My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)
Before you dig into my blog, I would like to introduce you to the three books I wrote on the subject of evolution. Please feel free to take a look at my two-minute trailers for each book (below). I hope at least one of these books will stimulate your interest. Direct links to each book on Amazon are under each trailer. Below the videos is a brief introductory statement about my blog and two videos that show the problems with ape-to-human evolution. If you would like the Kindle version, go to:
https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-eBooks/b?ie=UTF8&node=154606011
and type in the book title.
Click on this link below to go straight to Amazon and The DNA Delusion:
The DNA Delusion
Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion:
Evo-illusion.
The trailer for my second book, Evo-illusion of Man:
Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion of Man: Evo-illusion of Man at Amazon
About this Site-My Statement
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvelous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates
http://www.evoillusion.org is an objective discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus any other notions about origins. The discussion here is about whether or not evolution can stand alone as valid science. Or is evolution a fraud that should be eliminated from textbooks, schools, and museums of natural history. There is no doubt that random mutations and natural selections do occur, and that they can alter the characteristics and traits of populations of living organisms. The debate should be about whether or not those naturally selected random mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species and their organ sets and body parts, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biochemical and biological systems. Or is there something else in nature that is far more impressive?
My primary problem with evolution doesn’t involve design. Evolution’s greatest problem involves invention; the bringing into existence of complex systems that are new, useful, and not obvious, where they didn’t previously exist at all. New useful, and not obvious are the requirements for an invention from the United States Patent Office. Every body part of every species, every organ, every biological and biochemical system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. The only intelligence we know of that is capable of inventing complex entities is us. Humans. Humans were not even around when nature’s unbelievable inventions and designs were created. Even if we were, we are not nearly within light-years of being intelligent enough to invent and design the phenomenal and complex entities in nature. For example, a skin cell is so small that 10,000 can fit on the head of a pin. But each skin cell is more complex than a nuclear submarine. Each skin cell, in fact, all somatic cells in our bodies, manufacture 2,000 new protein molecules every second. The average protein molecule is composed of 500 amino acid molecules that need assembling. Amino acid molecules are assembled in strands like a pearl necklace. Can you imagine assembling 500 amino acid molecules in strands, and making 2,000 strands per second? Well, every cell in your body does just that. Only one living skin cell is light-years beyond the ability of any human to invent and design. The choice then is, did evolution’s complete lack of intelligence invent and design the uber-complex and phenomenal entities of nature, or did an intelligence far beyond our abilities to comprehend do the job.
So basically this is the theme of my blog. If this fits what you are looking for, I hope you will enjoy perusing my pages. Below my three book trailers are two videos, How To Tell the Difference Between Human and Ape Skulls, and The Smithsonian’s Fake Hominids. They are kind of an addendum to my book, Evo-illusion of Man. I hope you have a few moments to take a look. Feel free to leave a comment.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
real-scientist said,
February 20, 2008 at 1:20 am
I am familiar with “computer evolution” programs, but unfortunately they are useful only as a pseudo-proof of a pseudo-science. They are not helpful outside of the world of evolution at all.
Sadly, this is not the case. I have a lot of experience in this field.
Genetic algorithm research is a rich field in computer science. Genetic optimization strategies have been used with much success for optimizing database queries. Genetic algorithms have been used to solve NP-Complete problems. I have written such an algorithm to solve several optimization problems related to packing shipping trucks in fulfillment / logistics.
ugoezy said,
April 27, 2010 at 12:10 am
stevebee92653 you right “as always” lol your channel on youtube is waist of time your arguments and videos are childish.. never mind this site..good luck
stevebee92653 said,
April 27, 2010 at 5:02 am
Hey, that’s really deep! Thanks!
stevebee92653 said,
February 20, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’m sure you have found some excellent uses for your computer. But putting a program together and running it through cycles that artificially form squiggles that look like insects as Dawkins has done is useless. Computers don’t mimic nature very well.
You are back; you must miss the debate.
real-scientist said,
February 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I was responding specifically to your point that they are not helpful outside of the world of evolution.
This is not the case. Genetic algorithms are very useful. They’ve certainly made me money.
stevebee92653 said,
February 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I’m glad you are. I can’t find what you are referring to. Your side (evolution) won in Florida. I’m sure you heard. You should be proud. Except they have to call it “The Scientific Theory of Evolution.” KarenR wanted to “debate”, but she went away when we were discussing. Maybe too busy.
Marie Devine said,
April 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm
A good website, I commented on Helium.com. Looks like a lot of writing. I have heard that in Darwin’ s book he actually said that he did not believe it meant that we were not created but that we evolved after or something similar. Have you seen that?
My website point is, “God has solutions for world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.” And “The goal in life is not employment; the goal is retirement in a garden paradise with edible landscaping and useful pets for fresh foods and healthy bodies. That solves world problems of pollution, global warming, energy crisis, disease, wars, immigration, social security, poverty, equality, all with one simple change of our goals.”. These are quick solutions that we must sign on to because it is a complete change of directions. We will need to take a step of faith toward that which has been proven. Prosper this message.. that is what the net is for.
http://www.divine-way.com
http://www.myspace.com/marie_devine@divine_way
God bless you.
Mike Batchelor said,
April 28, 2008 at 7:59 pm
You say, in the opening paragraph, “The purpose of this blog is not to propose any answer as to how we (earthly species) appeared. The main purpose is to question and challenge the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and to promote independent thought in any endeavor or study.”
The next paragraph then says “Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines…” which is an answer to the question of origins, which you specifically said you weren’t going to get into. To say something is “engineered” implies there is an engineer.
Then you say “The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs.”
Well, whales don’t give birth to space shuttles, either. So I guess it’s a draw.
