2a: More About Me


To help evolutionists that have difficulty with the idea that I am not a Biblical creationist:

First of all, to repeat, I am not attached to any organizations. I am not a Biblical Creationist, I am a philosophical ID’er. It is completely obvious, that there is an immense amount of intelligence in nature. I know evolutionauts like to cover their eyes and pretend that there isn’t. But that fact cannot be avoided. Our best engineers can’t come close to mimicking any organ in our bodies, and mankind most likely never will. Evolutionists frequently tell me that the eye is poorly designed. That thought is so unbelievable, it’s not worth discussing. Vision is an immense natural miracle, and because people need glasses, evolutionists try to taint that miracle. This is the ultimate of looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I am very much a nerd inside even though I have always been addicted to sports. So I am a nerd-athlete? I love science of all types, particularly astronomy, and the origin of life and species. Absolutely the two greatest puzzles in the universe; real puzzles inside of an immense puzzle. When I was a kid (about 9) I learned about the speed of light and what a light year was. And that was it. I was hooked. I actually wanted to be an astrophysicist, but reality set in and dentistry won out.

I was raised in a very Christian family. My grandfather was a Methodist minister. My dad should have been. He and my mom were very devout. We frequently had Bible study and “devotions” at night after dinner.  Every minute was torture for me.  The were much more fun and interesting things to do.  I remember my friends patiently waiting outside of our windows while we were dragging out our Bible study.  I would wink at them.  They would smile, and be patient most of the time.

Of course we attended church every Sunday. Until I was an early teen, I believed that God created everything in six days; that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth, and that Noah and his family surely collected all of the animals two by two, and made an ark which saved the all of the animals in the world and Noah’s family from a great flood. All other life on earth not saved by Noah’s family was drowned. In my early childhood and teen years I was very much a Biblical creationist. But as my thinking became more mature and independent, I began having lots of trouble with the whole idea. Outwardly I did a good job of acting for my family. I wanted to keep my dad happy.  He would surely have been very upset if he knew the thinking that went on in my head in regards to the Christian faith he had so thoroughly taught me.  I have always been a skeptic. But mixed in with my desire to please my dad, I was afraid to think too negatively as I was told that hell would be my reward if I didn’t believe. I had to keep my parents happy and not give myself a ticket to hell at the same time.  So I pretty much went along.

When I went to college my dad told me to watch out for those “evolutionists” that will teach that we came from monkeys. (At that time he didn’t realize that he and I were not on the same page. I was still a good actor.) But monkeys?  I had to laugh at that one.  My dad told me the professor would probably have a grey beard, and stand up in front of the class and tell us the monkey story.  I really couldn’t believe it.  And MONKEYS?  On my first day at university, in my first paleontology class……there he was; that evil guy my dad warned me about. He DID have a gray beard!  Just like dad said!  I felt like I was looking at some sort of crazy evil entity.  Was he going to tell us about MONKEYS?

Early in our first hour he asked, “How many in this class believe that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth?”  Along with about half of the class, I raised my hand proudly.  Proudly because this guy was either evil or nuts.  I was waiting for the monkey fable.  He didn’t mention monkeys, but he did mention apes, and how we were similar, and from common ancestors, and…….. I loved what he said. For me, that was it. I was fascinated. I had finally found out how we got here!  It wasn’t Adam and Eve just like I thought! It was a slow process of changes that added up over time.  It made complete sense. I was nearly an instant fascinated believer.  At the end of the week the professor asked for hand of those who now think Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth.  Not a single hand went up.  He had done his job well.  And because of him, I spent many years being supporter, and studier of evolution.  I was sold.  The professor with the gray beard created another defining moment in my life, just like Art and I had in the fourth grade.

Then, a few years ago when I was in the Field Museum in Chicago and had the experience I describe on p. 2. I started getting those same damn “uh-ohs” that I had with Adam and Eve. It’s really a strange feeling when something that you so strongly believe starts to crash. And, this was my second time around!

I have been on both sides of the battle, and believed thoroughly in both Creationism and Darwinian evolution during different periods of my life. I have a pretty good feeling for what both are about both emotionally and intellectually. But now I am in a funny sort of funk. Here I am, fascinated with the subject, and much farther away from any answer than I was since my visit to the Field Museum. To me the Puzzle is even bigger. And, I am very open minded to good science. If I could see that Darwinian evolution could have truly been the “source”, I would modify my thinking. But, the more I study the subject, the more I am convinced Darwin was wrong. And I really have no answer or idea what is right. I read “The Blind Watchmaker”. I reviewed it on this site. https://evillusion.wordpress.com/thinking-about-organ-ev-and-a-blind-watchmaker/ It had many incredibly interesting sections. But after reading it, I would swear that Dawkins himself was trying to prove that Darwin was not possible. Check out Dawkin’s quotes in the last question on my Ev 101 test. https://evillusion.wordpress.com/a-suggested-final-exam-for-the-dover-and-all-teachers/

As far as Creationism goes: I try to think in reverse. If I were an intelligent and loving God, how would I make an the earth and place life and people on board? Maybe I would make a big ball, and put a huge light bulb above it and give the people eyes so they can see where they are going with the legs that I give them; and ears to hear, arms to handle things, and brains to think. But I wouldn’t make trillions of other suns. I would kind of focus here on earth. I wouldn’t make the inhabitants of this planet spend hundreds of thousands of years with deadly illnesses, starvation, wars, thieves, murderers, tumors, and other horrors. And I can’t imagine me as God, concocting millions of different species, then somehow reaching down and placing those millions of species in habitats that I chose for them. Why would I make things so complicated and difficult? No sense going into more detail on this subject. I am not a Biblical Creationist.

So, hopefully this gives a very clear idea of my thinking. The most difficult time I have discussing this subject as real science with evolutionists is the fact that they cannot get off the idea that I have some sort hidden agenda. I began writing this blog only to keep notes on what I found in researching the subject. Most of my research was done on pro-evolution websites and books. The blog grew. My agenda is good and objective science. And every time I give a challenge that evolutionists can’t answer, they go to that. “You and your creationist buddies……” which makes any kind of scientific debate impossible.

Good debate can be very intellectually stimulating, and fun in many ways. This is a fun subject, and very  mentally stimulating to think about.  The worst kind of debate is when the parties call their “opponents” names or use statements like“You are nothing but a creationist shill” as one evolutionist called me. There is no way to combat that kind of communication. These “arguments” kill good discussion and good science.I hope this will make my stance very clear. Maybe that will help a little. Probably not.

Advertisements

37 Comments

  1. Andorinha said,

    Congratulations on your blog. I stumbled upon it while searching the net for the evolutionist idea on how sex evolved.
    Unlike you, the fact that the Universe is 99.99999 % space spotted with zillion stars never bothered me. I kind of like the idea that we are the only ones in these circumstances, so we must be special.

    That makes one really think about the reason for living, and how the passage of each person through this one single unique planet must be a step into eternity. And yes, after one leaves this world and becomes a spirit then travel with the speed of thought should be possible, so the vast expanse of the universe, and whatever other universes and dimensions may be beyond ours, would be very convenient.

    That puts sense in a loving God who would allow the Asian Tsunami, or a Pompeii or Noah’s flood or some other naturall disaster that takes the lives of thousands of people in a swoop,. Their time here was finished for whatever reason He’d see fit, and He takes them to His arms.However but such “acts of God” are His prerrogative only, not man’s — just a disclamer.

    Hope to see more of your youtube videos. You’re not only a good thinker but an artist also.
    Andorinha

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Thanks for the kind words! I look at things pretty much on a scientific basis, and don’t think too much on the religious side. But I can see why so many people do. Life and nature are such mysteries, and they cannot be answered by atheism and evolution.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Toby: You are in a huge trash heap of evolution indoctrinates who are unable to actually address any challenges I write and actually comment on it. Personal put downs are all you brainwashed suckers have . And it goes on and on. Do you know any evolutionaut who has a teensy bit of intelligence, enough to actually challenge my stuff? Or are you all alike. My conclusion: all alike. Clones. Zombies. “Haven’t you heard of” thinking? Bye

  3. The Ecophysiologist said,

    Steve, I’ve tried three times to submit my response to the challenge you issued at RD.net (and which you didn’t respond to).

