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 
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2008 at 3:07 am
Wow, thanks. for the great comment. Every time I open a comment, I expected to be severely attacked. I made several YouTube videos, if you are interested. Under stevebee92653. I am American also, not British. What really bothers me about evolution is the way they shove it down kids throats as if it were real science. As I said, I was a full on believer, until a few years ago when I started taking an objective look. The deeper I got into the subject, the farther away I seemed to be from the answer, and the more I realized that Darwin didn’t have it. I believe in some sort of “god”, but not a personal or religious thing. There has to be something more, something very incredibly intelligent to have made all of this. What really fascinates me is thinking about what exactly is life, and how did it get infused into whatever was first to get it. And how the hell did mitosis begin, and on and on. The deeper I get, the farther away I feel I am from an answer, and the more I want to dig. What an incredible puzzle. It is something that I will continue being fascinated with until the day I die.Then will I get the answer? I don’t think so, but maybe…….? Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to comment.
A Theist said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Stevebee:
I’ve gone through most of your comments and replies and while I do agree with you conceptually, a few points have to be made.
1) The theory of evolution is exactly that – a theory, otherwise it would be the natural law of evolution. It has not been proven absolutely. All we have is a large stockpile of evidence. With that being said, it is not fact, it is theory until proven or until something replaces it.
2) You seem to dismiss evolution because it cannot be. You seem to have the same stance I’ve seen before that you see a heart or eye and suddenly evolution breaks down. While I won’t take the stance that it has to be, (once again we are analyzing a theory) I also won’t say it cannot until I see exactly how it cannot. That is how the scientific community works, not on gut instinct without evidence. You fully have the right to pursue this and the scientific community would love an experiment that help to gather evidence or prove/disprove something – that’s how we learn… but you seem to present a gut instinct as factual (perceived factual for yourself at least) when nothing in reality is ruled out.
3) You stated a couple of times that evolution or life has not been synthesized or duplicated in a lab but that isn’t true. You should read up on some of the cool stuff that’s going on right now:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html (observed evolution)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp (nearly synthesized life)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm (synthesized DNA)
once again, I’m not going to say that evolution is absolute fact, but I’m also not going to make the same concession for evolution being wholly or partly fictitious. We simply don’t know. For now it’s our best model and that’s all.
stevebee92653 said,
October 6, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thanks for your reasoned and well written comment. It’s such a rarity coming from an evolution supporter. I read your suggested articles, and they are very interesting. I am glad scientists are working so diligently to find the answer, but reality is they are light years from synthesizing life. But if science comes up with the answer, I am certainly willing to change or trash my blog. I don’t see that happening, though.
There is something so magic and incomprehensible about life, and my take is that they will always be “almost be there”, but never cross the finish line. I have no argument with the idea that species change, (the citrate metabolizing bacteria). I have a page on evidence FOR evolution, you may have noted. It’s just the idea that evolution could produce hearts and eyes, et al, just doesn’t jive; by common sense, logic, mathematical probability, and the fossil evidence. And synthesizing DNA is really great, but again not close to synthesizing life. All they will wind up with is a lifeless blob.
Anyway, I will keep an open mind. That is why I am where I am today. I opened my mind and did an analysis of the theory, and the more I looked, the more it failed. Evolution being “the best we have” just doesn’t cut it for me, as there are too many impossibilities. There has to be something more, much more, in the equation.
Again, thanks for the good comment.
A Theist said,
October 6, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@stevebee
“my take is that they will always be “almost be there”, but never cross the finish line.”
This is one of the things I take issue with though. Just as you noted that there is no proof that evolution happened, there is no proof that it couldn’t have. When you say something like you think it will never cross the finish line, you’re doing nothing but making an assumption.
“It’s just the idea that evolution could produce hearts and eyes, et al, just doesn’t jive; by common sense, logic, mathematical probability, and the fossil evidence.”
I’d like to say that it isn’t true that we don’t have at least some fossil evidence of early eyes (simple concave eye structures have been found in fossils as far back as the Cambrian period) but it is true fossilized eye / heart stages are harder to come by because of the circumstances needed to preserve the entire organic structure. It is true that there are in-depth articles about how the eye specifically formed under evolutionary theory and in addition there are currently living species exhibiting every one of these stages of eye development. While we don’t have proof that one stage led to another, we can use common sense to admit it could have happened that way (not that it did, but that it could have mind you) Once again, by dismissing it as saying it doesn’t “jive” while may be correct if evolution is ever disproved, would be correct for exactly the wrong reasons. (once again this is only an assumption)
There’s actually a good collection of articles over the development of the eye under evolutionary theory over at Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
“Evolution being “the best we have” just doesn’t cut it for me, as there are too many impossibilities.”
Remember – improbabilities, not impossibilities. We haven’t proved or disproved anything. I fully agree there are a lot of improbabilities, but keep in mind that every time you shuffle a deck of cards for example, there’s about a 1/80 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion chance the cards will end up in their final state. There’s bound to be improbabilities regardless of the current observed state of the universe, we’re just trying to find out how our deck was shuffled.
stevebee92653 said,
October 7, 2008 at 3:46 am
To say there is no proof that something “couldn’t have happened” opens the door to anything. There is no proof that Noah and his family couldn’t have collected all of the animals in the world and put them on a big wooden boat. But, of course that is beyond absurd. The best rout for this science is to prove something DID happen.The living species with “simple” eyes is proof that there are living species with simple eyes. What evolution needs is a species that started eyeless, and a million years later was eyed. That would certainly be good evidence. But all eyed species are first found with eyes, just like all flying species show up in their earliest fossils as skilled fliers. (Birds and insects, e.g.)
I read Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” (reviewed p. 18 on this blog). It is astounding how he can take an event that has incredible improbabilities, (hemoglobin formation=1:1X10 182th) and work his computer to make it look like the event could happen. And, of course, once he simplifies the odds of that one event, the new odds have to be multiplied by all of the other odds for all of the other thousands of unlikely events to come up with true odds of selected mutations producing any species. Of course, he ignores that fact, leaving his simplified odds for hemoglobin as if that can stand alone and isolated.
I have read every article I could get my hands on regarding eye evolution. I made a YouTube video on the subject, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9Mkind) a response to a vid on how the eye evolved
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA). I am very up to date on the current theories. I even debated with the U of Minnesota biology department on the subject (p. 23 C),
And, of course, I thoroughly love the subject. But I feel farther away from any kind of answer now than I did when I started this blog. And, whatever the answer truly is, I agree that we are dealing with huge improbabilities no matter how things really happened.