Lastly, you said “If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago.” Bullshit. Your mind is closed, and that statement shows it. There is plenty of evidence, you just don’t accept it for ideological reasons, not scientific reasons.
stevebee92653 said,
April 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I say things are incredibly engineered, but I don’t propose the source of the engineering. because that source cannot be scientifically determined. Whales birthing space shuttles? Sorry, I don’t get the comparison. Try something else.
Sorry, but my mind is very open, unlike yours. I did a major mind change, and I would do it again if I could see differing evidence. The evidence goes against evolution and Darwin’s theory. Believers like you act like like the evidence goes in favor, and completely ignore the negative evidence and impossibilities,
Damion Preston said,
March 17, 2010 at 3:03 am
Hi Steve, For some time I’ve been looking at these videos you put out there on youtube, I find them quite informitave and I just want to add – as food for thought – I think that wholly believing in the theory of evolution over intelligent design is an insult to us – humans – as intelligent designers ourselves……..just a thought……..
stevebee92653 said,
March 17, 2010 at 3:50 am
Hi Damion
Thanks for the good word. Nice to get a good one.
Mike Batchelor said,
April 29, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Organs don’t look engineered at all. We have tons of examples of engineered items and none of them resemble life forms, organs, or any biological entity. Organs don’t look engineered. Life doesn’t look engineered. 747s look engineered.
Damion Preston said,
March 17, 2010 at 2:35 am
And this “Look” is based on what? Who determines what “Engineered” should look like as opposed to randomly selective mutations? A LOT of the foods we eat, and even pets we own don’t look engineered – but they are………. just a thought……
stevebee92653 said,
March 17, 2010 at 2:40 am
It’s easy. I determine what looks engineered. Ask me and I will let you know.
stevebee92653 said,
April 29, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Eyes don’t look engineered? Four chambered hearts don’t look engineered? You are looking through your hugely filtered evolution fog.
According to your Pope, Richard Dawkins:
“Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer………..” “Bats are like miniature spy planes, bristling with sophisticated instrumentation. ” The Blind Watchmaker (p. 24)
Even your Pope disagrees with you. You are mentally blinded by your belief.
Phyerbyrd said,
May 22, 2010 at 1:21 am
Does a designer have to be intelligent? Actually, no. A selective algorithm can be just as good of an engineer as an intelligent mind. If evolution isn’t the answer, some other unintelligent process is. Why is it impossible that intelligence is the source of all life? Because intelligence implies complexity and material substance in and of itself; the definition of intelligence is the ability to take in external stimuli, make associations between them and react to them based off of those associations. the ability to interact with the universe also means it must have physical substance. This effectively means a brain or computer, which you say cannot form on it’s own. So then the obvious question comes as to what created that, and what created that, and what created that, all on into infinity. This effectively removes an intelligent designer from the table, meaning abiogenesis must be possible as life currently exists.
Serdan said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Eyes don’t look engineered?”
Only to the ignorant. To everyone else it looks evolved.
If the human eye is an example of design, then the designer must have been drunk and I want my money back.
cor said,
May 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
WOW another Lying for jeebus IDiot rehashing irreducible complexity.
One has to wonder how we are supposed to take someone remotely seriously when all the “alleged” evidence they present has been refuted OVER and OVER and OVER again and the only people who continue to use just ignorance are either delusional or are praying on the delusional.
9pt9 said,
May 31, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Wow another evo sucker who thinks anybody who can see thru the fake evolution fantasy is religous. Glad u believe the arguments are refuted over and over. What else do you believe in? Santa?
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Another highly intelligent evo believer who touts that all challenges have been answered OVER and OVER and OVER without ever saying what the “refutes” are. Cor, if you want to look intelligent, pick any point in the blog and show where it’s wrong. And who or what is jeebus?
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Serdan: since eyes look almost exactly like a camera with an auto-iris and auto-focus, with two units to yield depth perception; and are attached to 130,000,000 miniature wires which are connected to a computer called the visual cortex which decodes a code we don’t comprehend; and since it took mankind hundreds of thousands of years to develop something that looks similar, I guess you are right. I would get your money back. But be careful what you wish for.
Phyerbyrd said,
May 22, 2010 at 12:58 am
We developed it in about 120 years, not hundreds of thousands. And if it really is a camera, it’s not irreducibly complex. Do you think today’s digital cameras only work when all of the parts are in place? What about film based cameras and polaroids and all of the ever simper cameras all the way back to the first prototype?
Serdan said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:13 am
Steve, this website is one big argument from personal incredulity (you should look that one up). There is nothing to reply to. We can only educate you, but you won’t listen, so what would you have us do?
I got your other post in my e-mail and have replied through that medium.
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Serdan:
One of my favorite responses: “argument from personal incredulity” Why? Because no intelligence or effort is required. The phrase was made up by Dawkins I believe, and is used ad infinitum by ev’s.
“We can only educate you” is top ten and means “WE” are smarter than “YOU”. Just imagine the education in current evolution science that I gleaned by putting together this blog. In reality, there is tons in my blog to reply to, and feel free to target any of my points, instead of throwing out broad TRITE generalizations. I really will change anything that is scientifically incorrect, or can be challenged successfully by fact rather than belief. My entries are based on fact not a belief system.
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Serdan’s comment:
Oh yes, it’s a nifty organ. No argument there. My point was that it is actually very badly designed.
E.g. why do we have a blind spot? Read a book or something.
That you cannot comprehend the idea of complexity arising out of simplicity is a failure on your part, and has nothing to do with evolution. It’s baffling really. I can write a program in less than an hour which demonstrates the mechanisms. Not necessarily evolution (before you go on a rant), but simply the way in which complexity can arise from simplicity. You cannot ignore this, nor can you ignore that organisms evolve all the time.
