communication! Happy 4th too.
stevebee92653 said,
October 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Try giving page 1a a read if you wish to comment. Or actually reading at least SOME of the blog. Your brain is on auto-pilot. You should know who you are talking to before trying to argue.
HellaStyle said,
October 6, 2010 at 12:49 am
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.
stevebee92653 said,
October 6, 2010 at 1:13 am
No. Actually I would rather people think, read any part of this blog, and tell me where I am right or wrong. Continuous rants and demeaning are trite and old. Your peers have already been here with tons of that, most left in place by me. But that has to end. It just wastes space on my limited comments sections, as I can’t archive. This is not a forever discussion site like RS. I know that’s tough for you to understand, but if you think about it real long and hard, you might get it. Also, I know you have a huge desire to continue the rants and “argument from ___________” nonsense, but that’s just the way it is.
Tyris said,
November 3, 2010 at 2:32 am
Kent Perry wrote
“…dimwitted nitwit Prof. Dawkins, the cute little metro-sexual fem-boy from the UK”
To which steve replied:
“What a great and intelligently written comment. So refreshing, but so rare.”
I think that gives you an idea of how he likes his blog run.
stevebee92653 said,
November 3, 2010 at 2:57 am
You didn’t take a quote out of context and quote-mine did you? One of Dawkins and all of evolution’s favorite complaints. So sensitive, you evolutionauts who so freely attack the non-believers. boo hoo Fun to watch. Thanks.
Tyris said,
November 3, 2010 at 3:51 am
Out of context? I felt like that quip summed up that particular post. If the metro sexual remark was a veiled compliment to Professor Dawkins and that was an instance of quote mining on my part then I must have been sorely mistaken. Your specific objection?
stevebee92653 said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm
You took one phrase out of a whole comment as if I was complimenting that phrase. Tough for an evolutionaut to understand I realize. That is dishonest writing on your part. But that’s OK. That’s evolution.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Tyris said,:” Out of context? ”
Yeah out of context moron, if you can’t see the facetious context it was said, that isn’t my fault, others seemed to get it but you want to make a federal case out of it.
Tyris said,:”I felt like that quip summed up that particular post. If the metro sexual remark was a veiled compliment to Professor Dawkins and that was an instance of quote mining on my part then I must have been sorely mistaken.”
That is what I originally asked about when I asked what I said that wasn’t true. Since you seem to be jumping from one post to the next my objection would be that you fail to follow the discussion and it gets to be a re-play of past posts in a constant game of getting the moron (you in this case) caught up with where we are at and coordinating posts that followed.
It’s one of the great aggregation of many tawdry taunts and tactics typically tried by Darwits. Other than that, I really don’t give a rats ass about your asinine attempts at splitting hairs shithead so unless you want to get into the subject at hand, I got better things to do than play your silly nit picky games.
Got it?
SPLENDID!
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 3:51 am
Yeah and what exactly did I say that isn’t true?
ha ha there ya go
Tyris said,
November 3, 2010 at 7:03 am
Ok.
“Surely given enough time, immortality would have been one of the MOST obvious manifestations of natural selection and mutation.”
1. Natural selection deals not in the preservation of individual specimens, but of the gene pool. This is why male birds stand out to attract predators away from their mates, and why insects have short lives but produce many offspring. This is why some plants spawn once, then die. Evolution produces specimens designed to fill niches where they can efficiently propagate their species.
2. How would an immortal even work? Every single known system in the universe degrades over time. Evolution is not a magic designer; the energy efficiency of animals is something like 10% of their food intake, and the eye is horribly inefficient, requiring the brain to correct its mistakes. Also, what would be the point of immortality? An animals reproductive systems would have long since failed, and any extra life would simply be a boon of good design. Evolution doesn’t create plants and animals that are perfect, merely good enough.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 3:48 am
Just ask the biggest know it all in here to give us their very best example that proves that evolution can create such morphological change. Then lets test it Steve using their own precious scientific method. I haven’t seen ONE Darwit give me an example that wasn’t something hard coded in the DNA of the species or was a hoax of some kind. If evolution is true, this should be easy to do. JUST ONE and make it your best. Something that proves unequivocally, you are right and steve or myself are wrong. Nothing else, no snarky remarks just what cha got. The idea science is now beginning to realize the entire universe operates like a mind should give you cause to stop and think about how impossible DNA itself could have “just happened” but that all the rest of the impossible steps that is required, just happened also. But you go ahead give us your best shot. Don’t assume we haven’t heard of it already. Chances are we have. I used to sit at the medici a coffee house like starbucks across the street from University of Chicago Medicine and have conversations with Dr. James Shapiro all the time about this subject http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/third-way.html
Challagar said,
March 20, 2011 at 5:17 am
Do you have a youtube channel or email where I can get in touch with you? I have the same user name on youtube if you wish to contact me. I’d love to chat with you about your views and experience in dealing with know-it-all atheists.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:12 am
Glacier said, “Wrong.
Ever since the 1980s those drawings have been replaced with micro-photographs that show the exact same developmental history that Heachel envisioned. ”
HA HA THAT’S HYSTERICAL! The idea that haekel got busted fudging his image data and according to this dimwit, he didn’t have to because they actually matched up after all HA HA HA HA HA
I AM BLOWING MY PEPSI OUT MY NOSE HA HA HA HA.
Now THIS guy’s comment is a keeper for the kind of intellect we see coming out of our public schools today HA HA HA HA HA. Makes a great argument for home schooling Ill tell ya that much. HA HA HA UN BELIEVABLE!
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:41 am
Steve said:”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?”
My my,, you know when you think about it, we can ask that question about lots of life forms that have been around that long and the simplest answer is,, well.. you already know that one.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:51 am
Matthew said:”You keep asking RIDICULOUS questions like “Why shouldnt the T-rex evolve bigger arms?””
Matthew, the only ridiculous question, is the one that goes “un-asked”
So it wasn’t the question that is ridiculous matthew but your answer,,
now THAT was
ridiculous.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I love it when people like Tyris attack creation as if they could do so much better. The guy doesn’t even understand the context that comment was said much less how to design a better eye. Now a brain, at least in Tyris case, I think it is arguable ha ha.
The point is tyris, it makes about as much sense for immortality to evolve over time as it does anything else you Darwits claim evolved over time.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
November 20, 2010 at 5:53 am
Stevebee said: “Ya know what’s funny? I sent your comment to my wife. She read it and said “You gotta write a book”. She actually wants me too as well.”
Well I am delighted to hear you say that and would love to help in anyway I can with promoting it and or personal stories and classic debates with some great skeptics of this flawed, failed and fictionally formulated faux science. The day is coming when this so called Darwinian evolution will be recognized as the quasi consensus science and religion of atheist evangelist cult that it is.
This coming from someone who is NOT a creationist in any religion, a former evolutionist himself, a Doctor a designer / inventor with an articulate grasp of Science and debate, you bring a rare and unique point of view from what is arguably a virtual blind spot between the two camps of Religion and Science.
I think BOTH atheist and theist can learn a great deal from you using a book medium where their is no opportunity to respond with counter arguments where it is more likely they will read to understand, rather than to respond using competitive intelligence like they do on discussion boards such as this.
Darwin and his ideas have evolved if not anything else and quite literally brainwashed generations of children and college students into the most antithetical approach to Science, including the much touted, rarely executed, Scientific Method.
What we see today are grown men reduced to immature name callers Scientist’s using ridicule and personal insult, given in knee jerk response to presumptuous conclusions anyone challenging the TOE is a creationist. They are then treated as an adversary with extreme prejudice and the utmost but undeserving contempt.
I am not surprised your wife agrees, I may not know her but I had a very reliable gut instinct about her nevertheless, as I do the potential success of this book.
If you set your mind to it and consider serious the reasons for the people whose lives have crossed paths with yours, the impact they have had, good or bad and how it culminates in a designated purpose. One I believe even your wife has had in her private thoughts, been thinking about but she may be ambivalent about and / or reluctant to disclose at this time.
Steve, keep me in the loop on your progress if I may
It will be a blessing for both of us
Count on it ; )
– Kent
stevebee92653 said,
November 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Thanks for the great note. Interesting that I keep arguing with these guys, and going through the same stuff over and over. Then saying I am done, then going back for more. I keep hoping I can change just one mind. So far I have failed in that. The indoctrination that this fake science lays on people is astounding. I have been going at it at rationalskepticism.org, (the new Dawkins chat). They named several threads after me, and spent their efforts attacking me in every which way you have cited in your comment. I found the threads, and went on to defend myself, for some stupid reason. And there I am again. Makes good fodder for more pages here, though. The arguments are so astounding. They think they are going to “teach” me how teeth were invented, a word they hate. They all know everything. Their statements are so incredible . Mind boggling. They think teeth are merely bony protrusions in the jaws, and “easy” evolution. How? How? Astounding. They also think they know more about teeth than me! (“You just learned how to pull and drill…..”)
Anyway, I will keep adding here and see how it goes. Did you see my last few pages? Born of arguments there at RS. The phylgenetic tree page (p. 36) is a killer for them, but they gloss over it, as always. Anyway, again thanks. Fun to have at least a few good allies. I have so many enemies.
gene said,
November 24, 2010 at 3:24 am
Its true about most of evos I read on rationalscepticism and some other forums. They are deep in the rut. From my light discussions (not on rationalskepticism) I noticed they cannot process simple logical points I put forward.