    It would be great if you could take a look:

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2012652#p2012652

  4. The Ecophysiologist said,

    Never mind – the problem appears to have been with the URL. I’ve posted the response without it.

  5. MichaelBryant said,

    you do not need to be a YEC to believe in the bible. I am a OCE been since September of this year. Evert thing makes a lot since in OCE view. A good website to check out is reasons to believe.org. they have really good stuff on there.

  6. MichaelBryant said,

    it reason.org not reason to believe.org sorry

  7. Alex said,

    Hello there! It’s me, kurayamisidekick! The youtube discussion got kind of cramped, and this doesn’t seem like a bad place to continuing the debate 😉

    First off, I wish to say I completely respect what is on this page. I don’t know how it is to go from creationist to evolutionist to Idon’tknowwhatitist :p but I respect that.

    And let us continue:

    In reply to your latest comment : “Evolution can only be replaced by honest science which should say “we don’t NOW have enough information to make a valid and plausible theory”. THAT is real science. Evolution makes excuses for facts that go against it. (Punctuated equilibrium, et al) My blog explains how I “got here” pretty well. ”

    But what about the predictions of evolution which have been correct? What about bacteria and antibiotics, artificial selection to create breeds of dogs? What if we do have enough information, but that the theory is not complete?

    Punctuated equilibrium, as I understand it, is based on the diverging selective pressure concept. Were a species to split in two extremes, say foxes preying on small creatures, if it were an advantage to hunt either small mice or big hares but not both, individuals most apt at hunting either would have better chances of surviving than individuals hunting both. In that case, each diverging population is forced to specialize in one of two possible hunting methods. If the same selection continues, over time we may end up with two subspecies, or even possibly even two distinct species. On the other hand if a third type of individual would be better at hunting mice and hares than either of the specialized ones at hunting their specific prey, no speciation will occur and we will only have one species of fox.

    And I just realized, it seems I tried to upload two comments at a time on youtube, but it only posted one, so half of my arguments were missing :p

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Welcome to my lair! Your first problem is what you are “arguing” about. Check my p. 7 (Evidence FOR Evolution) for a discussion on your subject matter: speciation. I don’t deny at all that evolution occurs and did occur. It is simply not possible for NS and RM to account for all species for very good reasons: (p. 36., Phylogenetic Trees) Common ancestry would have prevented the spread of evolved organs and bio-systems. Your second problem is your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the most important and daunting question of all: The invention, design, assembly of organs and bio-systems. Changes in populations over time is just that, nothing more.
      Feel free to give those a read and report back with agreements or arguments. I am always good for open discussion, no matter what side you are on. As long as it’s free and open, and not boring repetitive evo-dogma, which kills good discussion. I think you will find my take on this subject much different that any you have seen.
      Obviously I don’t really know you and I have found many people who come to debate me put on an innocent open minded demeanor until we get down to brass tacks, then the full on evo-rudeness and dogma comes roaring out. So I hope that is not you.

      • Alex said,

        Thanks for the welcome and the pointers! I didn’t have time to read p.36 yet, but I think we might have enough with just what’s on p.7 to get a conversation started.

        I always try to think for myself, to see if what I’m learning makes sense. I’ve embarrassed myself a few times by saying things which weren’t quite true, and I’ve had to change my thinking processes a few times, though nothing major like evolution or creationism, just little details.

        (a) And no, I won’t be an evo-rude dogmatic insulting evolutionaut :p If ever at times you feel offended or anything, please tell me. I certainly don’t want to come across as that, though my sense of humour can sometimes portray me as overly sarcastic.

        (b) Anyhow, onto the meat. Just to say right off the bat, I’m just a first year student in biochemistry, I did not do extensive in all the research areas, I’m just using my brain to try to figure out how things came about using what I know of fossils and genetics and the like along with my knowledge of the theory of evolution. I cannot cite papers, I cannot cite studies, I can only bring up mechanisms which I think may b an explanation. I hope it will be enough.

        (c) “The question here is, how do they know how many haven’t been found since the fossils haven’t been found? To establish any number for anything that has never been found is impossible, but somehow evolutionauts can do it.”
        Well, if they look at the amount of species present on the planet at this time, and the amount of species which were their ancestors, plus evolutionary dead-ends, one can get to a certain approximate number. It is probably not an accurate number, but it can give an idea.

        (d) “Wouldn’t it be expected that the anatomy of different species separated by thousands of miles might just have some different type of internal anatomy, and function in different ways, and locate themselves in different positions? Why would all mammalian species have nearly identical internal designs? Species in Australia certainly have very different external body designs, but why not internal? I know that evolutionauts say the reason is common ancestry, but if that were the case, species should be much more identical internally as well. A species that is separated by vast seas and evolved very different external appearances, should also have evolved different internal appearances.”

        (e) Why would animals have different organ arrangement? Natural selection can operate on an animal’s fur for camouflage, his senses to determine if he’s an efficient predator, but how would natural selection somehow select animals with their hearts on the right side? So long as all the basic “plumbing” is the same, it confers no advantage, thus no selection and differentiation. Sticking with the same internal organization and improving on it is a lot more efficient than rearranging the whole thing just because. I suppose one might say natural selection is selecting those with similar internal organ organization, because those with wildly different internal arrangement probably have a lot more problems as well.

        (f) I will admit I do not know much about the emu, ostrich and rhea. However, a quick search on Wikipedia shows that DNA dating indicated ostriches may have branched off from the Ratite family at approximately the same time Gondwana split up. But I still don’t see where exactly the problem lies. We don’t know how all the speciation and distribution happened. We have a general idea, and we need more evidence to prove or disprove the current hypothesis.

        (g) As for the peppered moth, it is not an evolution so much as the expression of a recessive gene in a population in reaction to changing environmental factors. Creationists/anti-evolutionists are more saying that a change in allele frequency is not evolution, and I agree. However, depending on the situation, it might become speciation.

        (h) “Both of these “proofs” are explained by simple mathematics, and in no way prove that species, eyes, and hearts formed from natural selection.” To find hints, we can look at the modern descendants of primitive species with and without the specific organ we are trying to identify. Most organs like eyes and hearts evolved in fish, so that is where we need to look. However, most fish die in the ocean and their remains drop to the bottom of the sea, eventually going into subduction zones. Even if they didn’t, digging up fossils on the bottom of the ocean may be a bit problematic. I think, I am not sure, that only fossils from fish living in inland seas can be found, and so we must look for evidence there. I think that may be why thre are so many transitional fossils from fish to amphibian, because they were preserved in coastal areas, on stable continental plates…
        Anyhow, eyes, lungs, hearts and stomachs already evolved in ocean-living fish, and we probably don’t have enough of those fossils to track changes. We might be able to track the evolution of hearing by looking at fossils with and without an auditory canal, an from there extrapolate why and how hearing might have evolved. Since the evolution of hearing is probably a one-time thing, it’s possible there won’t be a lot of transitional fossils. And even if we do find these fossils, all the delicate inner workings and soft tissue will be completely pulverized, so there won’t be a trace left of it.

        (i) I’d say our best shot at seeing new organs evolve would be to look at modern species in the process of creating a new organ, and watch step by step how it happens. We simply cannot do that with evolution that has already happened. Eyes, hearts, lungs, digestive tract, bladder, liver, had already evolved in fish by the time fish became amphibians and reptiles and mammals etc etc etc. So we have to look very very far back to see the evolution of our essential organs.