A Theist said,
October 7, 2008 at 4:43 am
“To say there is no proof that something “couldn’t have happened” opens the door to anything.”
I wouldn’t say anything, but it does swing the doors wide open. You are correct that there is no absolute proof that the noah/flood story didn’t happen, but in that particular instance there is nearly damning evidence such as lack of such a historical flood in any natural record, the calculated weight of the animals, overcoming natural animal instincts to hunt, food issues, etc. Because of all of these issues you are correct to say that the improbable becomes ridiculous.
In the instance of evolution however, we have current species with every stage of the proposed eye development and we DO have some (albeit limited) fossil record of the eye getting better over time within a phyla – the fossilized snails with their concave eye structure of the cambrian era are most closely related to a lot of current snails which exhibit in many instances a full lens structure.
All of this evidence makes it more and not less likely that evolution is the driving force behind species selection, but of course there are a lot of gaps that still need to be filled. It may take hundreds if not millions of years to prove evolution without a doubt. Remember that e coli I was talking about? In order to absolutely prove evolution we may need to see it colonize into multi-cellular organisms, sprout gills, develop a digestive tract, grow eyes, ears and a nose raise children, develop cognitive thought, and prove evolution, but unfortunately that’ll take some time.
In a sense you should feel like you’re farther from an answer – you’re probably thinking more scientifically because you have most likely dismissed some preconceived notions you may have had before you sought an answer. Unfortunately we’re only about 200 years into the scientific age though so anything requiring a written and researched record longer than that is going to have to wait a while.
stevebee92653 said,
October 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Roger that. It is very frustrating knowing that we will never really know the answer to the Puzzle. All we really have are vague hints, many of which are contradictory. But, as you say, very future generations may get a better handle on things. Unfortunately those of us who are fascinated with the subject will never find out. All we can do is to keep trying, knowing there is no finish line for us. And thanks for the most enjoyable and intelligent comments that I have received from your side of the fence.
Phyeryrd said,
May 25, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Something about that seems a bit off to me. How can there be an infinite amount of knowledge on a finite subject? And a theory is not a wild guess, it is a set of laws, facts and equations that can be used to explain natural phenomena and predict ones that have not yet been observed. For me, evolution answers too many questions too accurately to be as wrong as you say it is. The scientists that found tiktaalik already predicted where it would be without any knowledge of it’s existence. And as for all winged animals already being capable of flight, many feathered dinosaurs were only capable of gliding, and some had feathers that were useless for flight, most likely being used for warmth or in courtship. It seems as though you’re expecting too much of paleontologists, do you honestly expect that every animal that has ever lived has fossilized? There are bound to be gaps, but if our prior knowledge of inheritance is correct we can assume that animals with homologous biology are related.
stevebee92653 said,
May 26, 2010 at 2:15 am
You want to believe far more than you want to consider that evolution may be pure fantasy. Evo doesn’t follow the evidence at all, and the more we find, the worse it looks. But you could not possibly consider any negative facts. That is the way your brain has been wired. So, believe away, take it on blind faith, and never consider anything negative.
A Theist said,
October 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm
and thank you for an intelligent and civil discussion!
🙂
Curtis said,
October 14, 2008 at 3:44 am
Well my assumption is that you are blinded to the truth. You see, truth is not always something that people want to hear. Much like your case. If you do not believe in science or only the science you want to believe in that is of the Christian faith and not the reallity then you are entitiled to your opinion. That is the great thing about freedom of speech. We are all entitled to our own opinion and with like minds we can all back it up. Or at least with our own interpritations. So we are still all not alike. I think that you are still smart and understand what you are talking about but, in my opinion you would still refute the partical accelerator opened in Switzerland because it might bring your precious theory of God creating the earth down yet another time. So Fuck you and this stupid site, I know those are some dumb words but the point is still given. So why don’t you just put up some more blinders and make the world your own and not find acceptance or understanding in somthing you do not believe in. I mean I don’t believe in Santa either, so I guess we do agree on something?
stevebee92653 said,
October 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm
What an intelligently written comment. There are lots of points in this video that you could challenge, but have chosen not to. Why? Either you didn’t read them, or you are completely incapable of challenging them. I think both. So your comment goes in the trash bucket of the comments written by most evolutionauts that can’t use science to refute mine, so they defer to epithets. My points have nothing to do with religion. My points are solely that the theory of evolution is not possible. Good science is made by skeptics, not by blind believers like you.
Michamus said,
November 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Steve,
I read your article and have seen a couple of your videos. I would like to make a few points on what I think.
From what it appears, you have mistaken Evolution as being an explanation for the origin of life. This is inappropriate as Evolution is only concerned with how life operates, not how it came about.
I have also noticed that you use atheism and evolution interchangeably. This is not accurate either. Their are atheists who do not accept evolution (ig. Raelians) and theists who do accept evolution (Ken Miller).
Now when it comes to the diversity of life, there is no competitor to evolution. We have used evolution to create high-yield crops, in modern medicine (gene therapy), and for biology in general.
I once made the same mistake you are making, in that I couldn’t understand how evolution could account for the diversity of life. I also used to confuse the hypothesis of (a)biogenesis with evolution as well, but then I researched the material.
The interesting thing though is you do make excellent points when it comes to the majority of those who accept evolution. I myself have seen individuals act no different than a zealot when it comes to evolution. These same zealots usually don’t understand evolution very well themselves either, which is no better than a religious zealot, regardless of the accuracy of the theory. You won’t believe how many misconceptions there are about the theory.
I hope you understand I am writing this to you out of the best of intentions. I was once in your state and simply needed to get to the actual material on the subject. I would highly recommend staying away from Youtube videos, or books that are based on religious convictions (ig The God Delusion) which I feel do more harm than good. If you want to learn about evolution itself, read Science magazine, or evaluate some actual scientific material on the subject. If you must watch a youtube video or two… the only person I can think of off the top of my head, who actually provides science to back his claims is cdk007.
Thanks for your time sir,
Michamus
Matt said,
November 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Steve,
So you’re a creationist? And a theist? I know you claim not to be religious, or a creationist, but the way you write, the things you say, and the arguments you use all radiate it. If you really don’t want to discuss creationism, ID or god, you shouldn’t base your arguments on them then.
I read the intro page first, and the stuff you said in there was almost enough to make me post a comment, but then I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and read some of your pages, so I read page 2, where you are talking about the T-Rex not evolving longer arms. Sure it would be at an advantage, but so what? If the T-Rex with the shorter arms are surviving just fine, then why would it even require it to have longer arms, let alone have selective pressure on it to increase the survival of that T-Rex? And that just goes to prove another fact about evolution, it is random. Evolution doesn’t have some ultimate goal, coelacanths didn’t evolve legs or arms because there was no reason for them to if they are thriving without that change. Theres nothing so say that there isn’t a speicies today that had a common ancestor with the present day ceolacanth that did evolve legs though. We didn’t evolve into intelligent bi-peds because that is the goal of evolution, it just happened.