Still, it’s worth trying.You never know, maybe you will not change their mind immediately but it may make some of them sitting on the fence think about it.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:23 pm
“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?
There was no selection pressure driving the need for longer arms. They’d actually evolved AWAY from having longer arms due to the size and power of their jaws. They no longer NEEDED longer arms. You’re massively ignorant.
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2010 at 2:51 am
Are you some kind of know-it-all God or something? How the HELL do you think you know this answer when no person on the planet has any idea why something formed or didn’t. Oh, except you.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 4, 2010 at 10:43 am
I see stevebee beat me to the punch as I was about to say the same thing to you but i don’t think anyone would mind because you are a special case. Anyone saying something as utter fucking stupid as you just did while in the same sentence call someone massively ignorant, has to be told the truth.
Sort of like Simon Cowel does telling idiots who think they can sing, that they can’t sing.
Well shit for brains, I got news for you, because
YOU CAN”T THINK!!!
How the fuck DO YOU KNOW, ther wasn’t any selection pressures that would have made a difference ? Tell us Hoss! Were YOU THERE !! Your fuckin reductionist logic is astounding. I mean seriously guy, if their was EVER a time I would have thought stupidity would ever astound me, it has to be the level of butt stupid, you have just proven exists on this planet. I mean I would call you a retard but your brand of stupid is SO profoundly dumb, to call you a retard would be an insult to retards everywhere.
The T-REX shows NO change over any PART of it’s body from the time it first appeared on the planet to its extinction. That is millions of years of T-Rex evolving into T- Rex JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER LIFE FORM ON THIS PLANET!
I love this part “They no longer NEEDED longer arms..”
So that explains why we see all those fossils of T-rex’s with the arms that hung down to there ankles right poindexter?
They never had longer arms you dumb moron.
Jeeez these Darwits are so fuckin stupid it’s scary.
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:35 am
Back to T-Rex?
We covered this. Big head to kill stuff. Big arms get in the way and make the front end too heavy.
Im still not sure. Do you think it is good or bad design if its designed?
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Steve’s Tiny id said,”Back to T-Rex?
We covered this. Big head to kill stuff. Big arms get in the way and make the front end too heavy.
Im still not sure. Do you think it is good or bad design if its designed?”
Loaded question I presume? Well at least you think it was designed and apparently you believe it was a good design
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Steve has a cheerleader! Well done! Make sure you have youir own thoughts though, not like those evozombies.
Oh, but steve doesn’t seem to know if it bad evolution or good design. He cant even get his argument straight.
Give him a cuddle, it must be so hard knowing the truth which he cant explain.
Charlie said,
December 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
That’s all very funny, Mr. Tiny Id. But all I have seen from any of yours posts is unsupported ridicule. Have you come to actually address any of the questions or just poke fun? (That’s fine, too, I suppose, but realize that it bears no weight.)
Can we expect more of the same from you- which we have all seen before from evolution supporters (unsubstantiated evidence, empty speculation, vitriolic denial and redirection), or do you come to actually discuss something intelligently?
Holding each question up and just blanketly ridiculing it individually with no direct argument does nothing but reflect your apparent lack of reflection on the issue.
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:40 am
Now things dont change when they are good at what they do and you are shocked!
Evolution means change! Thats it!
Here is an idea. Lets take one of your patented dental machines and change it a bit so it doesnt work as well.
Reckon people will buy that? Or they gonna ask for the old one instead?
I feel a little sad now coz I know you will only copy and paste something as an answer.
Kent Perry, AZ. said,
December 7, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Steve’s Tiny id said,”Now things dont change when they are good at what they do and you are shocked!”
What happens if something is TOO good at what it does? Wouldn’t its prey evolve better designs to escape or hide?
Wouldn’t punctuated equilibrium have kicked in to cause the Buffalo to evolve a better means to escape near extinction from man? How did man a vegan become the top of the food chain over every predator? Not even the T-rex would stand a chance against mans technology. I would think Cows and Chickens would be evolving like the nuts with selection pressures like McDonalds and Kentucky fried don’t you sweet cheeks?
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Domestic breeding exerts its own controlled pressure lovey!
Oh dear, you dont seem to understand much at all about prey and predators and ask self answering questions.
I though Steves cheer squad would be full of the ability to think for themselves – steve isnt friends with zombies.
stevebee92653 said,
December 7, 2010 at 10:55 pm
How come you changed your name, kiwi? I thought you evos didn’t believe in pseudonyms? Ya know….it’s completely dishonest. Kind of like robbery.
Tyris said,
December 8, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I’d say you’re right on the first point you made.
There are several different kinds of selection that fall under the umbrella of Natural Selection. One of these is called Predatory Selection, in which case a species evolves because of pressure applied by predators. We see this with the peppered moths of England; naturalists had known of its predominantly light coloration for centuries, and this made it ideal for camouflaging itself against Britain’s lightly colored trees. The darker specimens were easier to spot and were devoured, leaving the lighter moths to dominate the gene pool.
However, during the industrial revolution, pollution cause many of Britain’s trees to gradually become much darker, over time leaving the lightest moths more exposed to predation. Eventually, the gene pool came to be dominated by darker colored moths. When air quality improved and pollution was reduced, the change happened again, in reverse. The lighter moths reappeared.
This is an example of how species respond to predatory selection. Natural camouflage is a result. The same can be seen in insects that mimic leaves or other poisonous insects, as well as animals whose markings allow them to blend into their environment to remain unseen.
As for punctuated equilibrium saving the buffalo, the answer is simply no. Remember, over 99% of all species that have ever lived have died out. This is because in most cases animals haven’t been able to adapt fast enough to survive. Evolution, Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium… These are not unseen forces that permeate life and lie dormant, ‘kicking in’ in response to stimuli like a body’s adrenaline or something. These are names that we give to processes that occur. They also take time, millions of years sometimes to produce the necessary changes. Unlike peppered moths, buffalo couldn’t evade man with a simple color change. Remember, in nature, it is the weakest members of the group who are picked off first, strengthening the whole. Humans typically single out the largest, strongest member to maximize their reward. Mankind is simply to effective a killer, and the buffalo population was devastated. You are right; even mighty T-Rex wouldn’t stand a chance against a 50 caliber rifle. Man kind is forcing nature to evolve along different pathways that may prove… interesting.
I hope the comment about the cow and chicken evolution was a joke. Natural Selection plays almost no part in domesticated animals; we’ve replaced ‘natural’ with ‘human'(or Intelligent Design would actually fit here nicely). The only selection pressures are being applied by humans, making them more suitable for my 10 piece McNugget meal.
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:46 am
Now you made me happy again!
Again there are no transitional fossils of any kind! Oh dont worry I’m sure you will find a way to deny all the stuff they dug up as a conspiracy or us believing evozombie tattle tales! No better way to stay right ay!
Oooh, now Earth didnt know what to do because she couldnt think up life! Did you ask her?(does she whisper to you?)
Oh, you didnt did you! Oh thankyou! You gave the gift of “Darwin didnt know anything and we havent made any progress since then”.
Thanks for that wonderful christmas presenjt!
Challagar said,
March 9, 2011 at 7:00 am
Have you studied much microbiology? I find the inconsistencies in abiogenesis a very strong evidence for the weakness of naturalism. Much has been argued about the complexity of the human genome and cellular machinery. All of it is overwhelming to think about at times (and I believe that this fact is one of the tools the evolutionist likes to use against anyone who disagrees with them). I don’t even have a problem with the great complexity of the cell coming into existence through evolution. But, there are too many Puzzles (as you put it) to be figured out.
The more we learn about “creation,” for lack of a better word, the more sophisticated and embellished the hypotheses become. There are so many catch 22 scenarios in this seemingly infinitely complex system we call life that it is almost like the designer of it all put them there just to frustrate us.
An example I have found, which is even more challenging to figure out than “irreducible complexity,” is the dilemma of how the DNA, an unstable molecule, needs a repair process to keep it healthy. How could an unstable molecule evolve a repair process that is physically independent of it (though the information for the construction of the process is contained within the DNA itself) when it would have broken down long before the repair process could have evolved.
DNA is not a self-replicating molecule. It contains the information for this replication, but it does none of the replicating on its own! It is a very complicated process of encoding and decoding of information to form the molecules that form the “factory” that replicates the DNA, but the DNA itself is NOT self-replicating. Think about that for awhile and see if doesn’t make you wonder!
Also, the order in which base pairs are arranged gives meaning to our physical existence. Evolutionists repeatedly preach that evolution takes place using a seemingly infinitely long progression of tiny step-by-step changes. If this is so, then the DNA molecule couldn’t have formed fully functioning. This leaves us to wonder what kind of creature would be produced with only one base pair. Or, if a single DNA strand came together whole through the complex chemical processes of the biotic soup, then what kind of screwed up creature would it produce? DNA code and its arrangement is very specific. Nonsense code produces nonsense results! Garbage in, Garbage out!