        (j) “They are not species specific. But the retroviruses are genome-position specific. Which means, they infect at the exact same position on the genome of different species. So a modern retrovirus can infect both chimp and man at the same location on their respective genomes,” True “which pulls the rug out from the miracle evidence that is so celebrated by evolutionauts.” Not exactly. Retrovirii change over time too. So if chimps and man both have retrovirii marks from a modern, still present retrovirus, it’s not proof of common ancestry. However, if both man and chimp have retrovirii marks of an old and extinct retrovirus that doesn’t exist anymore and has not existed in hundreds of years, it is reasonable to assume a common ancestor was marked with the virus, and when chimps and man diverged, they kept the marks of the extinct retrovirus.

        (k) “If evolution were how things came about, we should not need lab scientists to demonstrate microscopic changes. They should be all over for us to marvel at. The are not.” I’d say we could easily be able to see the tell-tale signs of evolution, if we lived for hundreds, even thousands, of years. But less than a century is too short to see “macro-evolution” as some call it. And when it is witnessed, people say it’s not enough, they want a dog evolving into a cat. Well, evolution is not a sudden fantastical change in one shot, it’s gradual over time. Even the most rapid and spectacular evidence for evolution lasted what, a couple centuries at the least?

        (l) “(2) All species appeared suddenly without precursors. Trilobites being again an excellent example. Bad evidence for evolution.” Well, if evolution predicts organism originally came from unicellular ancestors, and there’s no way we can find fossils of those, we sort of expect species to appear suddenly, because they couldn’t be fossilized before. Whole genus and families popping out of the blue one step after evolution permitted fossilization is expected, a whole genus popping into existence later than the cambrian is much more puzzling.

        (m) Remember please, the above is all speculation and hypothesis from a 1st year biochemistry student. I do not know the specifics of fossilization, I do not know exactly where they are found nor do I know where one can expect to find them. It is just what I think may be an explanation.

        (n) “(4) Species with fossils over long periods during that time showed little or no change. Horrible evidence for evolution. ” Correction: evidence that evolution is the product of natural selection, and natural selection does not necessarily mean huge amounts of change. If trilobites had no selective pressure to become different, why would they change?

        (o) “Many bio-systems evolved around that time. Which means very little external evolution took place while tremendous changes and inventions were occurring internally. Organs were forming. Auditory and visual systems that should have shown up in the fossil record but did not were being invented and forming. Bad evidence for evolution.” Does internal change mean no external change? Or would internal change prompt external change to better use the newer functions resulting of internal change? In any case, one cannot track the direct evolution of organs and other soft tissues, because soft tissue doesn’t fossilize. We can only see the changes in structure that may have resulted from the evolution of internal organs.

        (p) “If massive Darwinian evolution indeed did take place that was capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining complex bio-mechanical systems, where is the evidence for this?” It is pulverized, along with the remnants of all the other soft tissues?

        (q) “Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts?” So you mean like the Tiktaalik and the Caudipteryx? They both show the growth of limbs, a solid structure that can be preserved by fossilization.

        (r) “Eyes do show up in fossils, and the bony sockets that gradually formed should be commonly found fossil evidence.” No, eyes do not show up in fossils, only their sockets. And since the compound eyes evolved either in fish or earlier (I think), it is hard to find. Earlier than the compound eye? There is no need for a socket, and I suppose that at that point, the organism bearing the proto-eyes may not have bones. I’m thinking lobsters and the like. I wonder if lobsters fossilize…

        (s) “Until these fossils are found, TOE will remain a figment of Darwin’s imagination…” So you’re saying you won’t be convinced of evolution’s veracity until geologists can dig up fossilized structures of a structure that cannot be fossilized? You might wait a while on that.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I lettered your paragraphs for ease of answering:
        (a) I appreciate your openness and calm demeanor.
        (b) I CAN site papers. Try page 5. All you will see is piles of conjecture. Your choice will be to accept piles of conjecture, or think independently, use your logic, and see what a hoax you are being taught. Unfortunately I know which path you will take. You are in an environment where your fellow students have fallen, group psychology reigns, and where you have trainers (profs) who will lead. The profs will or have shown you that the only other choice is YEC, which is also absurd. You picked or will pick evolution which certainly is better than YEC. Reality is we don’t have any idea how nature and it’s species and systems formed.
        (c) The point is evolution hopes species that haven’t been found will prove the theory. The ones that have been disprove it.
        (d,e) Random mutations in locations thousand of miles apart should produce different internal configurations and organs. That doesn’t exist in any group of organisms. Different external, identical internal doesn’t match what evolution would predict. Use your own thinking here, not what someone told you or what you WANT to believe.
        (f) The key phrase here is “may have branched off from”. Check out those peer reviewed papers. (p. 5)
        (h) No trace=no evidence=no theory
        (i) No evolution of new organ systems today=no evidence=no theory
        (j) 625 ape species and 1 human species=no evidence of common ancestry. What the heck kind of tree is that? The differences between chimps and humans are huge as well. ERV’s help you look past the evidence that humans and chimps are not cousins. Foramen magnum location, semi-circular canals, knee anatomy, size of cranium…so different. ERV’s trump those for you?
        Part B later

      • stevebee92653 said,

        (k) We should see evolution in progress, just like you can see a building in the process of being built.
        (l) Bacteria fossilize. Cyanobacteria are plentiful in the fossil record, which means early multi-celled should also be. They aren’t. Bacteria have existed as unicelled for 3.7 billion years. Why?
        (m) Why are you looking for explanations instead of being skeptical? Young students are usually the skeptics. Why not in this venue?
        (n) Again, an excuse from a young student. Passed to you by a book or prof.
        (o) You don’t think that it’s strange that internal designs are identical in the same groups, but external are very different? Again, you excuse, you don’t question.
        (p) Another excuse. Eyes did fossilize. Bony sockets are obvious.
        (q) Tiktaalic is a nice fossil, but was not evolving limbs. The back half is missing. Did you know that? I cannot be called a quad. And check out it’s front fin, and compare it to the renderings done by evolutionauts. The legs in the renderings are painted four times longer than the actual fossil fins. Wonder why? I know. Also, its bone structure was that of a water creature, not one that could walk on land.
        (r) Trilobites fossiize. They have exo-skeletons. Their eyes fossilize as well. Another problem you must answer is the formation of the optic nerves, visual cortex, and code required for vision. Can you come up with a scenario for these? Which evolved first, the eyeball or the visual cortex? Neither answer you could give is possible. Which is why I tell you to ask, and question. Don’t accept and excuse.
        (s) I am saying that the fossils dug up to date disprove evolution. When evolution can find fossils that prove the theory, THEN it won’t be pure imagination. Right now it’s nothing but a fable.

  8. Alex said,

    Thanks for lettering! I should have thought about that, sorry!

    (a) How else can one have an intelligent debate? :p

    (b) I wasn’t saying you couldn’t, just that I don’t know of any papers, if I cite I will have to go research every one of them individually. So I don’t have a list of readily available cites, no pre-conceived notions from those papers, just my own intellect.

    (c) So how would you qualify the list of fossils on wikipedia listed as transitional? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    (d, e) How would random spontaneous single-nucleotide or even duplication of sections rearrange a specie’s internal anatomy? I suppose the exterior phenotype is easier to change. The effect of camouflage, better adapted mouth/nose/ears, or the shape/length of the limbs can all be acted upon by natural selection. But what would cause a complete rearrangement of the internal anatomy? You would have to migrate entire organs into a different section of the body, with it’s attached blood vessels, lymphatic tubes, and various other tubes connected to other organs. Think of the massive amounts of change it would take to change the heart from the left to the right side of your body, all the veins and arteries. Think of all the changes it would take to put the stomach on the left side, moving the liver, twisting the digestive tube, which might cause alterations in the position of the gallbladder and the pancreas. What would force those changes, what advantage would organisms gain from this? What kind of exterior influence would incite animals to change their perfectly functional internal anatomy?