Its pretty clear that you have an agenda. You only seem to reject evolution and abiogenisis, which are all based upon the same scientific method as every other science is, which you do seem to accept. If you aren’t religious, why do you have a problem with kids being taught ACCEPTED science in school? You may disagree, and you have every right to do so, and in fact I would encourage you to. But then to offer no alternative to a theroy that does actually work and make testable predictions? That isn’t very scientific. You said yourself it’s a useless science, and wont produce anything, (which is GROSSY incorrect) so what bugs you so much about it? Unless you want kids to be taught that your creator made everything.
So why has evolution managed to fool so many brilliant scientists today and in the past, so much so, that it’s taken you to come along a see flaws with it? (That’s assuming you are being impartial about the subject and following the real evidence to your conclusion) That’s pretty arrogant I must say. Why are you so brilliant that you pick up on all these things that other people miss? Or maybe you just don’t actually understand it as well as you think you do?
If you dont want people to keep saying you’re Bible thumper, then you really ought not to act like one. I’m not trying to be mean or condescending, but if you really want to have a scientific discussion then you need to act like it.
stevebee92653 said,
November 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the great scold. For you to have any kind of reasonable discussion with me you have to take what I say about my worldview as true. Otherwise, any discussion is useless. Same thing with my view of you. Because that is all we know about each other. So, to reiterate, what I say about my belief system is right on. I have no “agenda” except to prove that a current science that I was a full-on supporter of is completely flawed. And the reason for this blog is that I am fascinated with the subject of our and nature’s origin, and I feel that I was fooled for so many years by my teachers, professors, and so called scientists. And I don’t like being fooled. The reason I brought up T. Rex is it was my first inkling that something was not right with this science. I was a firm believer and staunch supporter of Darwin at the time, and for decades before. And I argued like you do, in its favor.
To me today, evolution looks like a scientific cult. And like major religions, is believed vociferously by many. Your comment is just like so many evolution believers. You cite two items in my writing that show absolutely no evolution. T. Rex and ceolacanth. In reality, these are only two examples of everything that doesn’t show Darwinian evolution. And you are unable to show any examples of species that do, because none do except in the imaginations of evolution followers.
With evolution, evidence is bent to fit the theory. The theory does not modify to fit new evidence. Which makes you a wishful thinker, like all of evolution. So you are way off on that point. Evolution is composed of made up fantasies about how things “could, or might have happened”. What should be taught in schools is what is actually there, not what some person thinks happened, which then becomes accepted by other evolutionists who are happy to have at least some theory that supports their beliefs. The real problem with this science is that it is necessary to support a religious belief, atheism, which causes all kinds of problems with objectivity. No other science has this as a monkey on its back.
You call me arrogant for expressing my thoughts. Maybe I am. That arrogance is only a mirror of the incredible arrogance shown to me by evolution believers and gurus who spend their communication skills demeaning me personally, and who are completely unable to demonstrate REAL evidence for their supposed science. Like you.
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm
> For you to have any kind of reasonable discussion with me you have to take what I
> say about my worldview as true.
In light of your recent troubles on richarddawkins.net and much later in the comments on this page, this statement is supremely ironic. We have to take what you say about your worldview as true, but what you said your name was turned out to be false. No wonder you’re so embarrassed!
Jared said,
November 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Hi – I think your efforts are interesting. Basically, from what I understand, you are saying that the processes of evolution are plausible only as long as there is some kind of underlying creative/intelligent force behind them. If that is correct, I would agree. I don’t have a problem with the idea of life beginning in very simple forms, and growing in complexity over billions of years, into what we have now. But I personally don’t see that as being possible without some kind of underlying “life force” driving it. I do agree with you – there is a Source. It is creative and intelligent, and we are a part of it. this Source is not “god” as we have conceived of god. Our religions can’t explain it. We are not the center of the universe – just one small part of it. What’s going on is infinitely intelligent and expansive and life on earth is just one manifestation of it. I don’t see why evolution can’t expand itself to incorporate the idea that there is an intelligent creative force in this universe.
stevebee92653 said,
November 23, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Wow. What a refreshing and intelligent comment. Really. You are right on the mark. I am so used to opening comments and being called names, and that’s about all I get. Why can’t science admit there has to be an intelligent source in nature? It does not have to be a religion, but the overwhelming proof of design is there. It is amazing that evolutionauts can ignore it.
The real problem for me is the number of species and electromechanical devices, like eyes, that just showed up almost instantly, all over the world, in the fossil record. All at very different times. That is the pure and objective evidence. Even Dawkins admits that and is puzzled by it. So, there is overwhelming intelligence, there certainly is some evolution, there are species that turn up quickly but at very different times, millions of years apart, and electromechanical devices show up in the first (earliest) samples of every animal fossil found so far. So, put that all together, and what do you get? It’s impossible tie all of this into a scientific theory that makes any sense, and matches all of this information. But it sure is fascinating. Anyway, thanks again for the comment, and for THINKING!
Jared said,
November 24, 2008 at 1:42 am
I can understand where a lot of the comments are coming from. Creation “Science” is a bit wacky, and flies in the face of some pretty well established facts – for instance, the age of the earth. I’ve heard that creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old and all the signs of age in the earth, as well as the fossil record, were are put there by God to test our faith. I think it’s a bit crazy for them to try to make their science fit into their religion, and there’s a lot of that going around, so don’t be too offended. I think I understand where you’re coming from though.
There is intelligent design in this universe. By virtue of the fact that we are communicating via a world wide web that was intelligently designed by human beings, we can conclude that intelligent design is in this universe. Consciousness is in this universe. We are conscious, and in the universe. Therefore there is consciousness in the universe. Who are we to say we’re the height of consciousness. If we, in our infinitely small capacity, are “conscious” then how much more conscious could the Source from which we spring be? Only human arrogance would suggest we are the height of creation.
I run a business. this business began with an idea. I took small steps at first to create it. I made mistakes. I corrected my course, learned from my errors, deliberately adjusted my efforts based upon what worked. I saw what worked and didn’t and adapted as a result of my experience. Much time has passed and through the many small changes that I made in my business, it has “Evolved” quite extensively into something far more complex than I ever imagined it would initially be. So, me with my small spark of creative consciousness, accomplished this small bit of evolution. I think what I just described is the very process by which all things have come to exist and continue to be created, on an ongoing basis.