Another attempt to explain abiogenesis suggests that RNA was the catalyst for the DNA structure. Well, there is a big gaping hole in this theory, as well. RNA strands are significantly shorter than DNA. It could be analogous to a driveway compared to the Autobahn! Even the simplest single celled organism would require many times the length of information found in a single RNA strand.
And on a related note, it is laughable that scientists project back into the past the conditions that the early earth must have had for life to have formed. And then they throw out concepts such as Hypercycle of autocatalyzing molecules. This of course is their way of speeding things up because mathematicians have proven that these random (pardon me, they hate it when you use the word “random”….perhaps I should say “non-designed?”…”non-purposed??”) mutations forming anything meaningful beyond a pool of biotic soup of “self-replicating molecules” is so unfathomably remote!! Even over billions of years!!
I am so tempted to continue rambling, but I must be off to bed. I have a long day tomorrow. I hope to discuss more about this with you soon. And thank you so much for your thought provoking videos and blog.
stevebee92653 said,
March 9, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Thanks so much for your interesting and intelligent comment. A great read, and very fascinating stuff. This one goes in my favorite comments page. It is amazing that the more humans find out about cells, microbiology, nature, the farther from reality evolution travels. Science has overwhelmed Darwin, but it’s proponents keep coming up with new fables to cover their asses and keep it going. Never has there been such a science as this. The psychology of it is almost the most interesting part. That would make an interesting article: “The Psychology of Evolution”.
Kent Perry said,
March 21, 2011 at 1:50 am
Got your message Challagar. I didn’t find you on youtube though. Could you have mis typed the name you’re using here “Challagar” for “Challenger”?
My answer to your question is affirmative. I have been debating atheist evolutionauts for many years having developed a well known and reputation for it under several of my pseudonyms. I also have a channel on youtube, under the name “Ultramediacorp” I dabble around there occasionally making videos for fun and some for antagonizing the children of the grave (atheists)
Warm Regards
– Kent
Ultramediacorp@gmail.com
Kent Perry said,
March 21, 2011 at 2:05 am
@”Domestic breeding exerts its own controlled pressure lovey!
Oh dear, you dont seem to understand much at all about prey and predators and ask self answering questions.”
Oh I understand very well about prey and predators son. 6 years in the Military kinda forces you into being the hunter or the hunted on occasion. I love the slick little quip ya answered me with, it’s always so life affirming and such a confirmation to this idea I have that people like you are so quick to underestimate your opposing interlocutors with silly baby crap like this:
“Domestic breeding exerts its own controlled pressure lovey!”
As if it would have a difference. Here let me help you raise your I.Q a tad.
You ready?
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN’T KNOW THAT IT’S CONTROLLED, BUNKY!
IT DOESN’T HAVE A MIND TO FIGURE THIS OUT SO THE MY QUESTION IS A VALID ONE, YOUR ANSWER HOWEVER STUCK UP AND BITCHY YOU THINK YOU ARE, YOU STILL CAN’T TELL ME BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW.
Kent Perry said,
March 21, 2011 at 2:29 am
@ “Steve’s Tiny id” Steve has a cheerleader! ”
He has a HECKLER from the Peanut Gallery TOO!
“Well done! Make sure you have youir own thoughts though, not like those evozombies.” – Steve’s Tiny id
Oh I know what ya mean, and if I had a nickle for every time I heard a dumb ass evolutionaut respond using some cookie cutter copy pasted quote, vomiting in some twisted contorted and sardonic grin something about a spaghetti monster, or the ever popular suggestion that all creationists know how to say is “God did it”, or “Clearly, you don’t understand basic science and evolution” as if THEY DO. ha ha
what really cracks me up is they try so hard to make this clever comebacks as if for the first time off the cuff and look so damn stupid doing it. Worse yet is they actually high five their own cheering section of “Homo Bimbosapeine’s” shaking there little pom poms like the little bitches they are and saying PwnT!!! giggling away like a gaggle of school girls.
“Oh, but steve doesn’t seem to know if it bad evolution or good design. He cant even get his argument straight. Give him a cuddle, it must be so hard knowing the truth which he cant explain.”
Fallacious argument poindexter, design doesn’t have to be good to be recognized as design, There are plenty of examples of bad design out there like the Edsel by Ford motors. It became known as one of the worst designs in auto motive history but that didn’t mean it wasn’t designed. Maybe if you weren’t so damn presumptuous thinking the designer must be the all knowing, omniscient God of the Bible, you wouldn’t be trying to use such a straw man argument .
I can’t even respond to the part about bad evolution because evolution in this doesn’t, exist.
Challagar said,
March 24, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Kent Perry, do you have an email or youtube channel I can contact through?
Challagar said,
March 24, 2011 at 11:51 pm
oops, sorry Kent, just read your reply.
Al Barrs said,
April 4, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I totally agree with your observation about Charles Darwin.
If everything “evolves” as Darwin claims why hasn’t his theory evolved? Too many so called scientists, who make a very good living and reputation, have hung their hats on Darwin’s theories. For those reasons it is in their best interests to defend Darwin’s theories right or wrong… Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
First, there has never been any fossil discovered that is a transitional fossil between two different species, nor between two fossil beings of the same species. There just isn’t any proof that any life form transitions into other life forms on Earth. Maybe someplace in the Universe but on Earth there has not been sufficient time for a life form like we humans to have evolved from a hot pool of inert chemicals into the statistically unachievable life forms we see today, including we Modern Humans.
Second, there is no evidence that all the discovered primate and hominids fossils are linked to any other fossil. In fact many separate species have been found imbedded together in African digs and could therefore never have been different evolutionary types of the same species as has been claimed for decades. They couldn’t have lived at the same time as the evidence clearly shows. This fact has been kept under the “scientists” hats for many years…
Third, all life forms on Earth are millions of years behind Modern Humans in intelligence capability. Why if evolution is at play? Why aren’t at least some animal life forms as intelligent, or more intelligent than Modern Humans? If Modern Human ancestors branched from Chimpanzees some 6 to 7 million years ago, why are chimps still chimps and we Humans are so advanced? Why aren’t chimps building and driving SUVs? If Modern Humans did not branch form Chimpanzees but have some of the same DNA it only points to two possibilities, 1) Earth was originally seeded with a large variety of life forms to create a “garden of Eden” of sorts on Earth for the purpose of future colonization by some extraterrestrial population in danger of loosing their home planet to some catrostophic disaster like loosing their magnetic field, atmosphere or water supply. And, at some time much later Earth was colonized by these extraterrestrials with extraterrestrials like we Modern Humans in order to ensure their specie’s survival. That being the case all life forms on Earth would have similar DNA makeup regardless of their species or branch because they would have originated from the same basic source. Or, 1) God created everything, but then isn’t God an extraterrestrial? So, we complete the circle of life.
We know now that Modern Humans were not DNA related to Neanderthal or Homo erectus and have no DNA for earlier hominids or primates. Again, there is no proof that us Modern Humans are descended from any other species or life form on Earth. We Modern Humans, Cro-Magnon, suddenly appeared on Earth in Europe some 50,000 years ago fully formed humans with technology and art which no other earlier hominid has ever been associated with. There is a 20,000 year old European cave painting of a fully formed woman wearing a dress, shoes and hat in a time when Modern Humans were believed to be skin wearing hunter gatherers.
Al Barrs
albarrs@wfeca.net
Tyris said,
April 5, 2011 at 12:06 am
Let me begin by pointing out the difference between Natural Selection and Evolution. Evolution is the theory that species change over time, while NS is a theory about HOW life makes those changes. So one can believe in evolution(as steve has admitted to me he does), while(like steve) disbelieving that NS is the cause of it (steve favors ‘Intelligent Design’). Also, the theory of Evolution HAS changed since Darwins time. Darwins theory of NS is still accepted, but as discoveries such as DNA came to light, the overall theory evolved. Today, the theory widely accepted by scientists is referred to as Modern evolutionary synthesis, combining elements of Darwinism with many other biological specialties.
I won’t point out the irony in your accusing scientists of defending their theories to protect their wealth and reputations before invoking religion.
First, every fossil we find is a transition from an earlier form to a later form. You’ve clearly decided that this isn’t true, so I’m not going to waste our time in a pointless endeavor to convince you otherwise. I’ll merely suggest that you can google whale evolution, transitional fossils, or human evolutionary history and be met with a torrent of results showing lineages of discovered fossils which apparently show a succession from older fossils to modern life forms. Also, Earth is 4.54 billion years old. That is a staggeringly sufficient amount of time for life to have arisen.
Secondly, studying the different hominid fossils we’ve found has provided ample evidence to suggest relation. The rest of your second point seems confused. Why can two separate species found together not share an ancestor? The fact that they were contemporaneous alone does not even suggest they did not share an ancestor. Then you say that they could NOT have lived at the same time, after claiming just the opposite.
Third, you can’t use the tired ‘if one species has this, why don’t they all have it’ argument to try to discredit evolution. Nature is about niches. If a niche is over exploited, it becomes much less profitable to everyone. Humans number about 6.5 billion on planet earth, thanks to their intelligence. An intelligence not shared by ants, which outnumber us 1 million to one. Using different benchmarks to measure success, many different creatures could be called Earths ‘dominant’ life form.