    (f) XXX

    (h) So the fact we can’t pinpoint the origin of the circulatory, respiratory or visual system proves evolution wrong? Despite the evidence of transitional fossils and micro-evolution and speciation and all the predictions one can make using the theory of evolution? Isn’t that sort of like saying since we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, it proves the Big Bang theory wrong? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that evolution is good for modern situations, where we can make predictions based on past events, but we don’t know exactly all the past history, and that changes will be made in time to the theory to account for the prehistoric fossils we may find?

    (i) So snakes have always had poison glands? Despite studies showing how most poison glands are derived from saliva glands? And they can even point at the genetic differences which caused a saliva gland to turn into a poison gland?

    (j) So how about 626 species of apes? As for ERV’s, I didn’t even know they existed before looking into the creationism vs evolution debate, so I’m not very well informed on those. I thought that the fact the closest related animal on earth to living humans was a living species of ape, be it chimp or orangutan, might be an indicator, or the fact we share so many similarities, physically, mentally and sociologically. I see very easily why a lot of people want to believe we have been specially created by some superior being who loves us, but it seems as though the superior being forgot to put the distinctive label on us that sets us apart from animals. And for the details of physiology, it could be applied to any two species within the same family, say orangutans and gorillas. The question is not how different we are, but how much more different we are to absolutely everything else!

    (k) According to evolution, every single species alive today is a work in progress. Every single animal is a transitional form, because evolution never stops. Small changes in population, from resistance to antibiotics in bacteria to the increase in size in humans can be indicators of evolution in action. I’m also not sure of this, but I read somewhere that our small toe may be becoming smaller and smaller, and one day it might disappear. It is also my personal hypothesis that maybe humans are evolving towards a more digitigrade kind of walk, what with high heels becoming popular and longer feet in every new generation.

    (l) Cyanobacteria fossilized because they secreted a hard outer shell. So their shell fossilized, and their soft tissue was destroyed. Early multi-celled beings would only fossilize if they produced a hard outer layer. And why should bacteria have disappeared? There are bacteria living absolutely everywhere. Clearly, having a simple single-cell design is an advantage in areas like thermal sources at the bottom of the ocean, salt swamps and sulphurous environments.

    (m) I am skeptical However, I have been presented evidence for evolution, and I haven’t been presented with a theory that is able yet to surpass evolution. I dislike the idea of miracles creating species because that breaks the natural laws as we’ve seen them happen so far.

    (n) No, an excuse from a student who is interested in the evolution vs creation debate, who is open to other ideas, and would like to see which alternative theories there are out there. An excuse from a prof would be “evolution happens, period.” I try to engage in debate to understand the other person’s point of view and expose my own. As the old saying goes, “seek first to understand, then to be understood”.

    (o) All right, I’ll consider. Why and why not? Why? Mammals come from common ancestor(s) from the reptile group. Well, according to evolution, at least. So we started off with the same basic material as them, and evolved differently. There would be little natural selection to change completely the inside anatomy of every single different species, but there would be some to make improvements on
    the already existing order. On the other hand, if we didn’t come from a common ancestor at all and were created, why would there be any internal similarities at all? And if one believes in micro-evolution or common descent or descendence with modification, what would be the limit, the obstacle, between that and evolution?

    (p) Eyes did not and cannot fossilize. Bones are hard tissues, they will fossilize. Eyes are soft tissue, they will disintegrate. So the eye socket around the eye will remain, just like I said it would in (h).

    (q) That I did not know. However, nobody is calling it a quad, they are calling it a fish-tetrapod morph. It’s not a fish because of many tetrapod-like characteristics, but it’s not a tetrapod either because of many fish-like characteristics too. As for renderings, there is nothing but bone sketches published in scientific literature, no pictures of what the creature might have looked like when it was alive. So the fins (which to me don’t look nearly five times as long as you say they are) are artistic representations anyways.

    (r) That’s true, if trilobites fossilize then lobsters should too. For their eyes, I was surprised to see there is indeed a compound eye structure fossilized! I’ll have to do more research on the compound eye to know what part is eye and what part is structural support… But anyways. To answer the question, I will answer neither. Neither the eyeball, the optic nerve nor the visual cortex came first. Eyes are compound and complex structures, so they cannot have formed first out of the blue. An optic nerve without an eyeball and a visual cortex to connect together is useless, and so is the visual cortex alone. The first thing that might have happened was a light-sensitive cell. Was this a single-celled animal or a multi-celled animal? I don’t know. But as the eye was primitive at first, so was the organism bearing it. Slowly, the concept of the eye spread, either through descent or parallel evolution. And from then on it became more complex. How? I do not know. I will go and read on that to see what I can find.
    I do not excuse and accept. I try to apply the theory to scenarios to see if it fits and if it can work. It’s like me saying not to excuse and accept wrenches as a tool. If the wrench is good, keep it. If not, replace it.

    (s) So fossils going from one form to another in time, with genetically similar background and leading to modern-day animals is just a fable? What would be your alternative? Species spontaneously appeared and disappeared, leaving unrelated fossils behind?

    I don’t want to sound aggressive at all, I’m just curious. I still don’t understand exactly what you are for and against within the theory of evolution and/or creation.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      (c) You are too easy. Why not look at that list and ask the obvious questions instead of caving in and accepting any list of species you are given?
      (d) So the internal organs and configurations didn’t change a lick while the external features and habits changed tremendously? Again, you have to make excuses and defend, which you do. You don’t question.
      (h) When someone comes up with a plausible explanation that explains heart/lung systems, THEN make the theory. Right now there is no possible explanation, and that should be what science admits, instead of crediting it to natural selection. If you choose to accept the fables, then you are not searching, as you say you are. You have chosen.
      (i) Saliva glands to poison glands? Sorry, no. Obvious fable.
      (j) Again, you accept. One human species, 625 equally non-intelligent non-conscious ape species. No gradualism as evo would predict. It doesn’t match evolution, so it must be explained. You are willing to explain, not search.
      (k) Explanation.
      (l) Another explanation for the complete lack of fossils of early multi’s.
      (m) Presented to you an you don’t question it. Why? Why would you cave in so easily? Might want to ask yourself. Why not go with the only plausible explanation: we humans aren’t close to figuring it out, and evolution is a bad guess. Very bad.
      (q) You are not skeptical. You have already chosen, you believe, and you SAY you are skeptical. I see no skepticism in your writing with the exception of Creationism. In that you are skeptical. You are selectively skeptical.
      See p. 16 #2 for a rendering and the actual fossil. Tetrapod=quadruped.
      (r) Re:”Neither the eyeball, the optic nerve nor the visual cortex came first.”
      That is not possible. The existence of any three items must have an order of appearance. The existence of the eyeball, optic nerve, and visual cortex is no different. Except in the world of evolution, which you have accepted. Again you show you accept and believe over thinking, and going by what you know to be true…what you have experienced and observed. In fact what every human has experienced and observed. And your list (light sensitive cell, then…..) is just nonsense that someone gave you.
      (s) Re: “Species spontaneously appeared and disappeared, leaving unrelated fossils behind?” That is what the fossil record shows. I will add “at very different time spans”. Man can go with what the evidence shows, of make stuff up. Evolution is just a pile of made up stuff.
      I can’t explain my position any better than my fist page.
      You have obviously swallowed the pill of evolution. Your search has ended with this fable that you believe. I don’t think there is much more we can cover. All of your stuff is thoughtless regurgitation of what you have been taught, and your mind is locked. I am just being honest with what I see in you, which I have seen so many times. The “open minded” person who is “searching”, but has already accepted evolution and wants to debate me. And, by the way, they always say they are “skeptical”. Of everything but evolution. Can’t touch evolution. That is you. I sincerely hope you can take a real serious and objective look at what you have told me. Think it out yourself. Think out just how things came to be. Like heart/lung systems, and visual. Think hard. Pencil these out yourself. See if you can. (You won’t because there is no way to do so.)