Have fun in your delusion.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Anders Kronby Kehlet
I must congratulate you on writing two responses without calling me inane
names. That is a first for evolutionists. You say you can write a program
that will produce complexity from simplicity. I assume that you must then
be intelligent? The intelligent originator of the program? Your statement
then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature? Try
putting together a program with no originator. I’ll lay odds and put up a
million pounds it’s impossible. You say to have fun in my delusion when you
send me your own, and you disprove your own belief system with your example.
It’s baffling really.
You say you have a blind spot. I bet you can’t see it, and if you weren’t
told you had it you would have no idea it was there. If you can see it, you
are a rarity. You are the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth. I
mean a gift miracle.
“Oh yes, it’s a nifty organ.” just doesn’t quite cut it for the description
of a complex color vision system. But evillusionists have to look at eyes
in a simplistic fashion so they can convince themselves that eyes can
evolve. Anders, eyes are a lot more than a “nifty organ”.
Steve
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“One of my favorite responses: “argument from personal incredulity” Why? Because no intelligence or effort is required. The phrase was made up by Dawkins I believe, and is used ad infinitum by ev’s.”
I think I spotted a few obvious fallacies that fall into that category. Want me to point them out to you? And no, it wasn’t made up by Dawkins. I told you to look it up, didn’t I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity
““We can only educate you” is top ten and means “WE” are smarter than “YOU”.”
No, it means that I have a greater understanding of this particular subject. Judging from the site I would guess that you are very much capable of understanding evolution (i.e. you are “intelligent”, which is different from “smart”. Look it up). You just don’t want to. I would also guess that you have a greater understanding than me on many other subjects. If I thought you were too dumb to understand evolution I wouldn’t have made that statement, since it then obviously wouldn’t be possible to educate you.
Please drop the generalisations. Not everyone with an understanding of evolution is an arrogant bastard.
“In reality, there is tons in my blog to reply to, and feel free to target any of my points, instead of throwing out broad TRITE generalizations.”
I have some spare time today, so I’ll see if there’s anything obvious that I am capable of explaining to you.
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Steve,
“Try putting together a program with no originator.”
A computer application has an intelligent originator by definition. The same is not necessarily true of life, which is why you fail.
Your reasoning seems to go something like this:
A is necessary for B
B is analogous to C
Therefore A is necessary for C
Can you see why that doesn’t work? By that reasoning I could prove all kinds of crazy shit.
By the way, I could write an app that evolved other apps, but you probably wouldn’t accept that and it would miss the point.
“You say you have a blind spot.”
Are you really denying that we have a blind spot? ô_o
By the way, it is literally a blind spot. It shouldn’t be a problem for you to set up an experiment to verify that.
“But evillusionists have to look at eyes in a simplistic fashion so they can convince themselves that eyes can evolve.”
No, not really.
“Anders, eyes are a lot more than a “nifty organ”.”
Give me a break. You’re the one trying to reduce all lifeforms to some old machines designed by whatever. By comparison evolution is the much more aweinspiring option.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“I have some spare time today, so I’ll see if there’s anything obvious that I am capable of explaining to you.”
I’ve changed my mind. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.
However, I’ll point out a “mistake” you made in your article on the eye. At the top you put a three minute educational video and then pointed out that it wasn’t a complete explanation. Well, I’ll be darned!
Instead you should find a published paper on the evolution of the eye.
Seems fair, no?
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm
A short comment on the analogy of computer simulations.
If I write a program that simulates evolution, I won’t:
1. Design the process.
2. Design any potential “end product”.
3. Design any of the intermediates.
What I do is that I set up the parameters necessary for the process to take place. Everything else is a result of those conditions.
So when arguing against the simulation analogy you have to skip immediately to the finetuning argument. You got pretty close to that:
“Your statement then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature?”
but the intelligent designer didn’t necessarily have to put anything together as such. All it had to do was to create the initial matter and put the necessary parameters in place, which brings us to the finetuning argument, which is completely irrelevant when discussing evolution and whether species could have evolved without intervention.
stevebee92653 said,
May 13, 2008 at 3:30 am
Thanks for the heads up on API. I read that it was Dawkins’ phrase. But,
either way, I don’t argue that if A was wrong then B is proved. I argue
that if A is wrong, then mankind doesn’t currently have the ability to
figure it out. Evolution destroys any chance for mankind to solve any part
of the Puzzle.
Serdan: You say I am capable of understanding evolution but I “just don’t
want to”?
Sorry, our brains are capable of reasoning, believing, and deducing using
evidence that is present for us to use. Wanting to believe something,
versus actually believing, is really not an option for any person. I don’t
believe I will live forever if I believe in Jesus, or that random mutations
and natural selection are capable of forming eyes and hearts. To me they
are about equal in absurdity.
Re “smarter”: You may be an instructor of some kind, and be far more
knowledgeable than I about the millions of details of written evolution.
But the big obstacles are obvious, and are an A-bomb to all of those
details. And that is what I write about.
Re broad generalizations: Take a look at the discussions that I have had
with some seemingly very schooled and knowledgeable evolutionists. Of the
twenty or so evolutionists, name calling and demeaning is the rule, not the
exception. Which makes evolutionists look pretty bad.
Serdan: “A computer application has an intelligent originator by definition.
The same is not necessarily true of life, which is why you fail.”
You have absolutely no idea what is true with the origination of life, and
neither do I. But we both know that, for humans, it is not possible to
synthesize life or even come remotely close. So you cannot say “I fail”.
We would both fail equally at trying to explain the origination of life.
Serdan: “A is necessary for B
B is analogous to C
Therefore A is necessary for C
I have absolutely no idea where you think this fits in to my writing. Sorry.
An example?
Serdan: “By the way, I could write an app that evolved other apps, but you
probably wouldn’t accept that and it would miss the point.”
As soon as you inject yourself (intelligence) in the mix, your point is
moot. According to Dawkins’, the odds of one hemoglobin molecule forming in
a vat of H-C-N-O is 1:1×10 192th. To give you an idea of these odds, there
are 1:1×10 72nd atoms in the universe. Dawkins wrote a program showing that
he could greatly reduce those odds to forty steps, supposedly manageable, by
digitally selecting each correct connection. Again, he injected
intelligence, and stretched natural selection into the formation of
chemicals. Do you accept this as good evidence that hemoglobin could
evolve? Sorry, I don’t. Not close. He probably got the odds down to
1:1×10 40th, And by adding the thousands of other biochemicals necessary
for life, which would require hugely expanding the odds against, again by
multiplying the odds for each additional biochemical, the odds against
wouldn’t even be proportional to hundreds (thousands? millions?) of times
the number of atoms in the universe.
“Are you really denying that we have a blind spot?”
I KNOW there is a blind spot. I asked if you could see it. If you have
normal vision, you can’t. A complex vision system is miraculous beyond
imagination, and evolutionists try to find flaws to prove it could have
evolved. It’s like taking a space shuttle and trying to prove that it
evolved because some of the seats aren’t comfortable.
“Instead you should find a published paper on the evolution of the eye.”
Obviously you haven’t read my blog; or much of it anyway.
Is the paper from the University of Minnesota biology department acceptable
for you?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
I read their paper thoroughly, then had an ongoing discussion with about ten
of their instructors, which is on my page 26C and their site. As would be
usual, I gave them very specific challenges, and they answered by demeaning
the questioner and the question; with the usual horribly trite ev-speak.
It’s pretty obvious that you have read very little information on my site,
so it’s difficult to carry on any kind of reasonable conversation with you.
You repeatedly come up with your stock answers to non-believers. You
mention no points or challenges that I have made. So this discussion is
really disappointing for me. I really would like to find an evolutionist
who is well read and able to take on my challenges with knowledge and
intelligence. Why? Because it’s such an incredible subject, and it can be
a fun and thoughtful discussion. And if any of my points are incorrect, I
do update and make corrections. If you read my discussions, you would see
that I haven’t found an evolutionist yet who has reasonable challenges to
mine.
Micahklaz said,
October 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm
This isn’t exactly relevant, but this site is awesome. Serdan is making no relevant points and you are destroying his weak arguments. The problem is, anyone who bothers looking up these sites is usually pretty fanatical and you can’t beat them in a debate because they refuse to accept defeat.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:49 am
Sorry, Steve. I’ve misjudged you. You remind me of a muslim colleague of mine. He would accept that evolution occurs in nature, but doubted that it could lead to speciation. He was not a typical creationist and offered no alternative explanation. He just questioned what he knew of evolution.
Judging from your site it would seem that you take the same stance.
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro. You mention changes in colour, size and habits as examples of micro. You also aknowledge changes in form (Darwin’s finches), so where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, is it not possible for a rodent to evolve wings and fly? We already have the intermediate glider, you know.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’m going to read up on the other stuff you mentioned now.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:47 am
By the way, if I wrote a program that simulated evolution to such a degree that something like eyes could evolve, would you accept that?
Just a few comments to your previous post:
“You have absolutely no idea what is true with the origination of life, and
neither do I. But we both know that, for humans, it is not possible to
synthesize life or even come remotely close. So you cannot say “I fail”.
We would both fail equally at trying to explain the origination of life.”
Actually, a full genome has been synthesized, so I would say we are getting pretty close.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm
“I have absolutely no idea where you think this fits in to my writing. Sorry.
An example?”
This:
“You say you can write a program that will produce complexity from simplicity. I assume that you must then be intelligent? The intelligent originator of the program? Your statement then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature?”
That an originator is needed for a simulation does not mean that the same is true of reality.
“As soon as you inject yourself (intelligence) in the mix, your point is
moot.”
I know. That’s what I wrote. It misses the point.
“I KNOW there is a blind spot. I asked if you could see it.”
Yes, I can. As I pointed out it is easy to verify. The brain will fill in the blind spot with information gathered from the immediate surroundings, so if you take a white piece of paper and put a small dot on it and position it correctly in front of your eyes the dot will disappear. We did this experiment in primary school. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.
“Obviously you haven’t read my blog; or much of it anyway.”
True.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“But, either way, I don’t argue that if A was wrong then B is proved. I argue
that if A is wrong, then mankind doesn’t currently have the ability to
figure it out.”
Gotcha. It’s tedious to debate with creationists, so I appreciate that.
“Evolution destroys any chance for mankind to solve any part
of the Puzzle.”
I disagree with this, of course, since I think that evolution is the solution. Though, it brings up an important question: How would you go about solving the puzzle? Any suggestions?
“Sorry, our brains are capable of reasoning, believing, and deducing using
evidence that is present for us to use. Wanting to believe something,
versus actually believing, is really not an option for any person.”
I disagree with this too. Humans have proven to be very good at deceiving themselves. You can choose to see evidence where there is none. All that is required is that you suspend disbelief long enough to construct an internally consistent worldview.
“Re broad generalizations: Take a look at the discussions that I have had
with some seemingly very schooled and knowledgeable evolutionists. Of the
twenty or so evolutionists, name calling and demeaning is the rule, not the
exception. Which makes evolutionists look pretty bad.”
And all the nutty religious creationists make anti-evolutionists look pretty bad. Condemning the people at Myers’ blog for something you are doing yourself is pretty hypocritical.
stevebee92653 said,
May 13, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Anders
Pre conceived notions are difficult to deal with. That’s why I tried to make it very clear that I am not religious. I am very fascinated with the subject of our origins and always have been since I was a kid. I love the subject, and get very frustrated trying to figure it out. I REALLY was a very convinced evolution believer. It is very difficult to convince ev’s that that is the case, due to the fact that most ev’s are convinced that there are only two possible beliefs, A and B.
How would you go about solving the puzzle? Any suggestions?
Philosophically, I really liked the book “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greenberg. His thinking is that the universe needs a conscious observer (man) to exist, and man needs the universe. Which kind of says the universe itself is the “intelligence” and the “creator”. But he concludes that there is no intelligence involved with our appearance, which is a conundrum. If the universe needs and causes the appearance of observers, it must be itself intelligent. But that’s as close as I can come to any satisfactory answer in my mind.
Anders: Humans have proven to be very good at deceiving themselves. You can choose to see evidence where there is none. All that is required is that you suspend disbelief long enough to construct an internally consistent worldview.
Here we agree. If I told you I would give you a million pounds if you would believe that 2+2=9, no matter how hard you tried or lied, you couldn’t really believe, and you wouldn’t get the money. That usually gets me out of religious discussions.
But, I also think the same with evolution. To believe it you have to accept the unbelievable. There are so many things that evolution can’t come close to explaining, which is of course what my blog is about. I read “The Blind Watchmaker” and my conclusion was that deep down inside, Dawkins himself really doubts himself. I wrote a review on the book if you have a minute, and you will see why I think that.
Re: Meyers blog: I can only say that if a particular science is conceived as wrong by an objective person interested in that science, and nothing is ever said, that science becomes a belief. And real science cannot advance. And that is what I see with evolution. I want to KNOW, and I realize that I never will. But if real objective science wins the day, someday maybe future generations will get the immense thrill of finding out the answer, or at least some little portion of it. Unfortunately evolution is so adamant about battling its enemy, religion, that common sense and objectivity goes out the window where good science should be the norm.
Actually, a full genome has been synthesized, so I would say we are getting pretty close.
Not even. Dead bacteria have DNA and all of the biochemicals and structures required for life in one neat little package. They can’t be brought to life. The bar will always move.
BTW, could you tell me something about yourself? Just curious to know who I have been talking to.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“It is very difficult to convince ev’s that that is the case, due to the fact that most ev’s are convinced that there are only two possible beliefs, A and B.”
Can’t say I blame them. So far I have only encountered two persons who take your stance, and you’re one of them. If you actually want to be heard I would first of all suggest that you forget about those fancy labels. People who study evolution are “evolutionary biologists”. Not “evolutionists”, nor “ev’s”.
I’ve just read through some of your archived debates and another thing to consider is your use of the word “proof” in the context of a scientific theory. It’s a common mistake made by creationists, so be careful with that.
Finally, I would suggest that you study your own behaviour. I’m willing to bet that people such as those at Myers blog not so much take exception to what you say, but rather how you say it.
“But that’s as close as I can come to any satisfactory answer in my mind.”
You call that satisfactory? ô_o
To me it sounded like a whole lot of gobbledegook. If the universe needed man to exist then what did it do all those billions of years before man came about? What is even meant by the universe being intelligent? And why would the universe need an observer to exist?
“I read “The Blind Watchmaker” and my conclusion was that deep down inside, Dawkins himself really doubts himself. I wrote a review on the book if you have a minute, and you will see why I think that.”
Trying to make me puke?
I read both your “Richard Dawkins Stumped” and your “review” of his book and, well, I’ll just speak from the heart, since I’m sure you’ll appreciate that:
A piece of writing has never before made me feel so utterly disgusted and offended. I could literally feel my IQ drop as I crawled through your bullshit. Layer upon layer of BULLSHIT. Not to mention the condescension and sheer arrogance and extreme ignorance. How you can let something so utterly inane stand as a testament to your supposed brilliance is incomprehensible.
But that was just my gut reaction. A considered response would likely be slightly more measured. After all, I do try to be polite when circumstances allow.
Anyway, want me to point out any of your numerous “mistakes” to you? I’ll dedicate a considerable amount of time to it, if you want.
“Not even. Dead bacteria have DNA and all of the biochemicals and structures required for life in one neat little package. They can’t be brought to life. The bar will always move.”
Did you read the article?
“BTW, could you tell me something about yourself? Just curious to know who I have been talking to.”
I considered indulging you in this before reading your “review”, but now… I don’t trust you. At all. I suspect you might try to use any perceived weakness against me. It would just be utterly pointless and an enormous waste of time.
Anyway, you’ve missed some questions that I would really like an answer to:
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro. You mention changes in colour, size and habits as examples of micro. You also aknowledge changes in form (Darwin’s finches), so where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, is it not possible for a rodent to evolve wings and fly? We already have the intermediate glider, you know.
–
Let’s assume that I have written a program which simulates evolution. This program is so good that the organisms can evolve an organ of equal complexity to the eye. Would you accept that as evidence in favour of evolution?
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I feel honored that I got such an incredible response to my review! Hard to
believe I could be that important to you. Sorry about the IQ drop problem. I
hope your IQ is back up now, and are OK, and that you didn’t puke on your
keyboard! Actually that page needed some editing, and a bit of taming. But
the points remain. And, I sure would like it if you would tell me where you
think I am wrong, if you have the time. That will be a more difficult task
than you think. And, please remain CALM. This is not that big of a deal.
BTW: Regarding Dawkins not really believing his own stuff, I highlighted in
red his quotes that I think showed that very clearly, just for you. So you
can be proud.
Anders: People who study evolution are “evolutionary biologists”:
Many are just fans, hence ev’s, which groups evolution biologists, evolution
believers, evolution hobbyists, etc. I am not always dealing with
biologists.
Re. Meyers blog: I was respectful always, they were unbelievably rude.
Which, for some strange reason, is pretty usual for that type of
communication with evolution biologists. I quit several times, but each
time I did I got a mountain of responses that, of course, had to be
responded to.
Anders: What is even meant by the universe being intelligent? And why would
the universe need an observer to exist?
Try “The Symbiotic Universe” written by George Greenstein, a physicist and
strong evolutionist. Ask your physics department about the existence of
anything requiring a conscious observer. I really don’t want to broach this
one considering all of that emotion you displayed with my review. I
prefaced this sentence by saying it was my PHILOSOPHY, and not at all
scientific. Check it. I don’t want to argue belief. But that is as close
as I can get to any thought as to why we are.
BTW, you are completely stuck at some point. Life will never be synthesized
in the lab. If by some miracle it is, you still have another major hurdle:
the building blocks, amino acids, utilized by living things all are
left-handed molecules. When amino acids are synthesized, they are 50/50
right and left. Why did life decide to only use the lefties? How does
evolution answer that? I’m serious, and is there one?
Anders: I don’t trust you. At all.
You are too serious. How could you not trust ME? We’ve known each other
for so long now. What kind of friendship is that? Actually, what do you
think I would do with any information you might pass on? You certainly know
a lot about me, which is on my blog. Either way………
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro.
A certain amount of “speciation” is sure probable. I can’t really give a
good answer as to why each continent has very different species. Kangaroos
only in Australia? Pandas in China, grizzlies here? Sure looks like
speciation to me. But, on the other hand, giraffes evolving from what? And
long necks? Kangaroos evolving pouches? Then on to eyes, digestive tracts,
and hearts? And a consciousness evolving from biochemical signals? Now you’ve
crossed a giant chasm. PS I am a nonbeliever in the flying rodent.
Let’s assume that I have written a program which simulates evolution. This
program is so good that the organisms can evolve an organ of equal
complexity to the eye. Would you accept that as evidence in favour of
evolution?
Not possible, and no. If it’s in a computer, it isn’t real.
Serdan said,
May 15, 2008 at 3:38 am
“I feel honored that I got such an incredible response to my review!”
You shouldn’t be. It was a wildly exaggerated response for the purpose of my own amusement. Sorry about that. No need to feel special or anything.
I actually don’t remember the last time I felt personally offended, so don’t restrain yourself over some concern for my mental well being.
“Sorry about the IQ drop problem. I hope your IQ is back up now, and are OK, and that you didn’t puke on your keyboard!”
My brain rebooted succesfully after the bullshit filter crashed, so no worries.
And the puke was imaginary.
“Actually that page needed some editing, and a bit of taming.”
You forgot to fix the arrogance.
“And, I sure would like it if you would tell me where you think I am wrong, if you have the time.”
Sure, but I may not get it done today. It’s a pretty long article, you know.
“Regarding Dawkins not really believing his own stuff, I highlighted in red his quotes that I think showed that very clearly, just for you.”
Thanks. I’ll address that in my review of your review.
“Re. Meyers blog: I was respectful always, they were unbelievably rude. Which, for some strange reason, is pretty usual for that type of communication with evolution biologists. ”
As I’ve remarked before, anyone who publically supports evolution is instantly faced with an unbelievable amount of idiocy. I am not surprised that some people simply can’t be bothered to even pretend to take “anti-evolutionists” seriously anymore.
People are people and that will never change.
You are the one who has to adapt if you want to be heard.
“Ask your physics department about the existence of anything requiring a conscious observer.”
Are you talking about quantum mechanics? I’m pretty sure that the observer does not need to be conscious, or even alive.
“I prefaced this sentence by saying it was my PHILOSOPHY, and not at all scientific.”
You mentioned it, so I commented. We can just leave it at that.
“Life will never be synthesized in the lab.”
What makes you so sure? We know what life consists of, so there is nothing intrinsically mysterious about that.
I smell dogma.
“the building blocks, amino acids, utilized by living things all are left-handed molecules. When amino acids are synthesized, they are 50/50 right and left. Why did life decide to only use the lefties?”
Honest answer: I have no idea.
Speculation: There may be some, as of yet unknown, advantage to being a lefty, or maybe it was just a coincidence. If life had “chosen” to use righties your question would reflect that. Honestly, I don’t see why you consider that to be of any great importance.
“How does evolution answer that? I’m serious, and is there one?”
Evolution doesn’t. It’s the domain of abiogenesis.
“You are too serious. How could you not trust ME? We’ve known each other for so long now. What kind of friendship is that?”
Yeah, I know. And with you being so huggable and all…
“Actually, what do you think I would do with any information you might pass on?”
You have shown that you are not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of humour, so I’ll let you mull it over one more time.
Actually, I’m withholding my personal information to protect you. Given the assumptions you’ve made it would just cause some apocalyptic event to occur were you to learn the truth.
“But, on the other hand, giraffes evolving from what?”
Shorter necked giraffe ancestors. I’m sure you can find the evolutionary tree for the giraffe online. It’s actually an example where it’s very easy to imagine how it could have evolved, since any increase in height would have been an advantage.
“PS I am a nonbeliever in the flying rodent.”
How come? Flying squirrels are excellent gliders, but you really think that there is no room for improvement?
“Not possible, and no. If it’s in a computer, it isn’t real.”
Not possible?! You’re pretty much begging me to write it. 😉
Do you understand the concept of “simulation”? By the way, data is physically stored on the harddisk, so it is very much “real”.
Whoops… Running out of time, which is fine I guess, since I don’t really have anything else to add right now.
Please excuse all the bad grammar. English is not my main language and I’m tired.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm
My friend suggests that you cut down on the nitrous oxide. ^_^
stevebee92653 said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm
When did I say scientific progress has halted? I say scientific progress
has gone way beyond Darwin. Darwin is way too simplistic to account for
nature.
Try using what I say, not what you hope or wished I had said. How could you
possibly deduce that I think scientific progress is halted from my writing?
If you try to put words in my mouth that you know I haven’t communicated,
all discussion is moot.
One thing I do not do is try to fool people or lie.
Again, you are suffering from severe “words in mouth syndrome”. I have a
feeling any discussion between us is going to go south real quick, unless
you can drop that bad habit.
BTW: Gee, I even have an article on whale evolution. (pg. 20) and giraffe
evolution (pg. 22) below the giraffe pix. No growth of giraffe fossil necks
is obvious, and just another embarrassment for evolution.
No matter what you do in computer, it cannot in any way mimic nature.
Natures variables are almost infinite. A programmers are not. You can’t
make an eye in a computer, or any other organ.
Anders: Why British though?
Your spellings are British.
Phyeryrd said,
May 25, 2010 at 10:05 pm
We have made an eye on a computer. Look up http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp
after reading the article go to the recording of the simulation. If the physics of a simulation approximate that of the simulated process the simulation can be used to accurately depict what will happen in reality.
stevebee92653 said,
May 26, 2010 at 3:06 am
You don’t actually believe that cartoon do you? Who is “we”. Were you in on the making of the cartoon? I wonder if the ciliary bodies formed in the same cartoon fashion.
Andrian said,
July 12, 2008 at 11:01 pm
The Evolution method had shown amazing results in training artificial Neural Networks.
The Evolution method had shown the ability to design new structures to fit a given problem.
The Evolution method is only at the very beginning of being simulated for applications in real world.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see self driven cars in near future (also Neural Networks and Evolution)
Pretty much any engineering problem can be solved with simulated evolution. How’s that for uses in the outside world. AutoEngineer 🙂 I should register that.
stevebee92653 said,
July 12, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I guess we will have to wait millions of years for these great things to happen? Oh wait. I think you mean genetics?
Aaron Baldwin said,
July 13, 2008 at 7:50 am
Hi,
I would love to discuss the issues brought up on this page with you. I am a professional evolutionary biologist and college professor. Given your responses to others I am suspicious and hesitant, am not sure that honest discussion is what you are really seeking but willing to try.
I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong, and I hope you are as well. It does not start a discussion in the best way if opponents to any viewpoint are automatically classes as ignorant or spouting dogma. Some of your anti-evolution points certainly point to you not understanding the idea, although I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.
One example that stands out is on your evolution of birds page (Species and organs…). You make a valid statement here about how a non-flying organism must evolve wings to fly. But then state it must also evolve eyes to fly as well. The ancestors of birds already had eyes. When a new form evolves it does not have to re-invent all structures. Just modify existing structures. You may or may not accept this (and is worthy of discussion) but to throw in additional adaptations which are already present is false.
stevebee92653 said,
July 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Hi Aaron
Thanks for the note. You get an A+ on my grade sheet. Why? Because you
wrote the most intelligent and reasoned comment from an evolution biologist
that I have received in the three years that I have been doing this blog.
For your interest, and to give you an idea what I have faced, see my video:
It was only done with a little fun in mind, but you might get the idea of
what I have run into in my discussions with evolution biologists and
believers.
A majority of the comments on that video came from PZ Meyers group, who I
carried a long discussion with. The discussion is still on their blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php,
#72 to the end if you are curious; or on my blog with a few comments. What
you read on my site is absolutely true, and I have no other agenda than
being completely fascinated with the subject. I REALLY was a total and
fully dedicated evolution believer and defender until a few years ago, as
noted on my blog. I REALLY am not religious, and I have no agenda except
the fact that I think selected mutations cannot possibly account for all of
nature and us. I think there is an incredible intelligence in nature, but
the fact that it is not scientifically “findable” has created two armed
camps, of which I am somewhat in the middle. I don’t believe either side has
the answer.
A lot of the things you might want to discuss have been already discussed on
my blog. For example the evolution of eyes. I promise you I have some
additional takes on the subject that you may not have read before.
According to National Geographic, birds appeared “suddenly” in the fossil
record, with no precursors in earlier sedimentary layers. The earliest bird
fossils had wings, and were fully skilled flyers. They also had eyes, as
you mentioned. The problem here is how could the “trait” of eyes spread
from another species to birds? Since reproduction between species is not
possible…..The exact same problem exists with insects, whose earliest
fossils appeared “suddenly”, and the earliest insects were skilled flyers
and had eyes.
If you find anything in my blog that is not correct, please let me know. I
am not dogmatic, and I am fully open to correction.
I don’t know how you found me, but I have another YouTube video on
abiogenesis. It is in answer to Potholer54’s video “The Beginning of Life
Made Easy”. Both of these videos are on my blog: http://www.evillusion.net page
11, second and third videos.
Anyway, thanks again for the very refreshing the note.
Regards, Steve
Andrian said,
July 14, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“I guess we will have to wait millions of years for these great things to happen?”
No, you don’t:
http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/pr/robotics.html
Also see this for something that will inspire young minds to apply the Method of Evolution There is lots of college papers on Genetic Programming. It has to be said that only recently this method began to gain popularity. Those who are creative will find uses for it and benefit.
Rich Grod said,
July 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Where is page 15? Between 14: “Einstein’s Thoughts” and 16: “Habilis and Erectus were Buddies”
Andrian said,
August 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Combine this:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
With evolution to evolve all kinds of structures from atoms to buildings.
The world will not wait for people to “get it”, if you want to understand then it is up to you to learn.
Mr. Dude said,
August 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hey Steve, do you happen to post at a forum called FARK under the name Bevets?
Anyway nice ‘flat-earth’ site I am sure you’ll deceive lots of naive people.
Geoff said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hi there
Just a line to congratulate you on your web site. You have some really useful material on it. Don’t be intimidated by people who would rather make sarcastic comments than really consider the evidence, and follow where it leads. Why do some people get so angry when anyone criticises Darwin or evolution? What are they scared of?
Unlike you, I am a creationist, and for 27 years have been involved in writing and speaking on this subject.
You may care to take a look at a website I helped to create to help counter the euphoria that will be accompanying the Darwin Day celebrations next year – see www. darwinday.org.uk.
I have also produced a leaflet entitled “Darwin in the Dock” and 25,000, are being printed. If you’d to see it, I’ll gladly send you a copy.
Keep up the good work!
Geoff Chapman (Creation ResourcesTrust)
stevebee92653 said,
August 26, 2008 at 12:27 am
Thanks! I checked your site. Good read. I’m loaded with information right now, You should put your pamphlet on the net. If you do, let me know. I have several videos on YouTube that might interest you, and more coming. Look at vids under stevebee92653 if you get a moment.
Robo said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hi, I guess that I really just don’t get the point of your blog/website/articles. You say that Evolution is wrong, that Creationism is wrong, and that in your opinion some sort of Intelligent Design is correct, but you can say nothing more about it. So what is the point of it all if you have no answers to give but only questions to throw out? The only paradigm that your thinking seems to work in is that you might be able to figure it out, but probably not.
stevebee92653 said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Wow. You hit it right on the head. What you describe is exactly what I am saying. If A is not possible, and neither is B, then it’s time to reload. If science doesn’t have the answer, science should say as much, and not continue on with a fantasy. It’s OK to say we don’t have the answers to the Puzzle. We don’t know why the Big Bang took place, and we can admit that. No one has to come up with a “reason”, or fantasy as to why it happened. This blog simply started more as a diary for me to keep notes and to help me recall the many articles and facts that I have read. And it grew. And, sorry, but I can’t propose any theory as to how nature and “we” came about.
Andrian said,
August 30, 2008 at 12:13 am
I heard the news on NPR some months ago about how people are leaving US medical system to seek treatment overseas (including dental assistance).
In addition to poor law and billing system, there are also doctors that instead of gaining knowledge will expose their poor understanding and make a parade out of it. Instead of gaining the knowledge and apply it to better serve your clients you’re choosing to make decisions based on natural explanations prior to discovery of DNA.
Here’s my question; Why did you stop at DNA? Why didn’t you stop at the biology level of the medieval times?
You are a doctor whose decision making algorithm, at the very core, does not have a full understanding of DNA. Honestly, I don’t trust you as a client.
I believe that anyone who opposed your view here suspects that your medical degree is just a cover up. We’re all waiting for you to make a mistake, sooner or later everyone does.
Jason R. Koch said,
September 10, 2008 at 2:26 am
Stephen..
I respect and agree with an independant search for the truth. It is moral and it is all we can do as people. Some of your information is interesting.. as the information of evolution and creation is very imperfect. It is very difficult to find any sure fire belief in the exact system of events that lead to the existance of US, of people. This is true..
I do not want to come off as a jerk, I just ask you to think about some of your more emotional responces in debates you have. It doesn’t do anything to convince, also it doesn’t support the refining of knowledge, pursuit of knowledge or working together. It is in the human psyche to rebel and defend against aggression. I am sure you know this.. so it blunts any kind of intellectual debate, which should, SHOULD be constructive.. but, it is rarely. Ego…
Just wanted to write, I do not mean offence. Perhaps it may also help you to drop the aggression in terms of your own pondering.
Sincerely..
Jason.
stevebee92653 said,
September 10, 2008 at 4:39 am
Nice comment. The debates you read happened when I was first an anti-ev; in fact one was when I was still a fifty-fifty supporter, and I pretty much took the “devils advocate” side. (The Talk Origins debate.) The further I got into the debate, the more I realized that things didn’t happen that way. I have come to the same conclusion as you. The debates are all ego, and not much common sense. I spend little time debating evolution now, and cut people off rather quickly. Ninety percent of the time, the debates are just circular. I made some YouTube videos on the subject, and the comments are rather astounding. Rational discussion is rarely a possibility. My blog started when I simply wanted to keep a log of facts that I had read, and I didn’t want to forget them. From there it grew. Sounds like you are a chess fan? Great game.
Kelly Brian said,
September 26, 2008 at 1:45 am
SteveBee….thanks for all your effort on the site. I have found it to be great fodder for the subject. My hats off to you for sharing your research and opinions. Please keep up the good work 🙂
stevebee92653 said,
September 28, 2008 at 6:25 am
Thanks for the kind words! Unusual. I am used the being severely attacked for what seem to me to be good scientific challenges.
Micahklaz said,
October 9, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Those are the perils of debating with fanatics. Happens to me all the time, and is probably made slightly worse by the fact that I’m a Creationist. Please don’t hold it against me, though. 😉
Brandon said,
October 2, 2008 at 2:29 am
Steve,
Very good site with very good points. It amazes me that the same people that refute you do not even read your responses more than half the time. I am not a doctor, however a very well rounded engineer, and definitely believe in something greater than us, its obvious. I think some people are too pompous to even contemplate that point. I have drawn many of the same conclusions as you have, just in my own pondering, and find it interesting that we are very similar in thinking. I was tought evolution in school also and was a sheep once also, but as I got older it did not make sense. Evolution and the movement of people does not come closing to expaining humans. Also, I do believe in God, but that is besides the point, I am focusing more on the likenesses of this forum and my beliefs rather than vice versa. I also like the fact that you state that you are not proposing a new theory of creation rather just stating that evolution does not make sense. If life cannot be created in a lab in a controlled environment then how can life have just just happened and magically DNA or RNA was magically coded to replicate itself and knew what to do with itself and the amino acids that you spoke of earlier? I could go on for days on the conclusions that I have drawn, but it seems as though with majority of your “evo” posters it would go by the wayside.
Also, I am american but from some of your responses I take it you are British? I remember you posting something in pounds. If so that is funny that the one guy posted something about american dentists. That would be another example of someone making up their mind and jumping to conclusions without contemplating their thoughts, if that were so. Anyways, keep up the good work!