Your last statement is outright false. It is estimated that 1-4% of our DNA came directly from Neanderthals. We are so closely related that at one point interbreeding was possible. An article I quickly googled just to illustrate my point: http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html
Just some food for thought.
Thomas Ingram said,
December 4, 2011 at 7:30 am
Ugh, why am I reading this shit? It’s bullshit all over the place. There are hundreds of things which are written down as facts and yet are untrue, there are hundreds of assumptions which are drawn from no evidence and hundreds of statements which seem true on first inspection but can be disproved with a small amount of time devoted. This is all an embarrassment to your intelligence. On an unrelated note, this site design is arse.
albarrs said,
December 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Thomas;
There are open minds and closed minds. The truth is none of us have the answers. From you comment it is apparent that you are a closed mind person. One wonders why you take up any of your time registering, reading and commenting if you will not or can not discuss the issues with others who don’t believe as you do. There’s and old saying in management…”lead, follow or get out of the way!”
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I want to personally thank you for leaving such an intelligent comment. You are a real credit to science. Possible Nobel Prize material!
albarrs said,
December 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm
How I personally view Creation and Evolution: Al Barrs
Both Creationism and Evolutionism are based on FAITH. Both are, in their own ways, types of religions. Creationists have put the evidence they have faith in on the line in the form of their Bibles. Darwinians, on the other hand, devote much of their time to attacking the Creationist’s evidence…right or wrong, claiming it is evidence of evolution if they can prove Creationists wrong. Creationists on the other hand attack Darwinists’ definition of evolution…again right or wrong, claiming it is evidence of creation if they can prove Evolution wrong.
What it all comes down to is the definitions of “evolution”. I say use the term definition in its plural form…definitions. Therein lays the conflict and difference. Creationists and Evolutionists use two different definitions of “evolution”.
On the one hand Darwinians define “evolution” as the changing of one life form, sometimes called “species”, into other totally different life forms or species.
On the other hand Creationists define “evolution” as the changing of one life form, sometime called “species” into a modified form of itself or its own life form or “species”.
Creationists challenge Darwinians to prove, with concrete fossil evidence, their faith that one species evolved into another species with true transitional hybrid-species. The established Darwinians claim many transitional fossils, but have been unable to absolutely link two species with any claimed transitional species. Some established Darwinians have claimed transitional species but have failed to prove that their transitional species is not either a separate species or a changed existing species.
Meanwhile Darwinians continue the search and often make claims that they have found a true transitional species, such as the recent small lemur, monkey like, fossil that was claimed to be the Modern Human transitional species, but which was later proven to not be the case.
I don’t claim to have the answer either. I do however not accept the idea that all life forms on Earth radiated out from a hot chemical soup on Earth into the millions of life forms today. I do question both Creationists and Darwinians with one question…Why is the Modern Human life form or species millions of years more advanced intellectually and technically than any of the other millions of life forms on Earth?
My position is that either Modern Humans were the first life form on Earth, which I don’t believe because there would have been no food to sustain them. Or, Modern Humans appeared on Earth millions and perhaps billions of years after the other life forms on Earth appeared.
I am also conflicted about who “God” as we understand him today was and is. Creationists don’t adequately define who God was and is nor from where he came from and resides today. A lingering question is who is “God”, where did he originate if we are in his image, which Biblical scripture claims. Or, is our “God” of today the “gods” of our ancient ancestors? Is “God” or the ancient’s gods extraterrestrials? Obviously they are extraterrestrial because neither He nor they exist on Earth today and Biblical reference claims they went up into heaven. I only make these statements and ask these questions because that is where we Modern Humans must begin and try to answer logically for the puzzle of life to fit together.
The only hypothesis that fits together, in my untrained view, is that Modern Humans are special in some way and appeared suddenly on Earth some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago fully formed and different in physique and technology than any other life form on Earth. How did Modern Humans suddenly appear on Earth, fully formed just a scant 25,000 to 30,000 years before Neanderthals disappeared from the Earth, if Modern Humans (Cro-Magnon or Us) were not put here on Earth (colonized) in some way by either God’s creation or colonized by extraterrestrials that we have come to refer to as “God”. This is the only logical explanation that puts the puzzle Earth life forms together.
Evolution of life forms, or species, into new and vastly different species will remain an unproven Darwinian THEORY… We Modern Humans must think outside of the box and focus on the question rather than the existing answers if we are to ever learn who we are and how we come to be the dominant life form or species on Earth… There is much we don’t know today…
###
stevebee92653 said,
December 5, 2011 at 12:56 am
Thanks Al. This is a classic comment. I love the thought. You have taken it about as far as we humans can go at this time. Funny how two groups are so convinced they have the answer, and do battle with each other, when we humans are not close to an answer to this, the greatest Puzzle ever. Well, tied with how and why the universe is here. Two great Puzzles. This one goes in my favorite comments page.
albarrs said,
December 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Thanks for the comments Steve;
I have wondered and thought about evolution and creation as well as related subjects about our Universe for a very long time. I began thinking years ago about who we are in relation to the Universe. Over a period of many years I came to a personal conclusion that our Solar System within the greater Universe was, as is our Universe, a minute part of something much, much larger. Let me try to explain. The Atom is practically the smallest active system we know of. Our Solar System looks and behaves much like a specific type Atom. The image of the Atom appears to me to be the basic image and building block of all life forms on the Earth and in the Universe. Atoms just get larger and less recognizable but they function in the same manner, with protons revolving around a nucleus…with planets revolving around a sun. Atoms come together to make up larger matter, the larger matter makes up even larger matter and everything goes up in scale, distance and time until we have a Universe and we know not what is beyond that, if there is a beyond. Perhaps we and our Solar System are simply a minute piece, a very small piece, of a living life form so big that we can not conceive of its size. Perhaps for example, our Solar System is located in the lower right leg of a gigantic living being similar to us humans. If the gigantic life form’s heart beat at the same rate as humans and because of the scale of size our small Solar System could have come into being, existed and died between heartbeats. Like Atoms and cell in our body they originate, live and die, and then are fluffed off to make rooms for new cells and Atoms in our bodies. I know this idea is preposterous but time and distance appears to expand as one look out across a very large and cluttered space vacuum.
My original other question that stumps lots of people is how large is the Universe? Does the Universe have an end? If the Universe does have an end, what is holding it up? This question brings up the discussion of the terms infinity or never ending, which is a concept we humans can not grasp or explain…and never will in my opinion. By its very nature space can never end because if it does it must have something to hold it up. So, does it just get larger and larger without end? What is forever and eternity?
Then there is evolution…
Al
###
stevebee92653 said,
December 6, 2011 at 12:40 am
It is amazing how one can come up with some amazing scenarios for the existence of the universe and us. Are we part of something far more immense above the universe? Are there more universes? How far out does the universe go? It can’t be infinite. But what would be beyond the universe? All time and space are supposed to be within the universe itself. You could not exist outside of the universe. So toy with that one. Anyway, thanks for the comments and fun thoughts.
Derin Pekin said,
December 23, 2011 at 7:47 am
you should write a book about this and make it so its more accessible to the general public. This is very interesting
stevebee92653 said,
December 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
A book is in the works. Thanks…
5ilv3r said,
January 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm
hey steve did you know man called Adnan Oktar a.k.a Harun Yahya as pen name ? one of his book called Atlas Of Creation which opposed the theory of evolution was labelled by Council Of Europe as unscientific book and dangerous foe education. even so I when i read the book only an idiot would said so … i just want to tell you just prepare for the worst when the book is published ..when i just 9 i read encyclopedia that explained evolution ….i believe it blindly cause i just 9 until i reach 12 when one of my teacher(religion teacher) said evolution is fake and will be sin to believe it……it confuse me but my faith in God was stronger so i decide not to believe in Darwin Theory
but all changed when i found one of Harun Yahya book that explained briefly how evolution is impossible
stevebee92653 said,
January 25, 2013 at 7:14 am
I haven’t heard of him, but I will give it a look. I’m sure my book will be greeted with scowls by the flock, but that is typical. I’m very used to it.
Kyle Hamel said,
January 18, 2012 at 6:05 am
You need a better understanding of evolution. A common misconception with evolution is that it will continually produce more complex forms, commonly refereed to as Lamarckian evolution. The reason as to why those T-Rexs did not get bigger arms is because they did not need to. Longer arms were most likely not more advantageous than shorter arms because the T-Rex had no use for them. In fact this explains why they have short stubby arms in the first place, because little by little they lost the need to use of them. The longer a species has existed in no way means that it will be more evolved. The species only needs to evolve enough to be viable enough to produce offspring. That explains as to why cockroaches have been alive for how long as have been. Its the same principle as the saying why fix what isn’t broken. Also the Darwin concept of evolution has dramaticly changed and is ever changing. If you actually get a better understanding about evolution you will get all the answers to your questions, (except the last one because since we were not there we can only make educated guesses that that is what happened, it could have been a totally different in which life began.) I am no way trying to discourage you from your opinions but evolution in modern science is as concert as gravity, so before you write a book on this I suggest you get all the facts.
stevebee92653 said,
January 19, 2012 at 4:10 am
You need to realize how fooled you are by this fake science. How do you know T.Rex didn’t NEED larger arms? What could be more absurd than someone trying to act like he knows all, like some sort of god. No person who ever lived knows why T. Rex had such pathetic arms. Or why nautilus remained nearly blind for 500 million years. Your excuse for non-evolution is just that. An excuse. What on earth would make you think I didn’t “check the facts”? Are you kidding? Write all of this blog, and make 20 vids, and not “check the facts”? I was suckered by this fake just like you are now. So I know the “facts”. The facts are fake. Just like your excuse for T. Rex. Be sure and get my book when it’s out. You may change your mind. But I would guess not. Once you are in the quicksand of this fake science, getting out is very difficult.