      • Alex said,

        (b) Whoops, I forgot this part too! “You are in an environment where your fellow students have fallen, group psychology reigns, and where you have trainers (profs) who will lead. The profs will or have shown you that the only other choice is YEC, which is also absurd. You picked or will pick evolution which certainly is better than YEC. Reality is we don’t have any idea how nature and it’s species and systems formed.” I am in an environment of learning and academia. The profs do not teach that evolution is the only way nor that the only alternative is YEC. I don’t know for the States, but in Canada I had never even heard of YEC. Mind you, I didn’t take a course on evolution, but so far the teaching goes “This is what you’ll learn in this course, this is evolution 101, this is how it is applied in this course, and it works”. There’s no mention of how it happened, but how it is happening. No group psychology, no peer pressure, no leading philosophers, just the assumption that since evolution is the model that best firs what we see happening today, it is the most logical choice.
        You are right. In reality we don’t know exactly how it happened 3,5 billion years ago. We don’t know everything about how it appeared, how it evolved, how it evolved into us. But we have been showed some evidence (whale and horse evolution, which I know you’ll tell me are not evolution, but bear with me) about how it might have happened, and we are shown recent examples of how it is happening today in population evolution and modern genetics. Nothing too specific, nothing in detail, just what we needed to know for the course.
        I am not trying to convince you that you are in error, that evolution is the only one true way. I just want to show you what I think, so you understand what I mean, and that I understand where you come from, how you think, so I can understand you. Point out flaws in my reasoning, I’ll do research to correct what I had wrong, or reject the notion. Point out flaws in evolution, and I will go research it to adapt my knowledge of the theory. Either way, I will learn more, and I will be happy to have learned more. I just hope you’ll find our debate perhaps a little enjoyable too.

        (c) I’m not saying I accept all that list of transitional as true and proving evolution. I don’t know. But I trust some people are better educated than me and their guess is probably better than mine. Still doesn’t mean I accept it all, because I haven’t researched it at all. What I would like to know is how YOU would classify them. Transitional fossils are by definition neither one nor another specific category, they are in-between. How does a non-evolutionists qualify these fossils then?

        (d) What questions should I ask to find answers? Based on my evolutionary-influenced hypothesis, if we were to look at other similar organisms, we would also see little differences in internal anatomy. Between lizards of different species, between fish, between birds. I do not know if it’s true. If it is, my hypothesis is confirmed. If not, my hypothesis would have to change to why internal organisms have not changed, rather than my previous assumption that why should they change.

        (f) You ARE right. We don’t know. And while I think scientific types tend to downplay that (a lot, perhaps, too much, certainly) it is all they can do. Based on letters from soldiers to their wives and personal accounts from survivors, would you be able to describe me exactly and precisely what happened the 22nd of May 1917 on the Passchendaele front during World War 1? And that’s barely 100 years back! Imagine how hard it is to go back a few million years! And you are not satisfied we don’t have exactly every single fact about precisely what happened and how it happened during the history of life on earth?

        (h) Should Newton have waited for the general theory of relativity to be published before publishing his Principia Mathematica? Because as we now know today, Newtonian physics completely and utterly fail to properly predict the behavior of very small (and very large, or so I’m told) objects. Should we then throw all the physics out the window? I’m sure you’ll agree with me that of course not! Newton’s basics gave us something to start with, a foundation, and from there we could work from the ground up. You don’t wait until you’ve amassed all the possible evidence and go from the top down. Evolution might be wrong, might not be. But it’s still better than nothing, and it will stand until something better can come to replace it.
        As for heart/lung evolution, since we obviously know the first organisms were single-celled, and if we assumed new species didn’t simply poof into and out of existence, and that we know that single cells do not need such systems at all, but they are vital to multi-celled organisms, then we know that the respiratory and circulatory system evolved sometime after complex multi-celled species first started developing. I have been told modern colonies of simple sponges form a basic structure where each individual singe-celled organism filters water in one way only, creating a basic respiratory/circulatory system. But this is not a multi-celled organisms, it’s a colony of single cells. Somehow, and I heard this has been reproduced in laboratories but I do not know, colonies became individual complex multi-celled organisms. These multi-celled organisms must have needed more complex and more efficient circulatory and respiratory system. If the organisms are small and simple enough, you can combine both in a simple way, eg water flowing through a simple tube-like structure. When organisms get bigger (modern flatworms for example can reach 10m length in our digestive tract, and yet they have neither circulatory nor respiratory system) they need a way to distribute oxygen to every single cell of the organism. From here on, my knowledge of cell anatomy isn’t good enough to allow me to extrapolate further. Maybe this is where proto-blood cells come in, maybe there is an other intermediate structure in between, such as a flow system present in modern animals I have no knowledge of.
        Feel free to completely dissect this argument. It’s purely mind exercise,

        (i) Thank you for allowing me to do more research! I cannot vouch for the 100% accuracy of the sources I have read (I didn’t find peer-reviewed articles), but out of 23 or so different toxins out of all reptile venoms, only about 2 were derived from saliva enzymes. These are used to pre-digest the prey from the inside out before even consuming it, allowing easier digestion. Most of the other toxins are derived from different tissues in the snake, ie some from cardiac tissues, some from neural tissues, some from enzymes in the liver, etc, and that the original proteins were modified and somehow found their way into the poison glands. But most of those modified proteins expressed in the poison gland come from endocrine glands in the snake’s own body. The genes coding for those endocrine proteins were somehow activated in primitive reptile glands, which was then passed on to varans, monitor lizards and snakes. One can see the advantage of having an endocrine protein in the saliva if after a bite from the predator, the reptile’s protein messes up the prey’s organism, and gives the predator an advantage.
        How that was transferred to snakes and varans is rather vague, with mention of primitive reptiles having 4 poison glands, 2 in the upper jaw and 2 in the lower jaw, but snakes lost the bottom pair and varans the upper pair. While this is somewhat sketchy, we now have a basis to start from, and we know the general direction in which to look to see if this is true or not.

        (j) Please define conscious and intelligent. Because a lot of species show both. I will add 626 species of apes, one of them highly intelligent, the others less so, and various other unrelated intelligent and conscious species such as dolphins, elephants and crows. Humans don’t have the monopoly on intelligence.
        And gradual evolution does not mean there should be intermediates between two modern related species, but that the evolution from ancestral to modern species must be gradual. When you look far back enough, there are no more human fossils and monkey fossils, there is a mix of human-looking fossils and more monkey-looking fossils, but there is no clear-cut distinction.

        (k) What is your explanation? I’m curious to know. I shared my knowledge with you, I showed you where my education lead me in my thought processes. Please share yours, so I can understand where we disagree.

        (l) Indeed. Just like there is an explanation for floods and an explanation to how mountains are formed. An explanation can be false however. Please tell me where I am wrong.

        (m) “we humans aren’t close to figuring it out, and evolution is a bad guess. Very bad.” Well, evolution might be a bad guess, it might not, but it’s the best one we have handy. When a better theory will be created, evolution will follow the theories of the ether and of bodily humors.
        I am sorry, you were right. I was not skeptical enough. I never truly understood the importance of Tiktaalik, nor of Archeopteryx and others, nor how they fit in the timeline of life on earth. I did not study each and every proof presented to me. Your denying them to be true has allowed me to do some research, and I found this :http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/old_theories_die_hard_birdsevo021861.html
        Among others. It was said for example that fossils of quadrupedal footprints had been found in an old abandoned mine, but that the fossils predated Tiktaalik by about 2 thousand years! And so, there is another element we don’t know, something else we have to discover and investigate. Perhaps the tree of life is far from being the simple analogy we use today. Perhaps land animals evolved in parallel, from many different ancestors. In any case, Tiktaalik would no longer be the first transitional form as touted everywhere.
        However, I just found out, a few days after reading the news, that the website was, despite its misleading name, an intelligent design promoter. Now I’m not saying I’ll immediately discredit everything they say, just that the website’s purpose is probably finding problems with the theory of evolution. Such holes as will be found will prove to be very interesting areas to research!