There is a Source. It is intelligent. We are a part of it. Just a small part. I don’t see anything delusional or crazy with making this observation. It has nothing to do with the bible or religion. I know nothing of God. But I do know that I am conscious and creative – and If I am these things, in my primitive human form, how much more is the universe as a whole?
stevebee92653 said,
November 24, 2008 at 6:23 am
Roger that. Wouldn’t it be nice if scientists could take that open view? It would make their job so much easier. They wouldn’t have to stress and jump through so many hoops trying to explain the inexplicable. Anyway, we are right on. I hope your business is great. And thanks for making my day. It’s so rare to communicate with an intelligent open minded “fan of how we got here”. Which is what I am.
Jared said,
November 24, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Thanks for the kind words.
So, if you accept that evolution is possible, assuming there is a driving intelligent life force behind it, why not change your message slightly to reflect that? Right now, you’re saying evolution is “evillusion” – use of the term “Evil” denotes religion and that’s probably where you’re getting the bible thumping accusations. Instead, perhaps shift your efforts toward demonstrating why there must be an intelligent, conscious life force behind the processes of evolution. If evolution did not occur, then how else did things go from simplicity to complexity? Surely you wouldn’t suggest they were created in their complexity overnight. So really, evolution is the way things came to be – but we both agree that a conscious intelligence is required for this to happen. Shifting your efforts to prove this necessity might be more fruitful, and perhaps less confrontational to the die-hard “Evolutionists.” Just my suggestion. 🙂
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Ok, I didn’t know the burden of proof was on me to produce something, since you can go and look in any scientific journal dealing with evolution or find reliable resources on the internet to provide any evidence I might give you.
How about the bacteria that was discovered around 1975 in Japan, that can digest nylon? Nylon has only been around since near the beginning of WWII, 1935 to be exact. Now there are bacteria 40 years later that can digest this synthetic product. The scientists that discovered this can even tell you how this mutation came about, and its really very simple if I recall correctly. You’ll have to look that one up yourself though, as I am not sure of the specifics off the top of my head. Is that evidence good enough? Or will you have to move the goal posts again?
And I’m sorry if calling you a theist upset you, but you have to realise this:
You say random mutations can’t explain everything. There has to be some underlying intelligence guiding this process. So, either you beleive in aliens, (then where did the aliens come from), or you believe in some supernatural intelligence, eg. god (which doesn’t HAVE to be the god of any currently established religion).
Even in your response to me, about the T. Rex and the ceolacanth, it shows that even if you did actually believe in evolution at one point, you still didnt understand it fully. The ceolacanth has remained RELATIVLY unchanged for so long because it hasn’t needed to evolve. Its numbers had actually declined because it hadn’t evolved, but because it hadn’t changed to adapt to changing environments it really only survives today in environments which have changed little as well, which is where it was ‘rediscovered’. By studying fossils it is actually hard to determine whether there has been a change in the species, unless it’s bone structure has changed. Other than that, I would say it would be almost impossible to tell whether it has evolved to say, digest something different because enzymes don’t fossilize.
If there is some intelligence behind evolution, why do we require vitamins when this intelligent evolution could just make us create enzymes that are able to make these vitamins out of simpler substances?
Jared said,
November 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Matt, what is your explanation for Consciousness? Love? Beauty? Music? Creativity? Hatred?
Why do people use the phrase “believe in evolution” as if it requires belief? Evolution is observable. It’s not a matter of belief. The question is, how did all this get started – not whether it happened. And the discussion here, as far as I see it, is about whether there is some kind of purposeful cause in this universe, or if everything really is just the result of chance. Purposeful cause, or chance. That is the debate.
I understand the efforts to discredit those whole believe in a god, and creation “science” and all that hocus pocus. I’m with you – I think it’s nonsense. But no matter what anyone says, I cannot accept that life in all its complexity is just the result of chance, and no matter who presents what evidence toward that end, it still cannot be proven. If what you’re saying is true, nothing has any meaning or reason, and I just can’t accept that.
But there is consciousness in this universe. You are conscious, and in the universe. So, if you, in your tiny insignificant form, contain the massive consciousness that is you, please give the universe some credit ok? We are not the be-all, end-all of creation. We’re monkeys that live on an unremarkable planet around an ordinary star in the backwaters of a run of the mill galaxy. There’s more going on here than you or I understand, and it’s ok to accept that.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Jared,
Acutally, evolution is not about how things got started, that is abiogenisis. Evolution explains the diversity of life. People say they ‘believe’ in science, because they do not do the experiment themselves (usually) but they have to take the word of the scientists in that field. Why believe in science at all you might ask? Because my TV works. The internet works. These all come from science, if the science didn’t work, these things wouldn’t work.
If you are familiar with debating philosophy, your agrument of “I just can’t accept that.” is a logical fallacy called ‘argument from incredulity’. Now I don’t know if there is anything supernatural out there. When I was a kid I really wanted to believe this stuff, but the more I found out the more I found that either the people that supported this stuff were either just wrong in there methods to prove that it is real, or they were just flat out deceptive about it to con money out of people. Part of me still hopes that we do find something supernatural out there, but unfortunantly the more I learn and the more I see, the less possible it becomes.
Love, beauty, music, creativity and hatred all stem from a conciousness. And what is conciousness? What makes humans human? I don’t really know, and I don’t think anyone else does, I have some ideas though. I don’t think it has to stem from the supernatural though, but I don’t think it makes it any less special. I never said I, or science, knows where we came from, I was disputing Steve’s understanding of evolution.
We are just a spec of star dust in the universe. I don’t think there has to be a consciousness in the universe for us to have it. I dont think that makes life meaningless. As long as you are here to think, then you will always give yourself meaning or purpose. As for my purpose/goal in life, I’ve found out recently I have a terminal illness, one that science doesn’t know much about, so I want to leave my mark on civilisation, and work on this illness, so that other people that get this sort of illness wont have it for the rest of their lives like I will. So yes, I realise that science doesn’t have all the answers all too well, but I can’t stand to see people dismantling the hard work of so many people just because they dont understand it, and by doing so, pass on their misunderstanding to other people.
I hope you see my point, Jared. Thanks for the questions, I hope my answers helped.
Jared said,
November 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I do see your point – and I do understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I’m sorry to hear you have a terminal illness. That sucks. I hope you find your way to leave your mark on the this world.