Kyle Hamel said,
January 19, 2012 at 5:19 am
Maybe check the facts was not the correct term but what I meant was get a better understanding of evolution because I almost certain you would not make these claims if you actually understood it, they would answer your questions. By this I mean go some lectures, talk to some professors with an unbiased attitude, not just Google. As it stands your assertions are not those that are unexplainable in light of evolution. As for your claims for how fooled I am, unlike you I do not let myself get blinded by my opinions. I only believe in evolution because it is the theory that explains the most out of any other I know of thus far. If a new more compelling argument was to come to my attention I would abandon evolution without a moments hesitation. However I do not see this as happening because even if evolution was somehow proved incorrect, the correct theory would almost certainly be an adjusted version of evolution. Also I don’t believe you even have a sufficient understanding of how science works as whole. You claim its a fake science when so many progresses in many fields of science were because of this fake science, including what we know of the cell which you attempted to use as counter argument against Darwin. Science is based on the foundation of previous science, that is how we make advancements. Evolution has explained almost every aspect found in nature to which the theory pertains, but of course you will not take my word for it, nor should you, but the point is even if evolution was proved wrong, we would take what we learned from it and apply it to other theories, not completely abandon it as you suggest by calling it a fake science. A fake science would be creationism with no actual proof, or testable assertions. Lastly your counter arguments are frivolous and hold no water in science. You state that no person who ever lived would know if a T-Rex would need longer arms, which is true, but does that then mean we are not to make logical assumptions. What your implying then is that because we don’t know if it happened, even though we are basing our educated assumptions on experimental results found in present day animals, we should not believe that evolution happened for that reason alone. This logic means that we would not use what we learn today and apply to the past. You give no other theories that would explain all that we observe but yet make the claim that evolutions is wrong for things that we would not able to prove either way. I have counter theory, what if God made it so that organisms would be created and then die and then he would create slightly different organisms to replace them consistent with the theories of evolution just to make us think that evolution happened… Is this not a stretch for even the biggest creationist? (Not saying that you are since you haven’t claimed to be a such) But fact is you cannot disprove this so I am right and everyone else is wrong. These are the kind of arguments your making. I cannot prove I am right but you cannot prove I am wrong so by default that makes me right. Now despite all this I believe you are going to come back with some thick headed response not based on logic or fact but your opinions and emotions, so unless it is otherwise, I will not be responding because it is then clear neither I or anyone else will be able to convince you, lest it be the creator of this universe himself, should such a being exist.
stevebee92653 said,
January 19, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Here is a fact: You believe evolution only because someone told you that is how things came to be. And for no other reason. Everything you say is a repeat of what someone else told you. That is how good your theory is.
Kyle Hamel said,
January 20, 2012 at 5:31 am
That is a fact, however it only pertains to me because I am not a scientist, so don’t assume this is the case for everyone. They believe evolution through their own experimental results. So yes, I am restating what some educated people have told me is true and basing my judgement on its validity through work they tell me they have done and is correct and is true. Could they be lying? Of course, but what would be the point of falsifying thousands of experiments just to make it seem as if something is true, something that people for the most part have trouble accepting. What is the validity of any education I have for that matter. Is it not theories that people have told me, people who have claimed proof of what they are telling me through meticulous research. How do I know that force really equals mass times acceleration, or that atoms exists. So yes they can be lying about there proof, and wouldn’t I look foolish, but what are the chances and reasons for doing such a thing, other than to make me and everyone look stupid. So what your saying is that evolution is wrong because it is only what some person said to me and that person could be lying. Does that not make you nothing more than a conspiracy theorist? That is education my friend, knowledge is not hidden in a box somewhere. Well then again I don’t know if that’s true either, so if you do find that box please share with me the secrets of the universe. Of course then everything I know would just be a repeat of what you told me, never mind then.
stevebee92653 said,
January 20, 2012 at 7:46 pm
There are no lab experiments that show anything. The fossil record shows no species evolving into other species. That is fact. Then, if you choose to believe what someone tells you that doesn’t follow the facts, that’s up to you. Your F=MV thing doesn’t compute. The people that told you are indoctrinates, just like you. They aren’t lying. They really believe. That’s what indoctrination does to people.
Kyle Hamel said,
January 21, 2012 at 1:22 am
That is not fact. That is such an ignorant statement to make and only makes it more clear that your research is hardly sufficient for the argument your trying to make. Their experiments show evolution at work in our present day and the fossil record has many transitional fossils, and not only transitional fossils, transitional fossils that were predicted to be where they found them and the time period where in which they should’ve existed. In case you didn’t know, they do this by carbon dating. As for indoctrines bit, the reason for there experiments is to prove and disprove evolution. They are not raised to believe in evolution but only believe because of the proof the accumulate. They would be the first to argue against evolution if because they would get acknowledgement for their work. You continue to show your lack of understanding of science. Science, unlike religion is not based on belief as you are suggesting but fact. Also it doesn’t make a difference whether or not they believe evolution because their results do not lie, unless of course they make them up. What you want is indisputable proof of one species changing into another, which you won’t get because this takes millions of years. Even the fossil record its almost impossible to get a fossil of one species evolving into another and you should understand that if you had a sufficient understanding of how fossilation works. As for the F=MV, I said F=MA and how does it not compute, do you not “believe” in physics either? I suggest you read “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Conye. Its written for the masses so its an easy read, maybe you’ll get some perspective.
stevebee92653 said,
January 21, 2012 at 3:32 am
You truly don’t know what you are talking about. You are an avid believer. This site is made for those who are curious and who question: not 100% believers. You have been sucked into a black hole, and there is no escape. So why brag here? Your stuff is old and tiring.
I meant F=MA. Who cares. Except you, who extrapolates in evo-indoctrinate fashion. Anything for points. Right?
Kyle Hamel said,
January 21, 2012 at 4:01 am
I’m tired of this. I will say this however, you assume to much of my beliefs and my views of the world, don’t.
albarrs said,
January 18, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Respectfully I disagree Kyle! We don’t “need a better understanding of evolution,” What we need is unchallengeable evidence and proof of evolution. Darwin wrote his Origin Of Species in 1859 and since then no actionable evidence or proof to support his THEORY has been discovered. Before Darwin everyone believed in creation in one way or the other. It was only with the appearance of Darwin on the scene that people realized there were financial rewards to be had on the subject of evolution theory. The idea that one species “evolves” into a new and completely different species has never been found and since the advent of Modern Humans no one has ever seen a transitional species in nature. To defend evolution theory is to defend the tooth ferry.
All that I ask is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!
Al Barrs
eBooks and eArticles of Al Barrs
http://www.wix.com/albarrs/usandfamilyhistory
Condensing Shades of Gray
http://www.csogblog.com/contributors/
Kyle Hamel said,
January 19, 2012 at 5:35 am
Actually that’s not true. There is an abundance of evidence and the theory itself has changed significantly since then. Unfortunately the indisputable evidence of one species changing to another has not been shown because as is according to evolution, it takes millions of years to get a new species. I am assuming however by species you mean a radically different organism than the previous and what is not thought of as the modern term for species. If you are however speaking of the modern term for species this has been proven, and in some cases done in a lab. Its a relatively new branch of evolutionary science called experimental evolution. Research it if your interested but I suspect what you want as evidence will not be what you find. So I suppose your free to your opinion but the amount of evidence found for evolution is equivalent as someone arguing against the THEORY of gravity in science. It is accepted as a fact in the science world as is gravity, despite being called a theory. (Its only called theory because it is subject to change and improvement, not because we are unsure.)
albarrs said,
January 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Readers might be interested in this topic…Al Barrs
Plants and Animal Hybridization or Domestication
Many years ago, after reading the histories of all of the South American, Central American and North America’s first Native American nations, I commented to my young wife that it appeared to me after studying all the ancient American natives that mankind is regressing, at least in technological know how and ability, not progressing. She asked, “Why do you say that”? My comment was, “There are things those ancient Americans did that we can’t possibly duplicate today”.
That hooked me. The only void in my visions was I had no idea what or how that had and was occurring. All that I knew was that we humans are less capable today than were humans in the beginning.
After reading three of your books on that very subject I believe I now understand, after many years of continued reading, research and thought, what happened to cause human regression on planet Earth.
It makes perfect sense to me, and more than that, it fits the evidence that there was an ancient build up of technological knowledge and skill and the knowledge and skill was lost or severely depressed. Whether or not the basic technical knowledge and skill was given to mankind by God, extraterrestrials, or humans themselves discovered it I can’t say for certain, but I do lean toward creation by God more than extraterrestrials or humans themselves. But, I believe it has to be one of the three…and after all God was and is an extraterrestrials.