        (o,p) Since you have not replied, do you agree or disagree? I am wiling to make concessions to avoid the debate turning into two one-way exchanges of information. I consider what you tell me, I would like you to do the same, please.

        (q) I admit, I did not see what you meant about 5X longer fins because I was not looking in the right direction. I was comparing the sketch of the bones with the artistic recreation, rather than between the sketch and the actual fossil. Now I see what you mean. However, rather than excusing such things by not being skeptic, my skepticism can tell me possibly why it is like that. The artistic rendition also shows a chest cavity thicker than the fossil, since the fossil was nearly flat. That may be because the fossil was compressed, which would be a logical assumption. Therefore, the fins may have been compressed too. It would be had to determine exactly what was the original size of the fins, because it might be shorter or longer than current estimates.
        As for tetrapod/quad/no hind quarters, if I gave you the skull of an alligator and you told me it came from an alligator, could I really disagree because of the fact you based your guess only on a skull and not based on a complete set of bones?

        (r) View it this way then, which was the first component necessary to make a car? A combustion engine, certainly, because without it a car wouldn’t move. But what about transmission? What about the wheels? Without any of these three parts, a car cannot function. So which one is the first component used to build a car? The answer is neither.
        One can say which component came first, the wheel obviously, but one cannot say which of the three components is the first one required to produce a car. So the wheel existed before the car in the same way light-sensitive receptors existed before eyes and brains and optic nerves.
        I had first found out about irreducible complexity and the progression of the eye after researching the evolution vs creation debate. I had never thought about it at all before. I had never been handed a scenario explaining the evolution of the eye. I learned it all in the past two months or so by my own research on the internet. That is why I remain open-minded and willing to learn more.
        But yes, I go by what we (as humans) have experienced and observed. How else could we understand what’s around us?

        (s)All right, so species appeared and disappeared. They obviously disappeared through extinction, but by which mean did these species appear? Evolution postulates that descent through modification means one population changed in time to create newer fossils, etc etc etc, I’m sure you know the basics of it. What is your theory on that? Evolution might be a pile of made up stuff, but it’s stuff we made up to try to explain what we see happening today, and that we try to apply to explain what happened millions of years ago. We see species driven to extinction today, but we do not see species appearing out of nowhere. So if species don’t suddenly appear today, what tell us they might have spontaneously appeared millions of years ago?

        (t) My search has not ended, it has not even begun yet! And maybe some of the stuff I have said is just thoughtless regurgitation, and for that I apologize. I want to make coherent and intelligent arguments based on my own knowledge and understanding, I do not want to be a mindless drone believing whatever is told to me just because people have told me it’s right. I want to know and understand.
        As for debating, I may have started with that objective, but now I am more curious to see what are your motivations, why you disagree so strongly with evolution, what makes you think it is so wrong. Reading one’s reasoning can bring me only so far. Debating to see how the other person formulates his answers is a lot more effective.
        And again, I am sorry, you were right, I was not skeptical enough. I will do my best to be more universally skeptical from now on.
        But being skeptical also tells me I do not know everything, far from it. People much more educated and much more intelligent than me have made better guesses, hypothesis, experiments, whatever. In any case, my skepticism tells me just because I can or cannot conceive something is not a criteria for being true. Neither you nor I can pencil out the exact evolution of pulsars, nor can we pinpoint exactly why the Tacoma Bridge was destroyed so, nor hundreds of other facts and events pertaining to all the different domains of knowledge. Just because you or I cannot do it is not a valid reason. But I will try anyways.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Alex, your responses are huge and too time consuming for me right now. If you want to keep on, please limit your responses to one or two questions. I find most of your responses dogmatic, just like the thousands I have dealt with. So repeating the same stuff over and over is tiresome. It’s pretty obvious you are a strong believer in evolution, and I have found that once it has you, there is no letting go. I am a rare exception. If you want challenges, there are plenty on this blog to keep you busy for a very long time. I have found that virtually zero evolutionauts will read this blog and deal with answers to the questions I pose. Read the comments and you will soon see. It’s as if this was a chat room with no blog as far as evolutionauts are concerned.
        I will take this one:
        (j) Please define conscious and intelligent. Because a lot of species show both. I will add 626 species of apes, one of them highly intelligent, the others less so, and various other unrelated intelligent and conscious species such as dolphins, elephants and crows. Humans don’t have the monopoly on intelligence.
        And gradual evolution does not mean there should be intermediates between two modern related species, but that the evolution from ancestral to modern species must be gradual. When you look far back enough, there are no more human fossils and monkey fossils, there is a mix of human-looking fossils and more monkey-looking fossils, but there is no clear-cut distinction.

        The only conscious species is homo sapiens. Conscious individuals can observe, record and contemplate. A great example is: Imagine a lizard observing Andromeda. It COULD observe it, but not contemplate or record it. So, it isn’t conscious. 625 ape species are not conscious as well, even though they are closest to humans in configuration and design. I am sure you know what intelligence is.
        There is no doubt that species appeared and most went extinct at very different times. They appeared, but the notion that one morphed into the next isn’t supported by the fossil record. What science should do is go with what is there instead of making up excuses for why things are not as they “want” them to be. Excuses are made for evolution’s complete lack of appearance in the fossil record. These species appeared, most went extinct, some survive today. Pretty simple We cannot explain how or why. That’s what science should say. It should not make up notions to fit failed theories.

  9. Alex said,

    Whoops! Sorry, forgot to add in (f)

    You ARE right. We don’t know. And while I think scientific types tend to downplay that (a lot, perhaps, too much, certainly) it is all they can do. Based on letters from soldiers to their wives and personal accounts from survivors, would you be able to describe me exactly and precisely what happened the 22nd of May 1917 on the Passchendaele front during World War 1? And that’s barely 100 years back! Imagine how hard it is to go back a few million years! And you are not satisfied we don’t have exactly every single fact about precisely what happened and how it happened during the history of life on earth?

  10. Alex said,

    I wish I could reply to your post directly, but the “reply” button seems to have disappeared. I still hope you will get this message.

    I’m sorry if my answers are too long. It’s always been a great deal of trouble for me, I always want to explain too much, and for that I apologize.

    As for my responses being dogmatic, I do not understand. To me, dogmatic would mean unable and unwilling to think otherwise than what the person believes/has been indoctrinated. Yet I am willing to consider, and I admit your points. I hardly think I qualify to a hard, set in stone, unmovable mindset.

    I read more every time I come here, and every time it makes me wish to start a lengthy post like the one above dealing with the specifics. Would you like me to put one- or two-paragraph comments in each relevant section?

    So conscious is observing, contemplating and recording. Since observing and contemplating cannot be determined (for the lizard, how can really tell he’s not observing) one must turn to recording, such as painting, writing, or other means of communication through inanimate objects. I do not know of any animal purposely recording anything in this way, but would burial count? Would making a grave count as marking the spot where a family member died?
    Also, that design bit intrigues me.
    And I would like to hear you define intelligence. To me, intelligence is the active process of understanding what is around you and to be able to operate in newer situations based on previous experiences and by trial-and-error method. One must also be able to predict future events.

    How would the notion of one morphing into another be recorded in the fossils? After all, individuals do not morph, fossils do not morph. Populations change over time, I’m sure we both agree on that basic fact. So what would the fossils have to look like to show they are indeed morphing?

    Species appeared. How? Most went extinct. Well, usually when a species goes extinct, it’s because there are no more. There are no more because they’re all dead. And there can be a number of reasons why they die. Reasons which the theory of evolution can predict and has predicted for the extinction of modern species. There was the extinction of the western american wasp, replaced by an asian strain, if I remember correctly. And we can also figure out why species survive. They have enough food, water, etc etc etc, basically, they do not die. And we can see common factors of why they do not die. The equilibrium between predator/prey is very well understood. Basically, there is enough prey, the predator will not go extinct, no competition, etc. Where exactly do you disagree here? Notice I have not said anything evolved in any way.