I don’t think life has anything to do with the supernatural – all of it is perfectly natural. 🙂 To me, supernatural means vampires, magic and powers and crap I see on TV. That stuff is cool, but not real. Consciousness, creativity, intention – those things are real – and all around us. We possess these traits. What makes us think they are unique to us? I think, rather, these traits are inherent in the universe, and just happen to be expressed in us. All of life is an expression of this same consciousness and intention. You’re right, by lack of ability to accept that it all happened by chance doesn’t hold weight in a logical, philosophical argument. I’m not really debating here – only stating my point of view. I’m not interested in changing your point of view. I believe in no god, no religion – everything we humans are doing here is totally made up by us. You’re right: we just don’t know where we come from. It’s fun to talk about though. I, for one, think there is more than meets the eye to this universe.
One thing I think about is this: All matter is just energy, vibrating at different frequencies. If we are “matter” and we are conscious, and in fact all matter is energy, then in fact, energy can be conscious. If that reasoning doesn’t hold weight, I’d like to hear your point of view on the matter.
I hope you feel better….
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Jared
I am going to change the spelling of evillusion to ev-illusion to remove the confusion. I hope that will do it. No, I don’t think “things were created in their complexity overnight.” But I don’t feel any closer to understanding how things came about than I did when I started this blog. Selected mutations cannot possibly have been the causative agent, as there are absolutely zero mutations that form healthy retinal cells, or kidney cells, etc. AND that are capable of locating those cells in the body where they should go. Those types of mutations should be all over the place, and there are none. So, why then, and why not now? That scenario is like the Old Testament Bible, when God talked to the cast of characters, but he doesn’t today. I couldn’t figure that out when I was a kid, and as an adult, I have the same problem with evolution. Magic then, none now. Evolution should be an ongoing process. When they come up with changes in bacterial metabolism , that is pretty pathetic proof. There needs to be MUCH more. I do have a page in the blog on provable evolution. Of course that is a factor. But evolution coming up with complex electromechanical devices is just not in the cards. There is something much more powerful. And, to reiterate, I mean that scientifically, not in any religious vein.
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Matt
Para1: Of course I spent a great deal of time looking over the evidence, both in books, and evolution websites. A good deal of my findings are in this blog. Talk Origins, The Blind Watchmaker, debates on PZ Meyers website, heart evolution websites, etc.
Para2. Bacteria changing their metabolism is proof that hearts can evolve from nothing? Neither are fruit flies that don’t mate, or moths that change the color of their wings. Sorry, but if you can’t see that that doesn’t cut the mustard, I can’t help you. Selected mutations cannot possibly have been the causative agent, as there are absolutely zero mutations that form healthy retinal cells, or kidney cells, etc. AND that are capable of locating those cells in the body where they should go. Those types of mutations should be all over the place, and there are none. So, why millions of years ago, and why not now? And if the mutations needed for proof were present, there would still have to be a blueprint or intelligence to assemble the parts.
Para3: Those are my choices? And you are limiting me to those? Funny. My choice, and the one you didn’t give me, is that I am not intelligent enough to figure it out. Not even close. And neither was Einstein, neither is Dawkins, or any human who ever lived.
Para 4: Think of the immense amount of evolution that had to take place in a few million years that went from hominid to human. The most rapid evolution ever was supposedly the skull growth from Australopithecus-like ancestors to humans; in just a few million years. Compare that with the changes in Coelacanth in 410 MY, and T. Rex in 20MY. It’s just astounding that everywhere there should be great examples of evolution, it just isn’t there. So, evolutionists set the evidence “against” aside, and go on pretending.
Very sorry to read about your illness. Damn.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“When they come up with changes in bacterial metabolism , that is pretty pathetic proof.” You’ve got to be kidding right? You are telling me a bacteria that has evolved a gene that codes to make an enzyme that digests something no other organism can, and you tell me thats pathetic proof? Right. So we are moving the goal posts then…
So if that one organism can change, say one gene in 40 years, and lets say life started 4 billion years ago, that means that the original organism could have had 100,000,000 gene changes. Are you telling me that all those changes couldn’t add up?
And in fact, mutations are introduced into a genome every time it is copied, an average of 2 mutations per complete replication of the genome, if I recall correctly. You ask for proof of evolution, I give you some, you move the goal posts. There are plenty of other examples of evolution, but that one is the best one by far off the top of my head. And then on top of that, there is natural selection, which is responisible for organisms that better suit their environment surviving and purpetuating these mutations…
Seriously, what sort of proof do you want? Or will you just never be satisfied until you find something that agrees with your predetermined conclusion?
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Matt
Mutations that form any healthy and useful tissues in macro organisms, and can place those tissues in the correct locations so they could perform a needed function would certainly be a good place start. Ya know, like evolutionists say it happened. No the goalposts are not being moved.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I posted my earlier respons before I read your post adressed to me Steve;
You know why you dont see mutations in kidney cells or heart cells? Because the bad ones make it so the organ doesn’t work and the feotus dies. There are no mutations that form healthy retinal cells? True, none that we have seen, the result in blindness… Did you know, there have been some studies done to show that some women can actually see light in the UV spectrum now? And the rest of the mutations that aren’t beneficial result in blindness. You can’t say that there are NO mutations that produce healthy cells until you have studied everyones DNA, and somehow I dont think you have done that.
As for the response to paragraph 3, if you dont think those are the only choices (natural or supernatural) then what are the others? I dont think that’s a false dichotamy. If you think we are intelligently designed, then it can ONLY be by one of those two agents as far as I am aware.
And as for paragraph 4, it happened, its a fact. Having a brief period of seemingly rapid evolution does not go against the theory. Look up Steven J Goulds punctuated equilibrium.
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Matt
Punctuated equilibrium is just an excuse for why we don’t see any evolution today. And your response just backs that up . It happened a long long time ago, but not now. As I told Jared, when I was a kid, I couldn’t figure out why God wouldn’t talk to me because he talked to all of those guy in the Old Testament. Then I figured it out. The same thing is happening with evolution. Long time ago, but not now. So, don’t think about it, and accept it on “blind faith”. Which you do, I did, and I don’t anymore.
Mike Smith said,
December 10, 2008 at 10:34 pm
So it sounds like your problem with TOE is that it doesn’t explicity state that their is some “intelligent designer” behind it all. The thing is, TOE is silent on the issue. You can look at all the evidence for evolution and say, “Of course this was the work of an intelligent agent”. That would not invalidate TOE would it? Does TOE explcilty state that their is no designer involved? No. What it does say is “random mutation” and natural selection. For most people this automatically means no intelligence involved. Let me ask you, if you believe in God/designer behind everything, isn’t he directly responisble for the situations organisms find themselves in, thus controling natural selection. In the same sesne, what seems like random mutation could be anything but random, but actually the will of this grand designer. My point is, this grand designer is ultimaltey responsible for everything and the way everything is. Therefore, even if evolution does not mention the designer, he is behind everything anyway so he is responsible for evolution and how everything go to be the way it is. There is no way to ascetain whether or not there is a designer, so science in general is silent on the issue. You say you like “observational” science (what is “objective”science by the way…I guess I never realized there was “subjective” science…) like astronomy. Our understanding of how stars and solar systems form makes no mention of a grand designer. However, people who believe in God, and also understand sicince, still believe God is ultimatley responsible for the formation of the trillions of solar systems now existence. My point is, the belief in a designer seems to be above and beyond science. If you want, you can say science explains how the designer does what he does.
I want to end this post by saying I am not religious, or even a theist for that matter. Yet, I can understand how people could use the logic mentioned above to hold on to their faith.
stevebee92653 said,
December 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
That was a nice comment. It’s rare to get a well thought out and thoughtful one, so an A for you. We are pretty much in agreement on things. I still have a problem with RM and NS making anything but minor generational changes in species. The idea that a complex vision system could come about by that mode just doesn’t fit the evidence, and possibilities. So many species and organs just kind of showed up in the fossil record with no obvious precursors. Trilobites had eyes right out of the shoot….earliest fossils had them, and we have fossils for a 250 MY period., Birds were in a single strata all over the planet with no obvious precursor. They first showed up with their own version of eyes, and wings. Flowers too. So what is to be made of that? A creator that created different species and organs all at different times? Was it trying to trick us? That is not my theory, as, like you, I hold no religious beliefs. But, what a great puzzle. Evolutions problem is that they interpret everything to fit the theory, and ignore the obvious evidence that goes against. The fossil record and possibilities don’t add up to any logical conclusion, and I can’t make one.
Mike Smith said,
December 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’m curious how you feel about Matt’s question regarding supernatural vs. natural. If those are not the only two choices, what’s the other option? Obviously “natural” can trun out to be a lot of different things as can “supernatural”, but it’s either one or the other. What’s the alternative?
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Since everything that exists is “natural” I don’t go for the term “supernatural”. That brings thoughts of flying caped supermen, or magic. So that word is just out for me. There is only one choice: natural. And the source and intelligence for all of nature, for me, is natural.
Gene said,
December 25, 2008 at 12:15 am
Why do you bother with the ev’s and their pointless crude rants? I say if they can’t come up with something intelligent to say, don’t waste your time or space on your site. I read through several pages of pointless rants that you took the time to respond to. You could at least pick one point, say the formation of the first heart, and debate that.
You are completely correct that ev’s use only crude insults or arrogant old arguments that don’t work. Its a shame you haven’t been able to find one worthy of responses in all of this.
Thanks for the site.
Gene
stevebee92653 said,
December 25, 2008 at 12:25 am
Thanks for the comment Gene. I am a lot more selective about my responses now. You are very correct on that note. Just a waste of time in most cases. Naive on my part. At first I tried to discuss with everyone who commented.
Steve
Richard Roy said,
December 29, 2008 at 11:17 am
One of the problems I have with intelligent design is that it requires an intelligence that doesn’t show up in the design. But one presupposes the other. But is there a design? Where you see a design, I may only see a nature. i.e., it is what it is because it is all that it can be. In other words, this element and that element interact in the way they do because it is in their nature to do so under these circumstances. The other problem I have with intelligent design is the requirement of a designer. If such were the case, the designer would require a designer, and for the same reason. The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence. The law of conservation gives matter immortality by comparison, and needs no creator. Life, on the other hand, by the decree of intelligent design, requires a creator. So, do you start with something that has no beginning, or do you begin with something that cannot start on its own?
stevebee92653 said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Actually the intelligence is overwhelmingly obvious in the design. Eyes are digital cameras that took intelligent mankind thousands of years to design. The list is long and obvious. The source for the design isn’t apparent, so we are all stuck making things up or admitting that we are not yet intelligent enough to figure it out. Or we try to pick out faults in the overwhelmingly complex designs to show they weren’t designed. Mankind’s position is pretty fragile here.
” The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence.” Maybe it did?
So you believe that nothing brought about something, and I believe that something brought about something, and I have no idea the source of the source. And, in reality we are all stuck. Some will admit it, some will deny it. I will admit that I am stuck, and don’t know. But I won’t believe fables of any kind, be they scientific, or religious.
Richard Roy said,
December 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Well, since, to you, scientific method is a fable, there is no need to continue this discourse. You are stuck, no question. I’m not here to draw you from the side you’ve chosen. Your claim seems to be than nothing changes on it’s own, yet it goes on about you all the time. Before I waste any more time here, let’s see what you say about this last statement.
stevebee92653 said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:00 am
Your problem is exactly like almost all evo-believers comments. I didn’t realize you are a clone. Sorry. I misjudged you. I make so many concrete points on this site and on my YT vids. The typical evo-response is exactly like yours. You completely slide over the issues that I present showing how TOE cannot be responsible for the formation of almost all of nature. Evo-comments are nearly always some generalized question or information. I stick my chin out, and offer the supporters of this “science” of evolution to take a swing. And few evolutionauts can or do successfully. Including you. A pretty sad situation.
“Well, since, to you, scientific method is a fable” A pathetic statement, gleaned from what? Not worth a response.
“Your claim seems to be than nothing changes on it’s own.” Try page 7
Adios
Richard Roy said,
December 30, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“…gleaned from what?” It’s your statement. “But I won’t believe fables of any kind, be they scientific, or religious.” Though it’s possible that you could be saying that there is Science that is not fable, and there is Science that is fable, to equivocate it with Religion as if there was some Religion that was not fable is to lead one to think you consider all elements of both to be equally invalid.
I had no problem with why Sue didn’t evolve over a given period of time, because I can see, not changing, as having an advantage in the environment of the time as well. Your presuposition that it would be a “greater advantage” to have longer arms for fighting, doesn’t mean it would have been more advantageous for Sue to have longer arms for fighting. It means you wont leave Sue in her environment. You want to take her out of it and put her into one of your own making so that she can better fit your preconceived notion.
At one point, on page 7, you say they can’t use numbers when they don’t know. “Evolutionists say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils.” (And I agree, but I bet it’s not all evolutionists who say this, since you have a tendency to stereotype. It is also possible for you to be misquoting, and that they may have actually said ‘It is estimated that 1 in 1000 species…’ ) Then you use numbers when you don’t know. “In reality, micro-evolution is not even one trillionth of what would be necessary to form hearts and eyes.” This implies you do know exactly what it would take to form them. It’s just like whatever fool said “man only uses a fraction of his brain”, implying that this person knew exactly how the brain worked. When in reality he should have said “man only knows a fraction of how the brain works”.
This is the same with evolution. If it claims to know everything about how it happened, it’s lying. But not everyone who finds some validity to an idea is necessarily a liar. Also, there are always some who run with an idea and try to turn it into some kind of dogma, demanding conformity of all. You, however, are the reverse. You find a seeming error, and demand dismisal of everything that has even the slightest association with it. Your quote from Galileo Galilei on your first page was directed at the authoritarians of the time. It didn’t mean there couldn’t be more than one person with authorship on an idea. And the Scientific comunity isn’t an elite sect with underlying motives to rule the world. I think the same way of the Religious community. Though there may be those who have some underlying motives, I don’t think the whole community does.
If we’re going to work on preconceived notions that cloud ones ability to focus on an idea, lets talk about your predisposition to assume that you have to expect that “evo-believers” are out to strike you on the chin. “I stick my chin out, and offer the supporters of this ‘science’ of evolution to take a swing.”. This is your expectation of the nature of some people? If you think asking a question is equivalent to a swing, then it has to colour the outcome.
And let’s get something straight here. I’m not an “evo-believer”. I do think evolution has the best explanation for what exists though. Your problem is, you automatically think I’m out to convert you. Frankly I don’t give a damn if you believe of not. I just as soon prefer you didn’t, because I’m no proponent of faith. i.e., I’m not an “evo-beleiver” because I don’t beleive in anything. I know, or, I don’t know. I don’t know that things came about in the way that some say, but I do know that some explanations fit better than others.
You say you’re, “…not a ‘Biblical’, or ‘young earth’ Creationist in any way.”, then later you say, “Yet they [evolutionists] are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species.” I’m sure that many will recognize this as support for “intelligent design”. You said, “So you believe that nothing brought about something, and I believe that something brought about something,…” And you drew that from what I said that, “the…problem I have with intelligent design is the requirement of a designer. If such were the case, the designer would require a designer, and so on ad infinitum, and for the same reason. The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence. The law of conservation gives matter immortality by comparison, and needs no creator. Life, on the other hand, by the decree of intelligent design, requires a creator. So, do you start with something that has no beginning, or do you begin with something that cannot start on its own?” Where in that does it say I think something came from nothing? I’m saying that matter always existed, and life could come from that. But life can go out of existence. So, unless it could come about on its own, without the intervention of an intelligent designer, because, so far, the only intelligence we know of, is living, then, life could not have come about from an intelligent designer. DID YOU GET THAT THIS TIME? Are you capable of extrapolation at all?
Even if you discovered that, at some point on the time line of evidence that eventually comes to light, there is proven to be an intervention by an intelligent designer, there has to have been a point at which life didn’t exist. Since we know that intelligence only exists in living things, there has to have been a point at which it didn’t intervene. Or do you think life had to have always existed? In that case, you don’t think there is an origin; just an always. No point in discussing it further.
I’ve looked over your sight, and it is laced with support for intelligent design throughout. You pretend to be a proponent of “objective science”, and then try to interject this shit about intelligent design so that people will assume that science is in support of it. It’s not.
You said, “The main purpose [of this site] is to question and challenge the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.”. I don’t think so, since you don’t question the veracity of the fable of intelligent design.
I get the impression that the real purpose of this site is to drive a wedge into some peoples impressionable minds of the veracity of scientific method by proposing to them that intelligent design is a valid alternative. Again, it’s not.
Ultimately, what you want is for me to try to explain every little detail about evolution that you question, so that you can pretend to tear it down. “…if a highly accepted science is incorrect, true objective science cannot advance until the incorrect science is eliminated as a possibility.” Where did you get this crap? Obviously, you have know idea of what the scientific method is. You don’t remove an idea, then try to find a replacement. You replace an idea with a better idea. Don’t, in the same breath, purport to be a supporter of objective science, and then espouse intelligent design.
Of course, it could be your alterior motive to subplant the theory evolution with your version of intelligent design. Then you could patent it.
stevebee92653 said,
December 31, 2008 at 4:16 am
“Your presuposition that it would be a “greater advantage” to have longer arms for fighting, doesn’t mean it would have been more advantageous for Sue to have longer arms for fighting. “
So, let’s see. Birds found it advantageous to grow longer arms that would eventually form “wings” even though they couldn’t fly with the transitional stages, but T. Rex wouldn’t have use for longer stronger arms even though they COULD use the transitional stages for defense and predation. Right? And later on, T. Rex type theropods evolved into birds that did do the arm growth thing. That really makes sense.
“This implies you do know exactly what it would take to form them.” (Hearts and eyes.) A little tip re: science. Don’t assume anything. If you read my first two pages you would know that I said no one who now lives or ever lived on the planet earth knows. Including you, me, Dawkins, Darwin, and Einstein.
“If you think asking a question is equivalent to a swing, then it has to colour the outcome.” This was allegorical. I take all the risk. The whole world can attack what I say. I can be wrong and look very foolish. And if I was wrong, I would certainly change the blog. But no such luck yet for the evo-readers. There is no risk for you.
“I do think evolution has the best explanation for what exists though.” “Best explanation” is not science, and is much different than the “correct explanation”. The “best explanation” for the movement of the sun was it went around the earth.
“I’m saying that matter always existed, and life could come from that. But life can go out of existence. “
Two huge problems here. If you think matter always existed, you are saying matter is eternal. And eternity is not a possible choice. So I would change that thought if I were you. On page 22 I have a brief discussion why. (Toward the bottom: The Idea of Infinitely Existing Matter) The other is that life and matter are symbiotic. One can’t exist without the other. Try “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greentein (an evo) one of my favorite reads.
“Proposing to them that intelligent design is a valid alternative. Again, it’s not.” And how do you know this? Darwin told you? Dawkins? The problem is you don’t know, no matter who told you. And if you just think it isn’t, your opinion is one of billions.
And, yes I think there is Intelligence in nature, and responsible for the design.
Your problem is that all I have to do is find ONE item in nature that can’t possibly evolve, and the whole theory is dead. Do you realize that? That would mean that some other entity was responsible for that one item. I can think of many items that can’t possibly evolve, and you or evolution would have to come up with a fantasy to cover the fail. And the whole basis for evolution is that mutations that can form healthy useful organ tissue, and place it in just the right location in the body of the host so it can be utilized, and in just the correct amounts, is an event that has NEVER been observed. That is the WHOLE basis. So, sorry, your belief is a fake. But, I am sure you will continue on being a supporter of this “crap”. (Your words)
I think we have completed the circle. So, if you don’t have something big, have a nice life.
Richard Roy said,
December 31, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Nope; I’ve read enough of your site to see that I’m done. I have no time for people who accept faith as a valid means of aquiring knowledge.
By the way, it’s cute the way you use a “slight of mind” to pretend to explain how the Universe is finite. But it’s just a math trick. It makes a finite Universe as real as i.
ta, ta.
stevebee92653 said,
December 31, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Nothing amazes me more than people of faith who think they aren’t. Like you Richard. Only you have faith in someone who told you that the universe is eternal. ” Slight of mind” is really just simple mathematics. Did your math teachers trick you in school too? ta ta
Alejandro said,
January 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here, and it cannot exist as a viable worldview.”
Only for this reason, evolution is still widely accepted and worshiped. They like “L-I-K-E” to believe there’s no God (Designer, Creative Force or whatever).
Some of them aren’t scientists but angry and resentful against any religious organization.
Others were traumatized and brainwashed in their childhood (by jerks like Dawkins).
stevebee92653 said,
January 1, 2009 at 11:28 pm
“angry and resentful against”…..everything. The most unhappy angry group of people I have ever seen.
Josh said,
January 9, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Sir, I have read over your site, and it seems rather curious to me. You accuse “evolutionists” of being closed minded, brainwashed, arrogant, condescending, etc. I’m sorry if “evolutionists” have come across like that. You have to understand that if they have talked down to you, it’s because most of the people who dissent from TOE are total nutcases and not really worth any of their time (I’m talking about YECs and such). You are not one of these nutcases, you just present some very well thought out scientific questions.
However, I think you lack the perspective in which you seek. Whenever someone mentions the evolution of the eye or of sexual reproduction, you seem to curl up in a ball and yell “impossible!” and leave it at that. Sir, that kind of closed mindedness is not how science advances itself, and I’m sure you are bright enough to understand that. Don’t get me wrong, there are MANY unsettled questions. However it does no good to claim the whole thing is impossible. Imagine what would have happened if medical researchers had done the same when attempting to find a vaccine for influenza. Science improves on itself by constant inquiry followed by research, research, and more research. The beauty of science is that it provides us with answers about nature. Obviously, nature is accounted for naturally.
The complexity of life certainly is marvelous, however, this cannot stop us from searching for its natural processes of coming into existence that may be equally as marvelous.
stevebee92653 said,
January 10, 2009 at 2:34 am
“closed minded, brainwashed, arrogant, condescending” I said that? Where? Probably true in most cases, but I didn’t think I said those things in my blog. BTW, I do appreciate your calm reasoned comment. Rare from evo’s.
“evolution of the eye or of sexual reproduction, you seem to curl up in a ball and yell “impossible!” and leave it at that.” You couldn’t have read much of my blog and come to that conclusion. There are many very concrete reasons why selected mutations couldn’t POSSIBLY have formed either. If you want more detail, check out my vids on YouTube. There are three on complex visual systems, and one on sexuality under stevebee92653. I find that most evo’s gloss over the points I make, and resort to generalized criticism. Which is what you are doing.
I certainly think we should continue searching for our origins. It is the most fascinating puzzle imaginable. And, of course I love science. And math. And astronomy. Which is why I do this stuff. It’s just that evolution hit me really hard. I was a very staunch supporter. Until I really looked at it, did research, and thought deeply about the subject. I really think it puts us in the position that we were in in the Middle Ages when we were absolutely sure the sun went around the earth. There are so many thing about evolution that make it impossible, which means it’s time to reload and look elsewhere; and dump it.
Josh said,
January 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I will take a look at those videos when I have a chance.
In regards to my “generalized criticism,” I cannot go into great detail of mutations and such. I am only a freshman undergrad, majoring in biology. I hope to learn more on the subject in years to come, and hopefully will be doing my own research. However I can do my best and try to answer your question on T-Rex and the lack of change in its arms. Species don’t evolve in ways that might be considered improvements by our own criteria. Your question reminds me of someone asking me one time, ‘why have humans not evolved wings?’ Natural selection only selects for traits that already exist, and on top of that, only select adaptively.
I’m not doing a very good job explaining. This is from TalkOrigins.org:
“Different organisms make their living in different ways, so a trait that is beneficial for one organism may not be benefical for another. For example, if the ability to eat a certain kind of hard seed is beneficial for one bird, it may not be beneficial to another for the simple reason that the first bird has a monopoly on those seeds already.
Beneficial traits have drawbacks, too. They usually cost extra energy to grow and use, and often they have other costs. If a trait’s advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages, it will not evolve. The existence of an organism that already has the trait often means it is not worth it for another organism to evolve it.
Evolution can work only (or almost only; there may be rare exceptions) by making slight modifications to existing features. Most of the modifications must be adaptive. If the raw materials for a trait do not exist, the trait will not evolve even if it is beneficial. ”
That’s all I really have time for today. I will check your site regularly, and check out those vids soon. Cheers.
stevebee92653 said,
January 10, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Josh:
Good luck in school. I won’t respond except to say that evolution is so full of excuses for why it didn’t happen that it’s ludicrous. And, actually, there is no sign in the fossil record of a single species evolving different “traits”. All I can say is keep your mind open, and don’t just accept what you are told. Think. Be objective. It’s really much more fun.
Bye
Objective said,
March 8, 2009 at 5:01 am
TOE, like Big Bang, is a theory. Some theories some stick around, others are either replaced or improved upon along the way. The fact that scientific evidence CAN be pieced together although in relatively small amounts over relatively longer time, goes a long way to keeping TOE around as the best SCIENTIFIC explanation available. When I learnt about TOE in school I understood what a “theory” is, and that it wasn’t being forced down my throat. (Btw I also had a separate class where we would talk about morals and God.)
What invalidates the entire “scientific” discussion on this page is that your main explanation, “ID”, has no place in science. I agree that ID may well be behind everything in the universe, including the laws of physics. But that doesn’t mean that Newton threw his hands up on what would be half formed theories in his time, with the excuse that “ID is involved”. You are confusing science with philosophy, a serious mistake for a doctor. If all doctors thought in that fashion, we would still be dying from minor infections.
stevebee92653 said,
March 8, 2009 at 5:14 am
Read page 12. We agree more than you think. You just didn’t dig far enough. By the way, now that you bring up Newton. He thought like I do. Oops. Reverse that. He was a string believer in ID.