My vision, after reading you books, is that mankind was placed, colonized or occurred here on earth along with his hybridized (domesticate) plants and animals which was much different than all other life forms on earth, including animals and plants. I believe the markedly difference in Modern Humans and their hybridized plants and animals was and is different today because Modern Humans and their hybridized food sources occurred at a much different time than did all other life forms on Earth.
Look around. Nothing else on Earth even comes close to the markedly more advanced Modern Human and his domesticated food plants and animals.
Recently I read an article in a science magazine that an ‘establishment’ scientist had discovered that “archaic humans did not only eat meat but ate wild grain because he had found traces of archaic wild grains in the teeth of an ancient human skull”. My reaction to that was immediate. Was the specimen really a member of the Modern Human race? I doubt it. I wrote the author and he never replied to my challenge. My comment to him was that Modern Humans can not, to my and many scientist’s knowledge, digest the hard small wild grains of which he described, but only unrelated bipedal animals like the many similar bipedals that establishment scientist claim to be Modern Human’s ancestors could digest those ancient wild grains. Does that ability to digest wild grains separate Modern Humans from archaic bipedal animals that looked similar to us humans as some bipedals today? However, bipedals today are as they were millions of years ago.
So, we have two separate categories of animal and plant life forms on Earth. Domesticated plants and animals for human consumption occurred so many years ago that modern humans could not have hybridized them himself. Hybridization, even using the simplest method of trait selection by farmers or herdsmen, takes generations after generations of selecting, propagation, planting, cultivating and harvesting. Only by using scientific gene splicing can that timeline be reduced but it take highly educated and trained specialists, not hunter gatherers turned farmers or herdsmen who had been hunter gatherers only a few years or at best a few generations earlier. In the first place why would a long generations line of hunter gatherers even come up with the idea to hybridize plants and animals?
Excerpt from Lloyd Pye’s book…
Lloyd Pye now lives just south of my farm in Panama City, Florida. He and I have had any number of conversations about many of the topics he and you research and write on. I don’t know if you know him or not but his works are interesting but very speculative. He is a believer in exterasterrial involvement in human history.
Lloyd says the following about hybridized animals and plants, including Modern Humans and I tend to agree with much of what he says.
It is interesting in that the hybridization or domestication of animals and plants could have occurred at the period before the flood which you write was a highly technological era in human development. What Lloyd has to say about hybridized animals and plants fit into your scenario of human development.
“There are two basic forms of plants and animals: Wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that (establishment) scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.
Domesticated/Hybridized Plants
Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon came wheat, barley and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes.
Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. So, from where did they come to Earth? But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.
No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age hunter gatherers) ‘farmers’ somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel, when he cross-bred pea plants, to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical almost no one outside (establishment) scientific circles ever examines it closely.
Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age hunter gatherers turned farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official establishment” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles could it occur.
Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So, wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough and nutritionally inappropriate for human consumption. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers 5000 years ago.
(Comment by Al Barrs: Did Noah gather up domesticated plants and animals along with wild animals? Actually he would have gathered them up first to ensure his family’s survival after the flood.)
Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: Time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that.
Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four.
This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it? …they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What (extraterrestrials). If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow beyond all probability our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: MIRACLE!
Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen farmers in eight geographical regions over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each region someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future generation. You think?
It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day ‘establishment’ botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why, because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation.
To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans, exterasterrial or God. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were believed to be primitive barbarians, but were they…really? Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest hunter gatherers turned farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model. Or were humans more advanced technologically 5000 years ago than we are today and had the education and training to manipulate genes in animals and plants. Were Modern Humans hybridized animals too? Were humans the first hybridized animals on Earth?
The establishment botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any circumstances. But do we have to believe them? That unwavering stance is maintained by all establishment scientists, not just establishment botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying today because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lays the most embarrassing conundrum establishment botanist’s face.
To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal (which was supposedly done time and again by our Neolithic forebears…), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes, which I discuss in my book, “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins” (pgs. 283-285) by Lloyd Pye. Glumes are botany’s name for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks.
While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won’t knock the seeds and grains off their stalks before they mature. At maturity they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to fall on the ground in preparation for next crops propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it almost impossible to harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.
That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human effort during what has come to be known as “threshing.” Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. And—here’s the kicker—each wild plant’s glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise!
In short, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that this happened as ‘establishment’ botanist claim it occurred.
Domestication/Hybridization of Animals
As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It probably also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the “big four” of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets (humans have 23 in each).
The only “tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: Time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a “final model,” to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes, and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.
This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take over as “leaders” of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, why would they because there was plenty of heard animals to hunt, how could they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human “parents” would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts.
However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals something more…something ineffable…must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to Modern Human intelligence.
All examples of plant and animal “domestication” are incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt, India and China. As with all such examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must get the credit. (Wait, maybe it was domesticated by technically advances humans of pre-flood Earth.)
The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60 breaths per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles per hour while a thoroughbred horse tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun.
Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two distinctly different animal families: Dogs and cats. They belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to their “dog only” diseases they also get “cat only” diseases too. And the black spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat’s fur.
There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested, they were all—every one—genetically identical with all the others! Did you get that? Genetically identical…
This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been genetically altered in labs…NEVER IN NATURE.
Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone”….
Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points squarely in that direction. And why? Because that, too, would move cheetahs into the forbidden zone occupied by You-Know-What.
The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by ‘establishment’ scientists as something now known as the “bottleneck effect.” What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population—which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates—at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the “bottleneck” theory is accepted as another establishment scientific gospel.
Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house. It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of Modern Humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those “bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the cheetah.
Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by all establishment scientists in the 1980’s, when a group of geneticists decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and chimps supposedly split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world.
When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it. They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the establishment paleontologists, who would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed.
Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of establishment paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.
Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the establishment paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of “bottleneck effect” they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs. By doing so they left establishment paleontologists able to still insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannahs of Africa as long as five million years ago, but between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago “something” happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to start reproducing again from a small population of survivors.
If only…
Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong on Earth at all….that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to have developed here…like other domesticated plants and animals.
We are taught that by every establishment scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.
Bones: Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “pre-human” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; Modern Human bones do not.
Muscle: Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.
Skin: Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.
Body Hair: Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost or never had the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.
Fat: Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates do. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.
Head Hair: All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for some of the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”
Fingernails and Toenails: All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals alone.
Skulls: The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.
Brains: The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce…survive.)
Locomotion: The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough. For footed animals can run faster than two legged ones.
Speech: Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.
Sex: Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache)
Chromosomes: This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.
Genetic Disorders: As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely, so wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?
Genetic Relatedness: A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.
Everything Else: The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check “The Scars Of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in “Everything You Know Is Wrong” (available only by ordering through http://www.iUniverse.com — not Amazon.com…)
When all of the above is taken together, the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and Modern Humans, it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it either. No modern establishment scientists can explain it either. None of them can explain it because it is not explainable in only Earth bound terms. We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our establishment scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured and confused.
My (Lloyd Pye) personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated or hybridized animals. I believe what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern establishment scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don’t, so until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday getting them to notice our complaints and address them.
In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later editions of “Icons Of Evolution” will discuss the current era when mainstream establishment scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a few “insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.
Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to raise and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on strong convictions.
The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not suiting up.
Copyright © 2004 by Lloyd Pye
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with Permission
About the Author
Lloyd Pye was born in 1946 in Louisiana. He grew up in the small town of Amite, where he was a star running back, receiver, and punter on a State Championship football team. That led to a football scholarship to Tulane University in New Orleans, where he was a running back and nationally ranked punter before graduating in 1968 with a B.S. in psychology.
After graduating from Tulane he joined the U.S. Army and became a Military Intelligence Agent performing routine background checks throughout northern Georgia. Based out of Third Army Headquarters in Atlanta, he was never a “spy” or anything like that, although on orders he did infiltrate a few student rallies at the University of Georgia (during the era of SDS, when J. Edgar Hoover saw a student radical behind every bushy beard). His experience at that was more comical than serious, which taught him that “black ops” were not his forte.
It was during this time that Mr. Pye began a serious independent study of all aspects of human evolution. By the time he was 30, his studies led him to conclude humans could not possibly have evolved on Earth according to the prevailing Darwinian paradigm. By the time he was 40, he could convincingly illustrate his belief by comparing skeletons in the so-called “pre-human” fossil record with those reported to belong to the world’s four basic types of hominoids (Bigfoot/Sasquatch, The Abominable Snowman/Yeti, and two other types Westerners know next to nothing about: Almas and Agogwes).
Although Mr. Pye’s research had convinced him that humans did not evolve on Earth like other animals and plants may have, he had no idea where we might have come from, so he undertook an extended search for an answer. At the same time, he was attempting to establish himself as a novelist and scriptwriter. His first novel was published in 1977, his next a decade later, in between which he lived and worked in the hinterlands of Hollywood, achieving a few modest successes before finally accepting that he was temperamentally unsuited to the Hollywood lifestyle.
Still pursuing his human origins research, in 1990 Mr. Pye got lucky enough to stumble onto the work of Zecharia Sitchin, whose monumental research into the historical writings of the ancient Sumerians provided answers to human development that he had been seeking. In every way Mr. Pye could think to judge it, Mr. Sitchin’s research appeared unimpeachable, so it became the bedrock of correctness that he had been seeking, a genuine turning point in his life and in his career as a writer.
Realizing his own hominoid research provided a “front end” to Mr. Sitchin’s research into all aspects of the Sumerian culture, and that Mr. Sitchin’s work provided a “back end” to his own extensive research into hominoids, in 1990 Mr. Pye began working to find a way to fuse the two together. “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins” is the result of that fusion. And due to Mr. Pye’s many years as a fiction writer, it is constructed like no other purely nonfiction text of its kind. It is designed much like a “whodunit,” with a sequential, clue-by-clue development of the storyline that allows readers to try to anticipate and figure out “what comes next.”
“Everything You Know Is Wrong–Book One: Human Origins” is highly informative, continually entertaining, and downright fun to read. But more than that, it plausibly and convincingly answers some of the most profound questions we can ask of ourselves: Who are we? Why are we here? And most important of all: Are we alone? So Mr. Pye hit the interstates in an old Buick Roadmaster to bring his book and his message to the public. With no training at all as a platform speaker, he was rapidly and widely acclaimed as one of the very best in the entire field of alternative knowledge.
Because of the notoriety he generated with his whirlwind tour promoting EYKIW, in February of 1999 a couple in west Texas contacted him about a peculiar artifact they owned. It was a genuine bone skull that weighed half as much as a normal human skull and looked nothing like one. However, it looked very much like a skull that would fit inside the head of a so-called “grey” alien. They asked Mr. Pye if he would examine their highly anomalous artifact. He agreed to do so and was immediately blown away by how far it was from the human norms in every dimension he knew how to evaluate. He told them he felt it was very likely not a natural deformity and not entirely human.
They asked him to undertake the task of getting the skull scientifically tested to determine its genetic pedigree. He agreed to do so, which meant stopping his all-out campaign to promote EYKIW. The 900-year-old skull has come to be known as The Starchild Skull. It has been publicized around the world through The Learning Channel, Animal X, Extra (on Globbo TV), and in a wide range of print media. Its genetic heritage should be determined by the middle of 2003. Regular updates about it are posted at http://www.starchildproject.com.
Starchild and Lloyd Pye were featured in a recent National Geographic episode of their show “Is It Real?” The episode is “Ancient Astronauts,” and can be found in any location by checking the National Geographic cable channel website.
Copyright 2006 by Lloyd Pye.
Presented with permission of the author.
http://www.lloydpye.com/articles.html
stevebee92653 said,
January 19, 2012 at 4:52 am
You have come through again. This is a great find! Thanks Al.
albarrs said,
January 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Today there are literally millions, if not billions, of life form species on planet Earth. Yet, since mankind has been keeping records, thousands of years, no one has ever observed or recorded a transitional species turning into a new species…not one. Have you? Not me!
Al Barrs
albarrs said,
January 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Let’s put this particular debate to rest. Let’s ask all the Darwin evolutionist believers to put up their money…millions of dollars…for anyone who can come up with a living transition animal or a provable (DNA) transition fossil, especially a DNA validated transition fossil of Modern Humans. Their money will be safe because no one has done either so far…
wolfgang said,
May 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm
I was actually so foolish to red this whole thread just for philosophical reasons I guess or hope.
So here my 2cents input for the Trex small phony arms.
Evonauts should look for the find of a a giant wallnut tree in their fossile records, that would settle once and for all why he had these useless squirrel arms that did not fell of or grow any longer allthough very energy consuming for less benefit in the current state.
evolve5 said,
November 10, 2013 at 3:22 am
Steve, not able to find an email address, for you, not wanting to clutter up your home page (it seems blocked to me anyway), I’m sending my reactions to reading your book here:
Having read your book I am very impressed with your intelligence and your talent for research.
I found very little to disagree with and a lot I hadn’t thought about. I feel you’ve penetrated deeper than any other non-darwinist I’ve read. Others have made more points, perhaps, but your logical lance seemed very precise and probing.
Your objections covered a lot of ground. You were clearly widely read. I felt your vision was very piercing. Sometimes I felt your logic led you astray but you had done a lot more research than I had so I felt I had to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I thought your arguments refuting the possibility of abiogenesis were particularly powerful. I appreciated you had taken apart what had to be involved, and laid out the difficulties in each case. As you know, I believe the intelligence you and I assume to be involved in life arose in this process, but I couldn’t find adequate arguments to prove you wrong, that it was possible. That was a setback for me. Still, I assume there’s a very long succession of processes leading up to the “origin” of life as we know it, that we cannot at this stage plumb, of, shall I say, 60 steps, in the course of which nucleotides begin to combine in strings due to clay catalysis, separately amino acids are catalyzed into proteins, and separately again some translation of nucleotides into proteins begins, all as dissolved chemicals in high concentrations, processes driven by very high-energy-differential gradients, that in stages join up and become encapsulated. But, nowhere in this process can I see the creation of an intelligence able to complete the process to form life. Still, that’s what I accept having to believe. And believing that I dismissed your arguments, though I found them sound, as simply not allowing for how unpredictable, even implausible, the processes involved could be.
I have no reaction to your concern for cosmological processes, since I regard those as not accessible by our concepts today—I ignore them.
The creation of the eukaryote cell boggles the mind. I think everyone agrees about that. It’s a mountain for anyone to climb. You have plenty of company in seeing it as challenging simple mutation and selection.
Your dismissing the possibility of multicellularity I found less persuasive. Slime mold demonstrate how easily cells can collaborate to form structures. And here I felt the fossil record could hardly be faulted for not having examples.
The second half of the book, solid analysis, lots of logical challenges to the modern synthesis.
On the whales I was not convinced by your argument, because I am loyal to Carl Zimmer and I’d read his book on the evolution of whales. I couldn’t believe he’d be so easily taken in. But you made a case that left clear challenges to be met, that was excellent. I didn’t find the heft of the blue whale an argument against the evolution picture, but I do think the anatomy of the blowhole begs questions. I was impressed you could identify the so-called legs as aids to conception.
The chapter on human population I found totally misguided, as if you’d never heard of Malthus, “Communities will always be pressing against limited resources.” They can stay constant forever. Why should they ever double, let alone double regularly? Curious. I felt this chapter let your logic down.
At the end I found a summary of truths about evolution similar to what I had suggested we all agree to. I found them a bit too personal to be a generally-agreed-upon list, but still valuable. So you had thought of that.
A personal complaint—I hate being presented with pages of text where I’m not told at the beginning what the point is going to be, where I feel the author believes he has to lead me through a long discourse in order to persuade me of something. Tell me upfront what the point is, leave it to me to judge if I want to read. Your chapter on population does this, just takes off, and I’ve no ideas if I’ll be wasting my time. You did that a lot, particularly in the first hundred pages. And one reader’s reaction—that first hundred pages seemed to be for your benefit, for your enjoyment, not the readers’. I resented that. Getting lost in those pages I skipped to the end and then read chapters in reverse order. Then I tried the middle, found your arguments against abiogenesis, approved of them, and began again. I’d never have read the book past the early chapters if we hadn’t been in personal communication.
Overall it felt like a first book. Muddled, hard to wade through, too personal, out of order, windy, abusive, repetitive. I hope you’ll find some other angles on this material, and feel compelled to write another book. I’ve experienced how ideas clarify and simplify with reconceiving for a second approach to the subject matter. I’ve written five books and my play, and my message has streamlined greatly and my tone moderated with each one. I can feel you have tremendous scope ahead of you for moderating your egotism and free-floating abuse, and refolding the arguments so there are fewer of them even while they cover more issues. The writing feels a bit like a schoolboy’s, though one who’s very, very bright. I recommend as a model Gordon Ratray Taylor, “The Great Evolution Mystery.” My review of it here may help http://takeondarwin.com/index.php/evolution-consciousness-self/14-gordon-rattray-taylor?catid=2%3Aopposition-to-darwinism I noticed your tone moderated in the final chapter.
I feel there’s great scope for penetrating deeper into what your objections are, and giving more down-to-earth examples. For example, how does a solitary globe spider with a brain of xx neurons know how to build a web? It’s an extraordinary feat, involving a conceptual grasp (in effect) of gravity and space, for which the spider has no preparation or training. There I see the mutation-selection adaptation-to-the-environment story fall woefully short. One could mine just such an example and show it fail in many different respects, and in doing so show up one by one all the conceptual weaknesses in Darwinism.
I’ve been pursuing a different approach—what’s the essence of why Darwinism doesn’t work? Here’s how I’m tackling that now:
Here’s how evolution works. First, in every generation your genes suffer damage—from cosmic rays, that sort of thing–and that damage goes into the gene pool. Generation by generation the damage accumulates in the gene pool, and pretty soon your species goes extinct. Except—it’s logically possible for damage like that to be an improvement—could happen once in a billion years, could take several lifetimes-of-the-universe. But if it does happen, all the damage to the genes in the gene pool will be swept away. As those improvements–those “Beneficial Genes” as they’re called–as they accumulate they’ll turn your species into another species, even better than your species was before. And that’s how species evolve.
Ludicrous. But how is it wrong? Sure, natural selection may reduce how many damaged genes will enter the gene pool in the gene pool, but it’s effect is slight, so most of them will. Of course even if there is a beneficial gene, it can’t sweep away all that damage as I ludicrously claim above. So the way Darwinism ignores the harmful genes and considers only the slow spread on the gene pool of the beneficial genes is highlighted without having to labor it. The story is told in simple terms. They look silly if they don’t answer in simple language, if they take refuge in population statistics. What do you think?
I see another weakness. I don’t see evolution being driven by adaoptation to the environment. I don’t see a spider’s web as an adaptation, it’s what you say, an invention. I don’t see the peacock’s tail as an adaptation. And the sexual selection story makes no sense to me.
I see plenty of scope for powerful attacks on Darwinism. I look forward to your further efforts.
Congratulations on not having typos.
stevebee92653 said,
November 10, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Shaun
Wow is all I can say. What a review! I really appreciate the positive feedback, naturally. And I appreciate the negative as well. A lot is in the “eye of the beholder” category. You are by far one of the most intelligent people I have discussed with, be they anti or pro evolution or PhD. Your critique is well thought out and well written.
Since I really love the positive stuff, I will lightly defend the negative, if only to give you an idea of my thinking.
Your complaint about the population paradox centers on the pending future population explosion, and not on the most important theme of the chapter: that Homo sapiens cannot be 200,000 years old. This brings into great question the evolution of human intelligence, consciousness, and the story of human migration, and the supposed evolution into the various races, which you don’t cite. I think its fascinating that at the doubling rate of the twentieth century, which was greatly slowed by birth control, disease, starvation, holocausts, WWI and II, the population of mankind will explode to trillions in six or seven hundred years. I also state that that cannot happen, and will not. But what will occur that will reverse the future population rises in humans? Horrible wars, starvation, disease? Far more horrible than we have ever seen? I can only imagine. But let’s put that down as your least favorite chapter.
Using slime molds to argue my points about multicellularity doesn’t fly. Slime mold DNA does not carry the blueprints for multicellular slime mold species, or for procreating as a whole multicellular organism as I discuss in the first couple of pages of that chapter. Their sizes and shapes are random. My point is to show that multicellularity cannot be exampled by algae, molds, and the like, as is cited by evolution, because they don’t copy themselves whole when they procreate. They grow by copying individual cells. In a true multicellular organism, each and every cell contains the plans for the entire multicellular organism.
I agree with your critique on my website. Placing the theme on the first page was a great idea. On the other hand, I didn’t want Evo-illusion to read like a magazine made up of articles. I gave a hint as to what each chapter discusses in the title. This criticism is in the category of the “eye of the beholder”. I do see your point.
Re: “Overall it felt like a first book. Muddled, hard to wade through, too personal, out of order, windy, abusive, repetitive.”
I did rewrite some of the pages, and I reduced what you may think are the “abusive” parts. I don’t know if you got the new version, which was just completed, or the old version. My bet is you were sold the old. My publisher was supposed to send me a copy of the book, which I could then go over, and modify. They put it on Amazon before they sent me a copy. (If chapter 11 ends on p. 155 with a diagram with circles and squares on p. 154, you got the old version.) The new version is a bit tamer, and less repetitive. Your “muddled, hard to wade through, too personal, out of order, windy, repetitive” comment leaves me thinking you didn’t like the read. You seem to contradict, “I have read your book, find it amazing.” So while I do appreciate your efforts and constructive criticism, I’m left puzzled. In any case, I really appreciate your efforts. Thanks!
Steve
evolve5 said,
November 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm
`
evolve5 said,
November 11, 2013 at 8:52 pm
I got the old version.
I am pleased you found me a good reviewer. I like to do that. I know how valuable it can be.
“…most important theme of the chapter: that Homo sapiens cannot be 200,000 years old. This brings into great question the evolution of human intelligence, consciousness, and the story of human migration, and the supposed evolution into the various races, which you don’t cite.: I missed all that. All I got was, because human populations double so fast and are only 8 billion now they couldn’t go back to 200,000 ago. Seemed a non-sequitor. What will slow future growth? Women’s reproductive rate dropping below 2.1 children per lifetime, happening all over the world. But consciousness? Notably missing from your book, I thought. Maybe in the new version?
Slime molds, in their DNA must have specs for forming spore heads, which are structured, I believe, not random. So they could become permanently structured creatures, no? Anyway, a minor point, that you’d already considered.
I thought your thinking was very good criticism of darwinism. What I faulted was the overall style and form of the book. But, as I said, that gets better with each book, and you’ve already improved this one prior to mass publication. Good for you.
I forgot–the cover. The idea, that the ape represents evolutionists and is hiding the cheat that makes the ring illusion works, is completely obscure. Anything that needs explaining is worrisome. So the cover merely puzzles one. It doesn’t communicate or appeal. Try it out in a bookstore, against other covers.
Now what? I would like to keep in touch, I admire your work. Your goal is close to mine (I think).
I am finding myself daunted by trying to find places to perform my 90-minute play. Too hard to start out with. So I am trying to come up with Darwin-impersonation talks I can give of 10, 20, 40 and 60 minutes length. That’s easier to find venues for, I think. So perhaps we can share lists of venues.
I’m not sure of your motivation, but you said you might give talks. Could we help each other develop scripts? I’d be happy to be a critic for you.
We seem to have finished this round. Let me know of any substantive new writings? I will try to engage with you when I want feedback. I post fairly regularly at takeondarwin.com.
stevebee92653 said,
November 13, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Shaun
I think you would have found fewer faults with the new version, even though yours is 98% of the new one. I will keep an eye on takeondarwin.com. You are a very interesting and intelligent person. I do appreciate your interest and visits. I think we pretty much agree on most things: that a religious god shouldn’t even be in play when discussing objective science, that RM and NS can’t be the source, even if evolution is in some way.
I hope you can find venues for your one-man play. I can’t believe you won’t. What about college theater? They do a lot of that kind stuff around here. A guy named Hershey Felder just finished a run of one- man plays at the Laguna Playhouse. He was brilliant as Chopin, Beethoven, Gershwin…. All one man plays.
I lost John Torday. He got frustrated and began using the typical evo-strategy: calling me ignorant. Pretty sad to see that from a university professor. I expected much more from him. It’s funny what evolution can do to people.
Let’s keep in touch.
Regards
Steve
evolve5 said,
November 14, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Roger and out.
evolve5 said,
November 15, 2013 at 4:21 pm
I have just come across, and recommend, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/ Substantive analysis of evo theory associated with darwinism.
stevebee92653 said,
November 16, 2013 at 5:21 pm
I got a page that says “the document cannot be found”?
Kent Perry said,
November 18, 2013 at 5:58 am
I read it all and to nutshell it, the past 150 years has been spent by Darwin and his contemporaries, inventing, sometimes very extravagant, very imaginative ideas for any plausible way Darwins’ theory could have happened and tactics employed to get it accepted that I would say are sophomoric. Nothing about doing actual science challenging his theory but more about disposing of critics by coming up with strategies to mitigate the consequences of anticipated questions they had no answer for to this day.
What Dawkins attacks religion of doing by saying faith stops all further inquiry in science, using the popular snide remark “God did it” to end all further discussion, he is so guilty of such similar dogma with phrases such as, “There is no argument evolution happened” or using the term of endearment, affectionately calling it “The Fact of Evolution” followed by some other area of REAL Science they attach to the coat tails of its universal acceptance, like “Evolution has been tested and proven more than Gravity”.
I would say it SHOULD be given how weak it is but that isn’t the real problem I have with it. The real problem is that it IS NOT tested and skepticism in science is what fine tunes a theory giving it credibility or passing it off to the dustbin wrong headed ideas.
There was something more sinister going on here however and that it is unlike any other area of science. Something that gives such a passion to continuing the direction this theory has been going can come from only three motivations,
Greed, Love or disdain and /or hatred of the alternative views of others. At Dawkins age, he has made plenty of money and since he rarely talks about classical biology, I can’t see that his passion is for his own area of research but uses science as a call to authority in his hate filled vitriolic attacks on evolution’s detractors, using the same tactics Huxley suggested and xtopher hitchens employed with his Vodka Vocalized Venomous and vitriolic rants.
Letters written between Darwin and his colleagues, seemed to be more about presentation than facts, more about carefully using words at times there simply not at liberty to use without being proven a liar or sounding metaphysical even adding anthropomorphic qualities that just weren’t scientific/ That last part is the biggest hurdle they have yet to find a way around.
I have never had nor ever seen anyone try to explain evolution without using terminology associating it to metaphysics and have never seen it tested where they didn’t get tripped up by assuming the consequent same as ID does. It simply doesn’t pass their scientific method ESPECIALLY, when that method for testing a theory is only as good as its Scientist is Honest.
Today, the prestige of an evolutionary Biologist is right up there
with Attorneys and Used Car Salesman,
Kent Perry said,
November 18, 2013 at 6:22 am
By the way, Shaun I just love your website you linked us too and was so happy to see you quoting Dr.James Shapiro. I have written about him using his “Third way” in some of the debates I have had here with Steve.
I met him years ago and had some pretty deep discussions with him. Very nice fellow and says Dawkins is an embarrassment as a Scientist. He seemed very confounded over his popularity.