    Why then should what we can predict today not be applied in the past?

  11. Alex said,

    Hullo Steve! One last thing!

    Did you base your reasoning in part on the conscious observer philosophy, like the three videos you posted on youtube? Because if so, you can disregard everything else before that, we can agree to disagree, and be on our merry ways.

    Because of the conscious observer principles, no matter what happens, one can always say “it doesn’t happen for me, because I wasn’t there to see it happen”. Taken to an extreme, that approach is akin to plugging your ears and saying “not listening!”. Taken half-seriously, it’s a very interesting philosophical debate topic. Taken scientifically, it doesn’t mean much. Just because you can’t see X-rays, nor will you ever be able to see them, to process that information with senses, doesn’t mean X-rays do not exist.

    If you base your arguments ever so much on the conscious observer philosophy, that is the entirety of the problem with a scientific debate.

    Yours truly,
    Alexandre

    • stevebee92653 said,

      All of your stuff is right out of the evo-handbook. You are the pretend “open minded” guy that I first discussed with you. A fake. Your laughable “plugging your ears” comment is puke inducing and so trite and old. Try being original so you will at least SEEM like you think on your own; which you don’t. What you do do is spout dogma taught to you by your trainers.
      You don’t get the conscious observer at all. Not close. X-rays are recorded observed and contemplated. I did it thousands of times myself. In the same fashion, sound waves are invisible as well, but turned into sound by our perception. Sound doesn’t exist in reality, only in our perception. Sorry. But nice try. Be on your merry way. Bye

      • Alex said,

        I am still open-minded. However, I dislike being called a fallen student in an environment where group psychology reigns, mindlocked, thoughtlessly regurgitating whatever’s been indoctrinated into me, spouting dogma, and that my comment was puke-inducing, old and trite. I certainly hope I haven’t been as disagreeable to you. What I remember having doing is intelligently considering your points, many of which I do agree with (as in, no, as far as I know the system for the formation of the heart and lungs is still unknown, we have no idea how they formed) and many with which I disagree (namely that missing links are still missing, and that evolution cannot be seen happening at all). Have I ever called you names or derogated you, your ideas, or your education? Please return the favour.

        How are they recorded, observed, and contemplated? Name me a single instance where you have seen an X-ray with your own eyes. What colour was the X-ray? We cannot perceive X-rays at all. That is why we use X-ray scans with photographic plates, to convert the X-rays we do not see into a form of light we can understand. Nobody has ever seen X-rays, yet it’s effects have been measured every day since it’s discovery. How is this different from evolution, from a philosophical point of view?

        Sound might not exist in reality, nor would colours, etc, but the electro-magnetic waves and air pressure waves, even if no-one hears or can hear them, are still present.

        If you based your disagreement with evolution on philosophy, it is obvious you can disprove it using philosophical reasoning. Using philosophy, one can argue that nothing exists but oneself. That’s all very nice and all, but it doesn’t help science one bit.

        Why do you argue that evolution is untrue? Using your exact same arguments, you could disprove the Big Bang theory, the existence of the cosmos, atoms, gravity, almost anything. Why evolution?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You have not been called any names. Your dialogue gives you away. Your “fingers in ears” comment shows that you think you know, and I do not. Most of your comments are evo-trite stuff. I wonder where you learned it. It takes a certain amount of experience to come up with the stuff you do, which means you aren’t on the search you say you are.
        As far as the stuff on the age of the universe, and conscious observers, if you don’t get it from the first and particularly the second video, you won’t get it at all. And I would leave it at that. Your X-ray example fails. Why not use air for your example? What was air for YOU ten years before you were born? FOR YOU is the key here. Everything that exists does so in the perception of conscious observers. And if you disagree, fine. It won’t change your life or mine.
        The source of life, species, and bio-systems is the greatest Puzzle ever. This blog and what I do was born from a search for an answer and me wanting to know if the answer that I thought was it, evolution, was really it. Evolution failed badly. The interest in this subject didn’t. Existence of the cosmos, the design of atoms, particularly the carbon atom, is just as fascinating. But I will do evolution until I get burned out.

  12. Alex said,

    I have not been called names directly, but I’m sure you understand being called mindlocked and indoctrinated and that my arguments are old, trite and puke-inducing is not very pleasant.

    “Taken to an extreme, that approach is akin to plugging your ears and saying “not listening!”” I’m sorry if it came across like that. I’m not saying you are doing it, just that by using this approach and pushing it to the extreme, one can disprove everything and anything. This is why philosophical arguments are useless in scientific concepts, because philosophy is based on mind exercises and senses, science is based on facts. I did not mean to say I know and you do not, merely that this is not a valid stance to take to disprove scientific principles.

    “It takes a certain amount of experience to come up with the stuff you do, which means you aren’t on the search you say you are.” I’m not sure exactly what this means, but I’ll take it as a compliment. The stuff I come up with are the results of my own research and the basic biology courses given to any first year science student. I don’t have pre-conceived notions or advanced education based entirely on evolution, I’m just looking to learn.

    I do get it. Before I was born, nothing existed for me, because I didn’t exist. However, that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist for others, not that is doesn’t exist at all. Nothing stopped existing because nobody was looking, or suddenly appeared into existence the moment somebody looked at it. We didn’t know it was there before, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

    My argument would only work so-so with air because one can feel air but not see it, at the same time that we can contemplate the effects of the wind vending grass. However, we can never feel or see or contemplate X-rays in our lifetimes, because we are unable to see and feel them. THAT is my argument. We cannot see, we cannot feel, we cannot contemplate it, and yet it exists. One can’t say “Here, look, this is an X-ray,”, one can only show what X-rays do and the effects it has, and from that determine what an X-ray is.

    I just wish to point out that if you based all your arguments in this blog on the conscious observer principle, it’s of no use scientifically. Evolution can fail philosophically, religiously, but it hasn’t failed scientifically.

    “Existence of the cosmos, the design of atoms, particularly the carbon atom, is just as fascinating.” So is the origin of species and their evolution. Why disprove evolution specifically?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      If I could disprove the theory of relativity, I sure as hell would. If it was wrong, and being jammed down the throats of students, like evolution has been you. Of course, the T of R proves itself out by logic, and every test scientists have run. BTW, x-rays will burn your skin if you hold the button down long enough. Your analogy doesn’t hold. Matters not anyway as everything exists in our perception. If you don’t get that, fine. Not worth circular arguments that go nowhere.
      What I mean is the stuff you come up with is exactly the stuff other evos come up with. You are repeating what someone has told you, including the ear plugging comment. That is OLD. You don’t discuss from your own independent thinking. Everything you say is repeat evo-stuff.
      Re: Brainlocked and indoctrinated: That is not meant as derogatory. Just fact. I was the same not too long ago. You believe what common sense tells you is not possible. THAT is indoctrination. You know for a fact that NS and RM cannot invent, design, assemble anything at all. But you choose to and you also think it’s real science. Truth is it’s nothing but fable believed by many. Evolution has failed, and you blind yourself to that fact.

      • Alex said,

        Evolution has not been jammed down my throat. Nobody is telling us it’s the only way possible. Everybody just accepts it as being true, just like people accept the theory of general relativity and the theory of gravity.

        X-rays might burn your skin, but that doesn’t mean we can see X-rays directly. We can perceive it’s effects, but we cannot perceive it directly. And everything exists in our perception? Isn’t it that things exist in our perception so long as we can perceive them? And if not, it doesn’t exist, for he who is perceiving?

        Nobody has told me the ear plugging comment, I read that up myself. I could have said refusing to look at evidence, but I didn’t. I could have said looking the other way, I could have said refusing to listen to what is contrary to one’s belief, but I chose, nobody else told me, to use the plugging ears comment.

        I may repeat evo-stuff, but that would be me like saying you keep repeating dentis lies if I asked you to explain me your job. Of course it’s evo stuff, because that’s the subject at hand.

        Might not be derogatory, but it is still unpleasant. And doesn’t the fact I acknowledged your point about Tiktaalik refute that? I am willing to change my opinion if enough facts are presented against them, not just the absence of facts.

        Common sense tells me it is not impossible, but of course, my common sense is probably affected by my indoctrination. NS and RM do not invent, design, assemble anything at all, you are perfectly right. What they do is cause random modifications in the blueprints of the organism, and depending on how well the modifications fare compared to the original, the modified version either survives or doesn’t. Modifications will accumulate in time just the same as mutations accumulate in our genome as we grow older. Do you deny this? From simple single-celled organism probably based on RNA, things evolved into more complex organisms with DNA, into colonies of single cells, into multi-celled organisms, and those multi-celled organisms specialized and diversified. Where do we disagree here?

        How has evolution failed? Whales? T-rex arms? Living fossils? Each have been answered in a scientific fashion.
        What has it failed to predict? Do not tell me the formation of organs, because not knowing is not the same as failing to predict.

        Do you question evolution seriously because of the evidence, or did you doubt before and then search for evidence? If it was this: “I hadn’t been to a museum of natural history for over twenty years. I expected to see a huge number of new fossils and new information that would surely prove evolution far beyond the level I had seen at my last visit.” living things have been crawling on the planet for 3 billion years, did you expect we discover hundreds in 20 years only?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: “NS and RM do not invent, design, assemble anything at all, you are perfectly right. What they do is cause random modifications in the blueprints of the organism, and depending on how well the modifications fare compared to the original, the modified version either survives or doesn’t. Modifications will accumulate in time just the same as mutations accumulate in our genome as we grow older. Do you deny this?”

        Yes. This is nothing but dogma. Slow or fast, NS and RM had to invent, design, assemble. The speed is insignificant.

        Re: “Each have been answered in a scientific fashion.”

        Sorry, but not so. So, while you are telling me you don’t repeat dogma, you do the dogma thing.

        You read the “ear plugging” comment yourself? Then someone DID indoctrinate you. The writer.

  13. Alex said,

    You deny that mutations are random, and that survival of the fittest does not exist? You deny that mutations accumulate in time?

    As for ear plugging, just a little note, indoctrinating is done by one entity unto another on purpose. The author was not purposefully seeking to transmit specific knowledge me, thus he was not indoctrinating me. It might be called conditioning, brainwashing or self-delusion, but not indoctrination. Just nitpicking on definitions, but that’s not important.

    I’m sorry, I came here hoping to have a scientific debate. While there is a lot of scientific material here, and have no doubt I will continue to read some it seems the scientific debate just isn’t one. It feels more and more like you refuting what I say, based not on evidence but more on philosophical reasoning. Now I wouldn’t mind if it was philosophy, but we’re talking science.

    Anyhow, after reading ADParker’s reply to your philogenic trees, organs and biosystems page (the second comment on the page) and that you had not replied (or maybe you did further down, I didn’t read all the comments) and subsequent nitpicking and refusing to answer to questions (even when ADParker AGREED with you on some terms and said so himself), it becomes clear we’re just not going anywhere.

    You say I am mindlocked, like all the other ‘evolutionauts’ as you call them (well, ‘us’, technically) but I honestly doubt that. I am open to change, and I have proved it, I agreed with you, I changed my arguments. It looks like you won’t be holding up your part of the bargain, however.

    No hard feelings, I wish you long life and happiness. And just to say, on philogenic trees, you’re closer than you think. Option #4 is practically identical to evolution.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Do I “deny”? That wording comes from a bunch of evo debates, and is a strategy used so often by evolutionauts. Of course I don’t deny mutations and natural selection. So I say no, I don’t deny, and you score your points. Very typical evo-argument.
      Your “ear plugging” doesn’t come from books either, it comes from evo-debates as well.
      No matter how you cut it, you come out as very indoctrinated and brainlocked, much more than you let on. People who are indoctrinated and mindlocked have absolutely no idea they are. Which would be you. And I don’t mean this in a demeaning way. I have just seen so many of you.
      ADParker left hundreds of comments here, and I didn’t answer all. Repeat of the same stuff over and over.

      • Alex said,

        “Re: “NS and RM do not invent, design, assemble anything at all, you are perfectly right. What they do is cause random modifications in the blueprints of the organism, and depending on how well the modifications fare compared to the original, the modified version either survives or doesn’t. Modifications will accumulate in time just the same as mutations accumulate in our genome as we grow older. Do you deny this?”

        Yes. This is nothing but dogma. Slow or fast, NS and RM had to invent, design, assemble. The speed is insignificant. ”

        I didn’t say anything about NS and RM inventing, designing, assembling anything, and yet you denied it all, meaning refuse to say it’s true. So yes, you deny it. Pinpointing where a person disagrees is the first step towards constructive debate. However, your denial is based on philosophical grounds. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just that I want to debate science, not philosophy.

        RE: No matter how you cut it, you come out as very indoctrinated and brainlocked,

        I could return exactly the same comment, with you refusing to address the scientific answers given to you and calling everybody who respectfully disagrees with you mindlocked, but I won’t. I like to believe I’m polite enough I don’t need to point it out, and even if it were true, that I’ll do my best not to offend the person. So instead of saying I’m not brainlocked, you are and engaging in a pointless argument, I’ll just say that if you refuse to consider the answers given to you (specifically ADParker’s [b]1st comment[/b] on your philogeny page) and that you refuse to address the issue, you might not be evo-indoctrinated, but you might just be brainwashed in another way.

        So farewell, good luck in your life, and good bye.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Brainwashing is done by groups. Your group is evolution. I have no group that I identify with. That nature shows design is what I observe, not what someone told me. No person has ever observed NS, RM, Time, Dumb Luck in the process of inventing, designing, assembling any utilitarian entity. Which shows the difference between you and me. You believe what someone told you. I believe because of what I observe. Which is more scientific? Of course what is observed, not what is told and believed. So if you want to be scientific, go by what has been observed. Good bye.

  14. Alex said,

    Self-delusion is also possible.
    I also trust other people are better educated than me and know better. I know what is being taught has gone through a rigorous process to make sure it’s worth teaching. I don’t doubt my math. Why should I basic biology?
    I never observed nuclear fusion. I believe the sun and stars to be manifestations of an intelligent and unknowable entity, and that we have pieces of the puzzle, but we’ll never know anything for sure.
    Sounds familiar?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      My gawd, you shouldn’t doubt any biology. You should be skeptical of evolution, which isn’t biology. Math? Fusion? All tested. Evo? Not tested one single bit.
      Re: “intelligent and unknowable entity” What? Serious?

  15. Alex said,

    The theory of evolution is based on biology. What biological discipline does evolution rely on that is not true? And evo has been tested often. Do you really think they’d accept a theory without testing it?

    Re: “”intelligend and unknowable entity” What? Serious?” Just as much as you are. You doubt evolution, I doubt fusion. Show me how they are different.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Re: “And evo has been tested often.” Indoctrination in action. NS, RM, Time, and Dumb Luck have been tested and shown to form bio-systems? When, what, and where? Or are you just passing on bullshit?

  16. Alex said,

    RE: “NS, RM, Time, and Dumb Luck have been tested and shown to form bio-systems?” You’re right! We’ve never seen something evolve into something completely different! We’ve never seen an entire new organ or bio-system evolve like that! I guess the Big Bang must be false too then! We only have pictures of stellar bodies, we never actually have a video showing how planets formed!!!

    And I notice you didn’t reply to the intelligent entity. I guess we both agree on that! We’ll never solve the big puzzle of either life or nuclear fusion!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The puzzle of life? Probably not. Fusion? We have solved it. But it’s an unimaginable invention of either dumb luck or intelligence. Take your pick. Either way it’s an absolute necessity to support life. Funny how everything fits together in a very strange way.

      • Alex said,

        Agreed, it’s incredible how everything fits together. Sort of like how we adapted to our specific niches in an ecosystem. It all fits together.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: