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 
Radhacharan said,
October 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Hey again steve, my science writer contact just sent me an email, here’s some areas of nature you may want to look at:
No 1. ARTHROPODS: they have to grow by molting. Molting has to be perfect or it is LETHAL.
“The rigid cuticle inhibits growth, so arthropods replace it periodically by molting.” :wikipedia
The wings in some insects have to be shed and the entire exoskeleton in arthropods.
How did this evolve?
No 2. MOSQUITOS: A mosquito hatches from an aquatic creature. How is that supposed to have happened? Especially when the mosquito’s flight mechanism is completely different from that of a dragonfly for instance.
No 3. You might like to look up transparent fishes with no haemoglobin closely related to fishes with haemoglobin.
I will send you the book he sent me via email.
Hare Krishna
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Great examples. Thanks!
MichaelBryant said,
October 16, 2009 at 12:16 am
your very brave guy questioning evolution. Plus you have degree in biology which makes you qualified to question it. I like to read criticisms of evolution form well informed people like you.
stevebee92653 said,
October 16, 2009 at 1:37 am
Thanks for the good note!
jan said,
October 16, 2009 at 3:36 am
“punk science”………. a new term…….to describe, in a pop-culture term, the evolutionary “sciences”as they are as of late…… Steve, I came up with the term…… in music, just recording the tunes copyrights them……… I would expect the same from this………you have my e mail.
I know you can strike this message from you site…… but you don’t seem to be that kind of guy….. I trust you……
Here is the deal…..music used to respect certain technical aspects of what made music enjoyable to listen to……… harmony, melody, symphony, etc…… then electronic instruments came into play, that somehow, with distortion and overdrive commanded the attention of music listeners everywhere…..while still retaining some of the traditional components of “music” enjoyed by the masses…..then “punk music came along…… even though not really enjoyed by the mainstream, certain components of the society chose to embrace this form of sonic identification, for the simple reason that it differentiated them from the masses, giving them the feeling that they were somehow unique and special…….in their minds, an impressive departure from the status quo…… maybe they got laid more than their counterparts,,, i guess vital in the scheme of “survival” …….
Could this somehow be some sort of parallel with what is know today as “evolutionary sciences”?
What do you think, Steve????????
stevebee92653 said,
October 16, 2009 at 3:53 am
Punk science? You mean why do they like punk music? As compared to why do they believe this punk scinece? Both are an incredible puzzle. “Punk science” fits the bill for sure.
BTW, I hope you got my note about being blocked. You were not. You didn’t respond, so? I do block people who are BEYOND a pain in the ass, excessive horrible language ( I use some blue stuff myself. You gotta sometimes with these people.) And giving out personal information. Other than that this is a very freewheeling site.
Your attacks are a fun watch. These people from dawkins.net are really nuts. And they think they are so scientific. They are bunch of clones only capable of groupthink.
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 3:10 am
Steve,
I didn’t get your message about not being blocked. But that is fine. Thanks. If I throw darts at you from time to time I know, unlike other places I have been, I can trust that you won’t scratch me and trash my computer…….Keep it up man. Seeking reality is often a contentious and combative enterprise amidst all of the bullshit………..
stevebee92653 said,
October 18, 2009 at 6:11 am
Just before you click the comment link, you may want to copy your writing. A few somehow don’t make it on. I don’t know why. I sent you three to let you know you weren’t blocked. you got one. Dunno. But have at it. I enjoy reading your stuff.
jan said,
October 25, 2009 at 6:56 am
“Steve,
So all novel features we observe must have already been present in the genome? What a curious claim. You should already be familiar with the evidence which contradicts your claim, so I’ll just wait for you to refute that first.”
Serdan,
You blind and arrogant fool….. There is absolutely no scientifically confirmed, even in a scant sense, of fundamental things regarding the “development” of the “genome” in any kind of sufficient comprehensive viable way. You STUPID SHIT!!!!!
“jack and jill went up the hill”
Darryl Householder said,
November 11, 2009 at 4:31 am
This was posted on the Facebook Creationism discussion group … I remembered your background and thought you might have an answer I could post to him.
John Matthew Tramel
I have a serious question for creationists: why did god make people with jaws too small for our “wisom teeth”? Why would an intelligent designer bless us with wisdom teeth that we don’t need, which cause painful impacted mollers and infections which frequently cause brain abscesses (unless you’re saying it evolved lat…er)? Can we all agree that our dental setup is not ideal? I can think of several structural issues which even I would immediately if I were to design such a device. But this makes sense to me coming from a scientific perspective (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7035).
stevebee92653 said,
November 11, 2009 at 6:48 am
Citing a tiny flaw, and ignoring the incredible invention and designs of the jaws and teeth doesn’t even rank as absurd. Try my discussion of teeth on pg. 4b #5.
Radhacharan Das said,
November 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees
However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.
Even if all the proteins aren’t responsible for the phenotypic differences, it’s still a vast difference. Seems like a lot of change since our proposed common ancestor, what do you think steve?
link to source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
stevebee92653 said,
November 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I think you are full of great finds. Thanks.
jan said,
November 23, 2009 at 5:47 am
Steve,
Above, somewhere, you accurately describe the nauseating use of the human invented term, for the sake of pop culture human consumption, of “NATURAL SELECTION”….Sounds so SCIENTIFIC. Apparently this concept is one of evolutionary “sciences” biggest supposed “demonstrations” of chemicals to living systems evolution. This is just fucking unbelievable to anybody who gives adequate thought to the topics. Why would any thinking individual, BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT, continue to accept this term that “paints pictures” regarding the developments required in going from chemicals to living systems and all that must entail?????? The “pictures” are vastly over simplistic of the actual requirements…… I know I am being redundant here in the sense of other comments made, but why can’t these people see this? It just seems so obvious and elementary. What is preventing them from understanding this… They (people who espouse large scale evolution as fact) are the ones who assert they have all of the necessary expertise and information to be able to have the adequate competence giving them the authority to advise society on such CRITICAL ISSUES………What the fuck is the motivations? Why does society keep funding these assholes? Why shouldn’t the resources, that are continually diminishing in the US (that is another topic in itself) be used in A WAY THAT DIRECTLY IMPROVES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. Instead, it seems that are a bunch of fuckheads that have wormed their way into publicly funded institutions that are sucking up unwarranted funds to support their philosophical belief systems………..
What the fuck is going on?????? Are we alone????????
stevebee92653 said,
November 24, 2009 at 4:31 am
I am beginning to think so. At least on there venues (YT and my blog). I “debated” with a couple of idiots on my Evo of Teeth vid. These guys are so dumb. I mentioned the fact that teeth (and eyeballs, and ball and socket joints et al) are inventions that came from nothing to the incredible systems they are. They just couldn’t get it. That the earth was once sterile. Then there were animals. Then inventions. Incredible inventions. No, they said. I don’t understand evolution. Have you ever heard that one? They think eye/joints/teeth et al evolved in small steps from the original eye/teeth/joints. The original were somehow just here, and what we have is “selected for” improvements on the originals. They are retarded. If you have a second and want to be bored, check out the comments. Evo of Teeth………..
jan said,
November 29, 2009 at 8:26 am
Radhacharan said,
October 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm
yes because before the cambrian period there was only soft bodied organisms according to evillusionists. And after a geological flash, most of the phylas appeared, some appeared with advanced eyes, trilobites are found at that time. that’s a real killer for the theory. Thanks again Steve
Hare Krishna
What is this Hare Krishna stuff? What does it have to do with these discussions?
Help me here. I have to admit, there is something I don’t understand. Please educate me. I don’t know what you are talking about.
J Phillips said,
November 30, 2009 at 4:06 am
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Atheist/Darwinists have replaced God with science. Darwinists will go to any means to prove the theory. The more scienific evidence is produced to counter evolution theory, the louder they protest and scream at the non-believers. If rationale debate fails, they resort to name calling. They get flustered when people who aren’t Fundamentalist Christians attach there religion of Darwinism. It is easy to ridicule and discredit Fundamentalist Christians. People who approach it from a scientific stance with logical rebuttals infuriate them. Sounds like a Fundamentalist Darwinist to me.
I
jan said,
November 30, 2009 at 6:08 am
November 30, 2009 at 4:06 am
J Phillips said:
“I agree wholeheartedly with you. Atheist/Darwinists have replaced God with science. Darwinists will go to any means to prove the theory. The more scienific evidence is produced to counter evolution theory, the louder they protest and scream at the non-believers. If rationale debate fails, they resort to name calling. They get flustered when people who aren’t Fundamentalist Christians attach there religion of Darwinism. It is easy to ridicule and discredit Fundamentalist Christians. People who approach it from a scientific stance with logical rebuttals infuriate them. Sounds like a Fundamentalist Darwinist to me.”
To J Phillips
I think it is reasonably clear what it is you are saying here. If so, good points. But, to further clarify,(in my opinion) most informed people would not consider the so called evolutionary “speculations” of (for convenience sake) what could be described as large scale evolutionary claims as “science”. What these people (individuals with a certain philosophical mind set and agenda as a certain class of philosophers) have done over the decades is to develop a self serving “descriptive” language, insert a little bit of math in the guise of legitimate and adequate quantification of the assertions, and then, through various sympathetic social venues, proclaim their body of speculations as “real science”. Of course, the lay public has had no real policing body of discernment to argue with these pricks. And in a modern sense, there are younger people, in the “profession” who have established themselves as “experts”. And they aren’t even interested in “going back” and trying to quantify the vast array of assumptions that have been glossed over by their predecessors. And this has allowed the nuevo “philosophers” (scientists) to unabashedly move forward and continue the agenda. Now, however, with the fluent availability of good information to anyone, the exposure allows all people to have a chance at good education, analysis and judgment of the actual information behind the assertions. It is an ugly thing for the psuedo-scientific philosophists ( asserters of large scale evolution as some sort of adequately demonstrated fact) and they know it. Therefore, it seems to me that your observations you have mentioned are mostly correct in describing a reasonable outcome of the naturally flowing effects of what has been described in this commentary.
jan
Jeremiah said,
December 1, 2009 at 4:18 am
Greetings. I very much appreciate this blog. By way of introduction, I am a former (hardcore) evolutionist. I have spent the great deal of the last few years telling people of faith why God is an unlikely idea and that everything from the singularity 13.7 billions years ago until now was pure chance. I now fervently reject this idea. I would love to get into the specifics if you are interested. One of the final straws for me was when I realized that DNA doesn’t know what we look like and the impossibility of established form to environmental pressures requiring adaptation to genetic mutation to survivability without a pre-written code in the DNA sequence to maintain an eco-system is impossible. It’s not a matter of survival of the most adaptable to a specific habitat or changing one but rather new information resulted from previous encoded processes. This is not a blind natural process. In other words: nature does not write code….
Usually, people get the ‘you’re a moron’ when you say something like this or ‘you simply don’t get evolution’. But the problem is, I do get evolution. *I have been teaching countless people about it for years.* I’m tired of believing this magnificent universe just…is. I absolutely believe that intelligence is abundance in this universe from one end to the other. I now believe in God. You don’t have to believe in God with my conclusion. I just do….I would love to talk specifics with people if they wish. Including endogenous retroviruses, genetic drift or speciation confusions and the like. I will even talk about the problems I have with the two most used cases to ‘prove’ evolution i.e. horses and whales. I have just had enough of the certain fabrications passed off as fact. There are simply more impossibilities with theory than answers. And that is putting it mildly. Cheers….
stevebee92653 said,
December 1, 2009 at 7:48 am
Jeremiah:
Thanks for the great comment. Your story sounds a lot like mine. I love this one: “One of the final straws for me was when I realized that DNA doesn’t know what we look like”
The code of course had to precede the trait. That is a great observation.
Like you, I was an enthusiastic evo-arguer. I loved the subject. (Still do, but just in different form.) Anyway, I hope you like my stuff. I have a Favorite Comments Page where I place some very interesting takes I have received from my viewers. If you want any discussion or have any questions, please feel free.
Jeremiah said,
January 23, 2010 at 6:15 am
Steve, sorry it took so long to get back here. Oddly enough, you would never guess what started me questioning the ‘undeniable truth’ I had held dear for so very long. Now keep in mind, Neo-Darwinism had been my baby for quite some time. Even beyond my schooling, I couldn’t get enough of it. Countless articles, books, journals, debates etc had created what I thought was the obvious. Then one day, I noticed something I had never considered before. As I was looking at my fiance, this question came to mind: Why do we have eyebrows? It seems like a juvenile question right? That’s what I thought as well. But that question turned out to be the incredibly small domino that started a chain of events that changed my worldview. I then asked (a question that somehow slipped through the cracks all these years, at least in this particular form.) does evolution know what we look like? I mean, what purpose does the eyebrow have through a completely blind process? I understand that it diverts sweat from the eyes but why would a blind mechanism put them there? Why would your genetics care either way if your body is simply an execution of constructive information and nothing more.
So, I then went to my science boards and asked the question. Does the eyebrow have a use I am unaware of and does DNA know what you look like? I received a unanimous answer. The eyebrow has but one function and under no circumstances does DNA know what you look like. You can see where this is going. Then I started looking into illogical additions to body plans that could never be explained through this process. The examples are disgustingly huge. Now let me say that there are certain aspects of evolution I have no problem with. A completely unguided process I now most certainly do have a problem with. As I continued my honest research, there were so many problems with the theory that I was unaware of, it was overwhelming. And more importantly there is a much larger part of the scientific community that either question, doubt, or outright deny it that it took me by surprise. I have been collecting this information for months now and am preparing to write a very large blog such as this with the findings of reputable scientists that for one reason or another do not get the press they deserve. Most of them are outright evolutionists.
Now before someone says that I am imploring the god of the gaps fallacy, they are not listening to what I am saying. I in no way am I saying that just because we cannot understand it, god must have done it. My new studies have brought a great deal of things into question. How the ‘tree of life’ was essentially disproved in 1993. How homology and genetics do not at all match up. The list goes on and on. I mean, even endogenous retroviruses that were considered the check-mate of common ancestry (again, common ancestry is not something I necessarily disagree with) are now being viewed in a different light with cutting edge research. There is some interesting work coming out of Harvard that is showing that they appear to be as much exo as endo and that their placement is not random but rather are needed for the development of a particular creature at certain stages and with out them, the creature never would have fully developed thus instant extinction. And their placement (comparing humans and chimpanzees for example) are in identical placement due to necessity in conjunction with body plan. Anyway, I look forward to furthering our honest discussion.
Jeremiah
stevebee92653 said,
January 23, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Hi Jer
Thanks for the GREAT note. What amazes me is why can you think objectively, while so few (none) of the evolutionauts can. I have found that near zero look at the information I placed in this blog and think it out. They make excuse after excuse, but not a one of them can think. And reason. They have forfeited that to Charles and Richard. Those guys, et al, do ALL of their thinking.
I don’t know if I mentioned this to you, but I laugh at a time about ten years ago when I was thinking about the subject, and began wondering. Could all of this happen by random natural steps? I have a Time-Life set on the evolution and emergence of man. I got out the one book on early hominids. I read a part that explained why they were man’s precursors, and read about the teeth of hominids. They had the same five cusp arrangement on the lower first molar as man. And therefore they were man’s ancestor. I ACCEPTED THAT ANSWER. How could I have? Why was I so easily satisfied? I never really thought out the evolution of bio systems, and ignored everything I could so my belief could remain strong. I was truly an indoctrinate. Why didn’t I question that absurd answer? Hard for me to believe now.
Well, we sure have a lot in common. As you know, T. Rex’s arm got me to thinking. Just like eyebrows hit you. These tiny seemingly insignificant items completely changed our thinking. Put your eyebrow story on you blog, and watch the evos go after it. It will be like pushing a button.
I will look forward to your blog. You apparently are like me. You like writing, and are fascinated with this subject. What could be more fun. Pulling the foundation out from a truly accepted science is a kick, even though I get few thinkers here. And, the subject is so darn fascinating. The Puzzle. The greatest of all time. The deeper I get into it the farther I feel I am from any kind of answer. I don’t even have an inkling. But I will try ’til I die.
Jeremiah said,
January 23, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Steve, thank you so much for your thoughtful response. It will take me bit of time to formulate the exact arguments to put forth to strengthen my case for a blog. In the meantime, I hope you don’t mind if I stick around here for a while and give you some help. I will not bring an argumentative style as it not like me. I will however create the most logical positions I can and hopefully open up a dialog with a few of these people that visit here. I don’t want to start out in thinking no one will listen. I’m sure that will be the case for the most part but to just reach a few it will have been worth it in my estimation. Every movement starts small. This is our contribution.
Jeremiah
stevebee92653 said,
January 23, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Roger that. Love to have you. Nice to have intelligent help. If you (any anti ev) get a discussion going, I try to look but stay out. So have at it. And feel free to get into anything I am in with an evolutionaut.
radhacharan said,
February 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Hey Jeremiah, nice to see someone who sounds very qualified and knowledgable has teamed up with steve. I look forward to reading your blog and reading your thoughts.
all the best
Kyp said,
March 28, 2010 at 12:19 am
Friend,
I really would appreciate taking a look on your blog. If you want to – just post the link here. I think steve doesn’t object.
Best Regards
stevebee92653 said,
March 28, 2010 at 1:52 am
If you are talking to me: http://www.evillusion.net
Are you not on my blog?
Rob said,
December 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Steve
I enjoy your blog and the rational arguments you propose. I realize from your mission statement that you don’t want religion or a belief system involved in discussions with you but you yourself bring up examples from the Holy bible (Noah) and the fact that the record states that God used to commune with man so why doesn’t He do so today? So with that unintentional invitation from you in mind, I would likewise involve some theocratic discussion on the subject of evolution and creation.
I have only recently started to search this subject and hence came across your ‘you tube’ video regarding the eye and the impossibility of it evolving etc. You do put things very simply and I especially appreciate the way that you reason and observe and question these broad scientific matters. I also am surprised at some of the proponents of evolution whose emotional responses to your ideas on the subject, in my view undermines their rationality and reasoning on the subject. (So don’t be tempted to respond emotionally…you are on the right track…dont get emotionally side tracked yourself…stick to your points and always bring your detracters back to the facts)
My view is pretty simple I suppose in that I believe that 2 things exist in our Universe namely – order and chaos and the fact that chaos has not overrun order leads me to the conclusion that their is a ‘Govenor” of that oder in the universe. I also believe that the laws and bounds that affect us here in a mortal state also affect our judgement in that there are laws and bounds of which we are unaware that exist beyond our mortal comprehension. For example a finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite or eternal (no beginning and no end) so our grasp on the science (which is always finite and measured in mortal thinking) will never lead one to the faith and existence of the eternal…unless faith itself is involved.
It is also interesting that from the beginning of our written word that their are no writings of evolution but their is a written story of the creation. Science can answer some things to make our lives more comfortable and healthy and I am in awe of the great men and women who devote their lives to all aspects of this subject. Science cannot however explain faith and because faith cannot be seen or placed under a microscope it cannot therefore be real, can it?
I have seen some of Richard Dawkins and conclude that his attacks on faith and believers in God have to me brought his scientific conclusions into dissrepute. In my opinion his agressive behaviour and egomaniacal dogmas repel any genuine debate which can only be for the greater good of the subject as a whole.
Like faith morality can also not be scientifically measured but does that mean it does not exist. If evolution and natural selection were true then in my opinion morality could not exist…it would be a very different world from the one we live in. Man would not love nor consider his neighbour but would self destruct in the pursuit by any means to dominate his species (a dog eat dog world). But their are laws and bounds here on earth. We all recognise them even Richard Dawkins lives by them. These laws set us apart from every other species and definitley offer to me a rational observation that moral behaviour is part of the order in the universe and comes from our eternal govenor or as I know Him, my Heavenly Father,
…and yes Steve He does continue to speak to us today!
All the best…keep up the good fight!
Rob
stevebee92653 said,
December 6, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Thanks for your intelligent and well thought out comment. The comments I receive from those that believe as you do are always so much more intelligent and reasoned than those that I get from evolutionauts. By far. There is a point that we all reach in this science where there simply are no answers. That is true even for evos. But they universally think they know all, and can’t face that fact. You and I know that is true. So at that point, we switch on philosophy and/or religion. I think as you do that there is a “governor”. An intelligence beyond anything we can imagine. That is a belief, and that is all I have at that point. You choose the more religious vein. But we both have to answer the unknowable with our own beliefs, because that is all we have. Again, thanks for the great comment. It was a fun read.
Carlos said,
December 20, 2009 at 11:35 am
Your energy in pursuing your anti-evolutionary crusade is certainly noteworthy but, I fear, completely misguided. Evolutionary theory has been mainstream biology for the past 80 years or so, and there is no discernible trend in biological thought away from that position.
I am aware that there can be paradigm shifts in science and, maybe, biology will experience one. If the past is any guide, paradigm shifts don’t overthrow theories; they re-interpret them as special cases. This could happen in biology.
But your tactic of disputing clearly established facts is completely irrelevant to current issues in biology and, in my opinion, doomed to failure.
There is an enormous wealth of phenomena to be understood and explained and biologists will tackle this task using their current theories, including evolution and available technology, your polemics notwithstanding. Surely, you don’t expect biologists to throw away 100 years of work on the basis of the criticisms that are offered here? And go back to what?
stevebee92653 said,
December 20, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Not “go back to what”, move FORWARD. Since no theory ever proposed so far matches what the evidence and all of human experience shows, including evolution. No human has ever observed the invention, design, construction, and improvement of incredibly complex or even simple systems without intelligence. Evolution completely ignores that fact, and tries to assign the formation of all of nature to millions of years of animals consuming other animals and changes in genetic material that somehow originally existed by designing and assembling itself, and forming it’s own code. This science ignores what is real, and all of human experience, and works on fantasies and explanations. And it kills real science. And if you choose to ignore reality because lots of people do, and it’s “all we got”, that’s up to you. In my observation, that isn’t science. If we don’t know, science should admit that, but keep on truckin’ FORWARD.
jan said,
December 22, 2009 at 6:43 am
Carlos said to Steve:
“But your tactic of disputing clearly established facts is completely irrelevant to current issues in biology and, in my opinion, doomed to failure.”
jan suggests to Carlos: For purposes of clarification, and advancing the discussions in a reasonable fashion, you may want specifically identify what it is that you call “clearly established facts” that you claim are being “disputed”. Note that so called “clearly established FACTS” often times are REALLY nothing more that “culturally supported ASSERTIVE CLAIMS from a dogmatic and culturally entrenched self imposed authoritarian sphere of influence that has had overwhelming influence on the boundaries of a particular topic.
Obviously, the distinction is huge in establishing, at-least, an objectively realistic quantitative scope in determining the ground rules for valid discussions regarding topics attempting to discern a kind of “reality”. Also note that the science of “biology” fully and totally adequately stands without any kind of reference to (what really are not more than) speculations concerning the (“evolutionary” term) “deep history” of living organisms and ecosystems currently observable. Biology, as a real science, ABSOLUTELY requires no reference to “ancient” history. It has overwhelming relevance to what can be observed and measured in the living world “today”.
Transtlantic said,
January 3, 2010 at 3:45 am
you are a loser steve.,,, you blocking me is the proof i needed that you are the one filled with bullshit. you know jackshit about science.
nothing at all… i posted evidence. you deny it.
start to realize this: intelligent design is the one with zero evidence and not even a resemblance that it appeared to be so, to any smart mind.
you are dumb, you’ll die dumb. hopefully your kids will know better.
post this for your fans:
Kardong, K. V. (2002) Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Third ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
stevebee92653 said,
January 3, 2010 at 4:12 am
You dominate the comments like no other. That is your reputation. I don’t mind intelligent discussion, but count your comments. I don’t like blocking, but when I see the line after line of peer reviewed citing and demeaning, it destroys open discussion. Your peer reviewed bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Written by sci-indoctrinates. They all say the same thing, because there is no answer. Except in the know-it-all minds of evos. You accept “might have’s, could have’s, and maybes”. That isn’t science. It’s fantasy. I do not like blocking, and if you want to be unblocked, try (1) something intelligent from your own intelligence and (2) limiting yourself to an intelligent number of comments. BTW, I will debate anyone. Give me Dawkins. Miller. All the bullshitters. You guys have an endless supply of explanations and excuses, which are a bore. My gawd, is that all you do? Cite papers? Books? Ad hom’s?
stevebee92653 said,
January 5, 2010 at 4:28 am
Hey Transatlantic, we reviewed your “peer reviewed papers”, and the best we could find was a study on lung Evo that finished with the author saying we are far from knowing as to how lungs evolved. Don’t you read your own stuff?
Hungry said,
January 11, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Hi If you are looking for examples of evolution in action I believe you will find Land crabs interesting. Currently on Christmas Island (An Australian Territory just below Indonesia) there are two major species of crabs that basically spend all of their adult life in the forests of the island, returning to the sea once a year in a mass migration to release their eggs, before returning to the forests once again. These crabs, (red crabs and robber crabs) have evolved to survive on land forgoing the use of gills (which could be described as vestegal organs), they have also developed the ability to climb trees, fences, and other objects. They were able to fill this ecological niche because of a lack of natural preditors on the island, and before humans bought dogs, and cats and cars to the island the only major threat was to their larve from passing whale sharks and other plankton feeders. There are other similar examples on the island. But I would be interested to see you refute that this is an example of evolution in action.
stevebee92653 said,
January 12, 2010 at 12:57 am
Hi
Thanks for the note. I wouldn’t refute your example. Your problem is that you misinterpret my stance. I don’t say speciation doesn’t occur. I say natural selection et al isn’t capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and improving biosystems. You are not even at the starting line with your example. In fact, I have a page on the evidence FOR evolution (page 7) that would certainly fit this information. Proving speciation isn’t even a flea on an elephant’s back in regard to the proof you need to show evolution is how all of nature came about.
Jeremiah said,
January 24, 2010 at 4:29 am
You got it good Sir. There are a number of current discussions going on here that I would love to chime in on. The only complaint I have about the site is that although I have clicked on the ‘Notify me of follow-up comments via email’ box, it doesn’t happen. So, it might be tough for me to keep completely up as I can find myself a busy guy and can’t spend all day searching each page to see if a response has been given. Unless of course you have a suggestion. Thanks my man….
Jeremiah
stevebee92653 said,
January 24, 2010 at 7:39 pm
I don’t know why the box doesn’t work. Try it in g-mail if you don’t already use it. It is quick and easy. And if you want a test run, let me know. I have several friends who are notified with no problem. So??
Jeremiah said,
January 24, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Ok, gmail account is in effect. Lets see if this works…
stevebee92653 said,
January 25, 2010 at 4:37 am
Test note. I hope it works…………..
radhacharan said,
February 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Hey steve.
What happened to maximus’ section on apes and humans? Can’t see it on your blog anymore.
stevebee92653 said,
February 1, 2010 at 11:33 pm
It needed some editing, so until I get time to do it, I took it off. If you want any info off of it, I could send it to you. Max had lots of good stuff on chimp/human evo. Let me know.
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
February 5, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Dinosaur had flamboyant, multi-coloured plumage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8498142.stm
I have a friend who is “flamboyant”
I like your Website and Youtube –
stevebee92653 said,
February 6, 2010 at 12:46 am
Thanks!
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
February 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Steve are there many people like you? What I mean “like you”, as in, well read/educated in these subjects, but sceptical about evolution. Are there some sensible forums/websites that you would recommend, dealing with the issues of this theory. I have found many website/forums, but they are typically biased one way or the other (nothing in the middle).
stevebee92653 said,
February 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Amazingly, mine is the only one I have found. Most are religious creationism or evolution. I stick to pure science. I am amazed that there are not more like mine. But I haven’t really found any. The Discovery Institute has some great science based stuff. It’s not religious, and their stuff is very scientific and objective, even though the evos will say it isn’t. So, in saying that, I don’t want to be tied to religion. They DO have some great stuff, and they do stay very scientific. I don’t care what the source is. I use evolution’s own science and research frequently. And if creationists do good science, there is nothing wrong with using their stuff. To often they morph into Bible verses, which kills good science. Religion and philosophy shouldn’t enter this fray. Pure objective science is the only way to go. If I run into any good ones, will let you know. Do the same for me if you find any.
Telesque said,
February 24, 2010 at 12:55 am
Hi Steve,
You referred me to your blog from Youtube.
There are some immediate issues I have with some of what you’ve written, if you’ll oblige?
1) “Evolution’s bedrock is “natural selection”: the biggest euphemism in science, where there should be no euphemisms. The term is far easier to swallow than the reality. Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the predator has over the prey.”
This statement is inaccurate. Natural selection can easily be regarded as a mutation in a species which allows only those members of the specie to out-do the rest in terms of survival. For example, consider if one rabbit has a white winter coat and another does not. Those bearing white winter fur are clearly better endowed to outlive the opposing members of their specie, and therefore are able to further procreate, until that gene is shared by all or most members of that specie.
2) “Nowhere in the natural world do we see any species gaining genetic information that was not possessed by its ancestors.”
This is also not true. Bacteria studies have shown beneficial genetic mutations.
3) “Papers written about the evidence actually become the evidence.”
This is a matter of judiciary process, and really has nothing to do with the actual matter of the theory itself.
4) “It is quite obvious that if the Genesis record of creation were true, all species would appear at the same geologic level.”
That’s not necessarily true, as natural selection is not mutually exclusive to creationist ideals.
5) “No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it even though that is unblushingly claimed by evolutionauts.”
If you consider the theory of evolution as a scientific study of the mutational biology of living creatures, then, actually, yes, if you can learn how to invoke mutation, you could very well end up with something beneficial (i.e. cure for disease).
6) “Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue, and can place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be selected by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on, and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue.”
Mutations need not be necessary, as you state. They can either be non-harmful dominate genes/cells which naturally become dissipated (as they are dominant), or they can be beneficial, which then also dissipate into the species not only heritability but also via natural selection (as they are not dominant genetically, but functionally).
Also, ToE and NS suggest that the more usual things are passed on, therefore levels of correctness aren’t so much an issue, because incorrectness in this sense is essentially unusefulness. It’s like, why do I have a mole on my arm? It’s not detrimental (at least, apparently, or immediately) and it isn’t useful, so, do we consider this mole to be correct in size, location, etc? If my eyes were bigger or smaller, would they be any more ‘correct’ than they are now?
The last part of the sentence there is also incorrect: “and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue.” Whether a species survives because it’s predator lacks it’s equal in terms of adaptive tissue is irrelevant. If you have a white rabbit, and a brown rabbit, and a white leopard, you aren’t going to have an equal amount of rabbits eaten again. The brown rabbit will still be more susceptible.
Or hey, look at insects and fly-trap plants. Just because a fly has many more complex parts than a fly-trap doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be eaten by one all-the-same.
There’s more I would comment on, but I have to be going out. I hope you’ll consider these, and reflect changes in your writing.
stevebee92653 said,
February 26, 2010 at 1:12 am
RE: (1) “This statement is inaccurate. Natural selection can easily be regarded as a mutation in a species which allows only those members of the specie to out-do the rest in terms of survival.
The animal dies and is consumed.”
Natural selection can be a mutation? I’ve never heard that one. Doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change my point. One animal has an advantage, for what ever reason and survives another. I can’t get too detailed in my little phrase, and cover every possibility. Obviously.
RE: (2) “Bacteria studies have shown beneficial genetic mutations.” Try to example multi_celled species just for the fun of it. Bacteria can always be used as invisible proof that can’t be challenged. Have they put millions of dollars in dissecting the genome of bacteria? I doubt it. The changes are normal bacterial fare. Bacteria have been here for billions of years. If they could change at the rate depicted by evolution, they would be much different species. Much. Changing diets or anti-biotic resistance isn’t an INCREASE in the genome. You misinterpreted the point.
RE: (3) This is a matter of judiciary process, and really has nothing to do with the actual matter of the theory itself.
What? Evo’s claimed evidence has nothing to do with the theory? Evo touts peer reviewed papers all the time. I don’t get your point.
RE: (4) That’s not necessarily true, as natural selection is not mutually exclusive to creationist ideals.
Oh.
RE: 5) “you could very well end up with something beneficial (i.e. cure for disease).” You could? Accidentally?
RE: (6) The last part of the sentence there is also incorrect: “and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue.” Whether a species survives because it’s predator lacks it’s equal in terms of adaptive tissue is irrelevant. If you have a white rabbit, and a brown rabbit, and a white leopard, you aren’t going to have an equal amount of rabbits eaten again. The brown rabbit will still be more susceptible.
Most of your answers completely misinterpret the points I make. Including this one. Sorry.
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
February 28, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Steve, you have probably already seen this…
Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html
Amusing. Reminds me of the problems you get with abuse on your website/youtube.
Its hard to believe these people are all highly educated/professional, etc.. Perhaps if this was a football/soccer forum I could understand.
M.
stevebee92653 said,
March 1, 2010 at 4:22 am
Really amusing. Is he doing this because he gets attacked. or his loyal fans attack? Fun to hear the squabble.
Francesco said,
March 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Dear collegue,
I say collegue because I am working in human genetics field and besides the fact that I am a molecular biologist and I do it as a profession ( it is actually my job, I am a PhD and I work in one of the american institution) I really enjoy talking about evolution theories and the plausible mechanism undelying it!
Premise: sorry for my english, it is not my mother tongue.
Fisrt of all, I appreciated your level of knowledge and you education in the field so
we can have and healty diiscussion about this very hard problem which may never have any solution due to the limited intrinsecal capabilty of our human brain.
This is my first post and I just wanted to say that I agree with you the the recent advance in the origin of cell studies ( I refer to Zsostak noble laureate stusies) even though are fashinating and interesting , you need an huge dose of optimism and courage to state the the evolution started up in those conditions
I agree that the likelihood of the combination of all those event togehter is probably toward zero
At same time I can argue with you that I do not know wheter or not an intelligen designer made the reality as we see it
So my friend I hope we will have a nice and educational discussion in the future
and for now I wish you good luck with your studies and please keep your self always skeptik about averything including the creationism !!
Best regard
Francesco
PhD in Human Genetics
stevebee92653 said,
March 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I appreciate your comment and intelligent approach. Since my take is we humans are not close to knowing or being able to know the answers we all seek, my mind is, of course, very open. I don’t hold the views of any group or organization. My writing is from my own observations, not from dogma. I always look forward to intelligent challenges. I did discuss with a Phd molecular biologist, and my discussion is posted if you have an interest. (p. 23 E). Good luck with your studies, and feel free to take a poke at me or agree. I will look forward to either or both.
Regards
Steve
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
March 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Heads Up – thought this was interesting
Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
M.
stevebee92653 said,
March 23, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Interesting. Thanks. I at first thought it was a Creationist writer. But, he is an uneducated evolutionaut and motivated believer.
Adrian said,
September 30, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Which makes almost no difference from you.
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
April 15, 2010 at 8:43 am
Don’t know if you have seen this – check it out.
dissentfromdarwin.org
stevebee92653 said,
April 15, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Thanks. That’s a good one. Lots of good reading.
Pitman said,
May 3, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Good arguments Steve, I couldn’t have said it better myself. However it is my opinion that you do not have valid reason to doubt the claims that the bible makes, or any of it accounts. If you ever get the time to thoroughly examine what the bible says you will be surprised to hear the arguments it raises. For example, there is one verse in the Bible that, on its own, disproves the theory of abiogenisis (and ultimately evolution, as you well note that they are intimately related). I have done allot of what I like to call research on the subject of abiogenisis (or the theory rather) and evolution and I have come to the conclusion that the events described in these two theories are not extremely unlikely but merely impossible. However, the reason why I posted this is that I would like to invite you to an objective look at the Bible and its teachings. If you examine it, you will find it offers incredible insight to the creator of all the truly magnificent designs that are manifest in nature. We have a moral obligation, not only to realise the truly awe inspiring manner in which we have been brought into existence, but to also search for the one him that made us and give him due praise when we find him.
Pitman said,
May 3, 2010 at 8:17 pm
BTW please do note that the above post is not an invitation to an argument. No. I am aware of your present beliefs with regard to a personal creator, I just think that they are flawed and realising the truth is not only interesting but life saving too.
stevebee92653 said,
May 4, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thanks for the note. I think as far religion/Christianity is concerned, I did that as a kid, and couldn’t return to it. I think everyone has to seek their own philosophy of life as it suits them best, and as their experience and thinking leads them. Mine just doesn’t lead in that direction.
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
May 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm
What a shoddy piece of work is man
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100503/full/news.2010.215.html
9pt9 said,
May 4, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Oh really? Care to dispute any of the his points?
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
May 10, 2010 at 12:03 am
Penis size: An evolutionary perspective (Carole Jahme – Evolutionary Agony Aunt)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/women-penis-size
Arethey Havingalaugh said,
May 22, 2010 at 7:07 am
http://www.2013.evolution2100.com/
Arethey Haveingalaugh said,
May 27, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Horned dinosaurs ‘island-hopped’ from Asia to Europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10167170.stm
John Remeika said,
June 14, 2010 at 1:15 am
Hi!
I noticed that you said there was no new genetic information made that an organism’s ancestor already had. There are many people who claim that bacteria do make new genetic information to resist antibiotics. Here is one such link, claiming that the new genetic information is recorded before and after the mutation.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html
I’m sure this has caught your attention more than once, and am interested in your response.
stevebee92653 said,
June 14, 2010 at 2:37 am
Why is almost all the great evidence for evolution invisible to 99.999999% of the population. It’s always some bacteria doing some unusual thing that we can’t see. (nylonase, eg.) When a bacterial colony is killed off by antibiotics, except for a few resistant individuals, the new colony that forms quickly is immune not because of some random mutation but because it IS more resistant. And if there is some genetic change involved, is it selected “dumb luck”, underlying DNA that had been unused or switched “off”, or a mutation brought about by some sort of group intelligence? Mutation involves changes in already present genetic material, not an addition of DNA. Molds for bacteria to react to have been around for hundreds of millions of years. (Billions?) If DNA was so quickly and easily added each time bacteria was challenged by mold or some other threat, a bacterial cell would be three feet in diameter, stuffed with DNA “add-on’s”. Resistance is a trait that lives on via survival of the fittest. Does radiating bacteria enlarge their genome and make just the correct mutations that render the bacteria resistant to antibiotics? Sorry but I am skeptical. And if those good mutations happen so easily and quickly, why are bacteria still single celled bacteria.
Dexter said,
June 20, 2010 at 11:48 am
Is there any other way to subscribe to upcoming comments than writing one on my own? (RSS feed doesn’t show up new comments)
stevebee92653 said,
June 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm
You should be able to check the “subscribe” box at the bottom of the comments. That will notify you of changes or comments. If any problem, let me know.
ليث said,
July 13, 2010 at 12:59 pm
In three words, YOU ARE GREAT…
stevebee92653 said,
July 15, 2010 at 1:52 am
Sorry it bothers you that much. Oh well.
ليث said,
July 16, 2010 at 6:54 am
Steve,
Sorry if I was misunderstood, I mean it, you are great, I have never read a scientific criticism for Darwinian evolution theory before. Your point is quite clear that you are trying to scientifically criticize that theory, and you are doing a great job.
I repeat my apology for the misunderstand.. Wish you the best.
Best regards,
Laith
stevebee92653 said,
July 16, 2010 at 7:02 am
Thanks for the compliment. They are a rarity.
Julio E. Palomino said,
July 21, 2010 at 6:47 am
I have read just some of your writing and feel that you are on to something. For the better part of my life I have always tried to find my own answers. This being said, about the only thing that I can think of a very minute example of something we could call evolution would be how for example an animal or human being when loses one perception the other becomes more able. For example; a blind man can hear better, feel more accurate, even the sence of smell can be more definitive. Of course this I imagine is due to the actual concentration of these particular parts of the brain that must be more aware of these senses because of the missing one. But is this not a type of none intelligence evolution? If by losing one sense the mind increases the other, would for example darkness improve our vision? My comments will always probably end up with a lot of questions but this is just the way I think. Through the answers to my questions I have always just come up with more questions and professional scientist like you, I have always wanted to find questions for at the end; end up with more interesting questions. I hope I don’t sound too dumb for you, but in all this writing you will find questions that you can probably answer so that I can have more questions later. Thank you and I hope you do read my comment. Julio.
stevebee92653 said,
July 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for your comment. Your example of greater sensitivity with supporting senses when one sense is lost isn’t evolution or mutation. As you say, it is the brain making adjustments. That you are so interested in this field shows you are very intelligent. Few people really care at all. I do give evolutionauts credit for their hyper interest in this subject even though they are no closer to a solution than you or I. They kid themselves into thinking they have it. This is certainly the greatest of all puzzles. And as you have experienced, the more I learn the farther I feel I am from any type of answer. But keep puzzling. It sure is a fun to ponder. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t do what I do. 😀
Hungry said,
July 22, 2010 at 2:41 am
Quote from steevebee in section 7 evidence FOR evolution: “If Darwinian evolution indeed did take place, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs”
You dont need fossils for this your own example flightless birds gives a prime example of how limbs can change in function. On emus and ostriches the wings became mating and threat displays, on penguins the wings became flippers for swimming. this is more than just size and colour differences. Its an appendage that has changed function through a genetic mutation that can be passed on, thusly it has evolved. another example is the Tasmanian Handfish . Video link: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/311582/strange_fish_walking_on_seabed/ and additional info: http://www.discovertasmania.com/about_tasmania/animals__and__plants/marine_animals__and__plants/handfish. And finally for the evolution of lungs, the study of the Lungfish which ahs a wide distribution around the world is important. Incidently this fish also has fins that work as legs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish.
The Australian lungfish internals differ from those around the world as it only has one lung, and its gills still function. These lungs show a link between their evolution and the gas bladders of “Air gulping” fish such as garfish and bichir.
stevebee92653 said,
July 22, 2010 at 3:39 am
Your flightless birds aren’t good examples for you. But if you accept those as logical and evidence for the evolution of primate legs and arms, ’tis up to you. I can’t argue with belief.
Those are certainly strange fish. Of course not good for you. If fish developed legs and walked out of the oceans, they should be ubiquitous in the fossil record. They should be the common, not the hidden and not found. Finding a fish with one lung doesn’t help either. The problem is the invention, design, and assembly of lungs from a single-celled earth. And of course those lungs require hearts to pump the oxygenated blood, both of which had to have been originated and invented. And the ultra-complex blood vessels, and a brain to work the whole apparatus. Of course I could go on, but that’s enough. Don’t you find it strange that your fish didn’t evolve fully formed limbs in the hundreds of millions of years they had to do so?
Hungry said,
July 22, 2010 at 8:08 am
Quote from Stevebee: Don’t you find it strange that your fish didn’t evolve fully formed limbs in the hundreds of millions of years they had to do so? /quote
If you mean fully formed limb as in terrestrial animals limbs, (i.e. longer and segmented) the most simple answer would be that limbs like this may be a disadvantage to the survival of an underwater creature. Fins on sea animals tend to be short, and streamlined in order to maximise the animals speed. These fins may or may not be supported by a skeletal structure. Other mobile marine animals with limb like appendages (ie the tentacles of a squid or octopus also lack bone structure in order to facilitate the animals mobility)
On land this is a different issue as air is less dense than water and longer limbs benefit land dwelling animals as they can increase the animals acceleration and general mobility.
So in summary, no I don’t find it odd as longer more land like limbs in a marine environment are probably more likely to get an animal killed.
As for the evolution of internal organs, I am sure you are aware that most of the time in normal conditions soft tissue will not fossilise. All we can do is look at living creatures such as the examples I provided and infer what you will using available evidence an the scientific method.
I appreciate what you are trying to do here and I do understand that no theory scientific or otherwise is fool proof, but as long as evolutionary theory is following the scientific method, and as long as no one proposes and provides proof towards an alternative theory I will respect it as the best explanation we have so far on how life got to be where it is today. That said the scientific method does need people to question hypothesis and theories, otherwise science does become a glorified religion.
stevebee92653 said,
July 22, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Don’t you notice that every time a species is shown not to have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, there is always an excuse? “They didn’t NEED longer arms.” Excuses after the fact are not science. “It didn’t do this because…..it did to that because”. There is absolutely zero evidence for the evolution of bio-systems like internal organs, so why make a theory based on nothing? Evolution couldn’t invent, design, and assemble those organs, and if you choose to believe it can, that’s up to you. There is no argument possible with beliefs. I do agree that evolution is the “best explanation” because we have absolutely no explanation. The religious “theories” are absurd. No idea or theory fits what we actually observe including evolution. The “best explanation” fails every imaginable test. Evolution does take place, but it’s not one millionth powerful enough to do the job it is credited with. Science should be honest and admit we just don’t know, just like we have no idea what life is, why the Big Bang occurred, or why it did when it did. That is good and honest science. Supporting feeble and fake theories when we have nothing else isn’t. And it blocks good science from happening.
Heather said,
July 29, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Hi Steve,
I just wanted to ask if you had any information on chaos theory? This theory was recently brought to my attention (patterns capable of self-assemblage in the midst of random data). I was wondering if this is something evolutionists could allign with abiogenesis?
Would love to know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Heather
stevebee92653 said,
July 29, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I have. There are YouTube vids on the subject. A few years ago I read “Chaos” which is a book on “chaos theory”. I think it’s still available if you are interested. It’s a difficult read. A snore. But I am fairly familiar with what you are talking about. The notion that random entities can flow together and make complex devices is a nice dream. Evolution has to find a way to make non-intelligent masses come together and form intelligently designed entities. And chaos does that for them. Again, one must be a non-skeptical believer to accept chaos theory. I am not.
Rob said,
July 31, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Someone once said “Man has learned even from his futile attempts to fathom the primary causes of the phenomena of nature, that his powers of comprehension are limited, and he will admit that to deny an effect because of his inability to elucidate its cause would be to forfeit his claims as an observing and reasoning being”.
Steve, like you I enjoy reasoning and so I can’t help but question the fact that there are over 20 million species on this planet who have supposedly all originated from the same primitive cell (life form) and over billions of years of change, adaptations and mutations we are the only species who can observe and reason…love and hate…feel pleasure and inner pain…feel anger and jealousy…can choose to pray and ponder…have and develop faith and hope…feel empathy and compassion…look into the galaxies and the far reaches of the universe…can read and write…laugh and cry…choose to be mean or kind to others…can make informed judgements and decisions…can work an i pod…can write and perform music on instruments we have invented…can enjoy and understand an opera…can build a house or a high rise building…can fly to the moon…can solve mathematical problems or think laterally…can talk on electronic equipment around the globe…or play an xbox…drive a car…fly a plane…make animals from cloud shapes…clone a sheep…ferilise an embryo in a lab…kiss and make up…(the list is endless)…and lastly, believe in a belief system of how we came to be!
What are the odds that we have evolved into this ‘special one of a kind species’ and no other species has even come close to us…what’s the evos answer to this simple but problematic observation? Your’e right when you say at the end of your you tube videos “there is more to it than evolution folks”!
…The more we learn the less we know!
P.S. Oh yeah and can you or someone else tell me why all the planets, moons and stars in the universe are round and not different shapes? Designed or randomness?
stevebee92653 said,
July 31, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Thanks for the outstanding comment. Classic. It goes in the favorite comments page, if that’s OK with you. I got chills reading it.
Rob said,
August 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm
How’s it going Steve? Watched Lord Of The Rings the other night and I was thinking where are the Orks; Hobbits; Elves etc. It is so illogical that evolution has produced only one species that can tie its own shoelaces; floss and smile 🙂 …over billions and billions x 40? of years.
There’s definitley more to it…where are those darn hobbits???
stevebee92653 said,
August 17, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Hey, good! I hope all is well with you. Did you see my latest page? Population Paradox? Give it a read if you have a minute. I think it’s pretty interesting. Would LOVE to get your feedback. Pick it apart if you see any errors. rationalskepticism.org, the new Dawkins chat site, gave me a thrashing because of it. So you KNOW it’s rather interesting.
Right. Where are those funny little guys. All the random shapes we should see. Damn. What a fun puzzle.
Rob said,
August 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Hey Steve, How is my ‘silicone pen’ pal doing? Been moving house so super highway transmission not available. Did I mention moving sucks…Oh well?!
Yes, I read your population article with great interest. What amazes me is that the exactness of science and the precision thinking of scientists from medical surgeons; to those splitting the atom; to biomoleclular engineers; to biochemical experimentations; to blood/molecular/cellular compositional studies; chromosones; dna; biochemical and binary science; mathematicians; law of physics; pharmacology; etc etc all rely on specificity, critical and methodical, unequivical, low or no risk rationale and reasoned suppositions.
The only purported science that does not think that way is evolutionary science. I call it the science of looking ‘backwards’ and forward thinking is therefore NOT highly recommended. If I suggested to a biochemist that I could blow up a printing office and that all of the letters would fall down after the explosion and produce a comprehensive dictionary fully bound with all the letters and words and meanings in perfect alignment then according to the incomprehensble odds of this being able to occur I would be ridiculed and seen as the laughing stock of the scientific community.
However, as a fellow ‘scientist’ who proffers a theory of how life came to be from one giant explosion which would produce several million living, breathing organisms with all their chemical elements perfectly aligned…BUT also producing only ONE species with high intelligence and ethics and a conscience…what are the incomprehensible odds??…then how come I am not ridiculed and considered the laughing stock of their community as well???
The scientists who regularly base their research and results on accuracy; precision; and exactness in undertaking experiments and observations within no or very low risk parameters…do however give great lattitude and credence to their fellow researchers who base their science on extremely high risk and low probability assumptions…why is that?…what a crazy scientific world we live in??!!
Kudos to you Steve…keep questioning and reasoning…the standard of truth has many entrance portals and doors which can only be opened by serious questioning and pondering… and I for one appreciate the time and effort (and monetary investment) you give in the quest thereof!
“I am still learning” – Michaelangelo
stevebee92653 said,
August 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm
My gawd what a great comment. Thanks. I need these. 90% are attacks, amazingly, as you well know. I want to place this one on the “My Favorite Comments” page if that’s OK. You are so right on. Why is it that these people can get this evo-nonsense into schools, and force it on people as “real science” when it’s nothing but an absurdity. The notion that RM and NS made EVERYTHING is beyond the pale. And to watch so many people totally give up their skepticism, ability to reason, and just accept what some bloke/blokess tells them who has no more idea than they do, is an astounding watch. Really astounding. (How the hell did I fall for that nonsense??) If you didn’t get a chance and you want to see amazing responses to my population analysis, try: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolution-debunked-human-population-for-dummies-t10608-20.html
Or don’t. You’ll get bored real quick. I responded to a vid posted by a Creationist at the start of the thread. Pretty poor quality, but the guy makes an excellent point. The evo-responders spend hours pretending they have no idea what the point of the vid, or my point of population doubling is. Sooo exciting. Again, thanks for the great comment!
Rob said,
September 5, 2010 at 5:30 am
Hey Steve went to the ‘irrational’ skeptics site…they would make good politicians…sounding good without substance! Left a question open for Reuven on your Blind Cave Dweller blog and would like to leave the same question open to others…
“A question for you…Has any scientist ever created any new genetic information by randomly mutating existing DNA? OR has at least one new gene ever been observed in nature, by scientists? Thanks, I’m just trying to figure out what the evolutionistic community base their evidence or grounds of belief on”.
Rob said,
September 5, 2010 at 8:23 am
I have asked my kids at times if they would prefer $1000 or a penny doubled 20 times…they always choose the $1000. Of course they would have been much better off with 1,048,576 pennies!
2 pennies doubled 39 times is 1099,511,627,776 pennies. If the evos are saying you haven’t accounted for the death rate etc…then where are all these deadmen’s bones buried??
Furthermore, where are all the human/primate skulls with NO eye sockets? (or skulls in the DEVELOPMENTAL stages of) OR Mandibles? OR olfactory holes OR the external/middle ear cavities??? For 250000 years according to ‘DORK’ins when human eyes were being produced by RM and NS what were we doing?? Hunting? Gathering? Sunbathing? Are there any fossil records available to substantiate his bizzare claim/s?
Lastly, how did the original ‘simple’ living cell get ‘genetically coded’ to improve and modify and engineer itself to a more sophisticated cell…when no lifeform exsisted before it, to pass on vital and key genetic information??
Thanks Steve
P.S. Would you consider a ‘Questions Page’ on your blog where anyone can submit a question only (not a comment)..and receive direct answers only from any or all bloggers? Might be fun!
stevebee92653 said,
September 5, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Evos say eyes first formed in chordates, supposedly the ancestors to vertebrates, 500,000 MYA. So where are the fossils to prove it? Where are those cup precursors to eyes? Not a single one. Why? “Eyes don’t fossilize.” But they sure do in the form of sockets. And jellyfish fossilize. And eyes DO fossilize. There are tons. Must be punctuated eye-librium in action. You wouldn’t see primate/human eye evolution though, even according to evolution.
The first cells differentiating into new types is another great one. How did that take place? I am doing a page on the first cells and the tree of life with that stuff included. My friends at rationalskepticism are at the ready to attack. Their attack on my page on population doubling was astounding. How dense can they be. And they think they are so smart. They can’t see the difference between a 150 year doubling time and 9,000 years. They ask, “So what’s the problem?” I finally gave it up.
The page with questions: Good idea. I will give it a try when I finish my current page. Might be too many pages for people to find it, but I can give it a go.
Dwilkes7 said,
August 30, 2010 at 2:54 am
Hi Steve.
I have been diligently studying your site and information and “Debate”! It is the last point that I am addressing here.
There are a tremendous amount of very seriously wrong “LOGICAL” reasoning, that if the writer knew anything about the correct way to get at the “TRUTH” through “logical” thinking, we would make things more clear. I know a bit about this subject matter of logical thinking and the logical fallacies that are “Strewn about” like so much “fertilizer”, it sometimes PAINS me to see people who are claiming to be intelligent, actually make an amazing amount of Illogical, baseless, ridiculous arguments that do little more than muddy the waters to a point where it is difficult to wade through and try to find a bit of truth. If we could all just familiarize ourselves with the logical fallacies that confuse instead of educate others, we could really have a decent and honest dialogue.
Go Here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ educate yourselves and then come back and make sure you are not making a mistake in your reasoning so we can “Honestly” get what your point is.
Thank you.
stevebee92653 said,
August 30, 2010 at 3:21 am
Hi Dwilkes7. You, of course, are an evo-indoctrinate. What gives you away is your use of the work “WE” when discussing your “we could make things more clear” and “we can “Honestly” get what your point is”. See page 34 #11 for some clarity. You are in a groupthink entity.
Your second problem is you tell me I have a tremendous amount of “wrong logical reasoning”, but you name not one example. Does this go hand in hand with your “good logic”? Which leads me to believe you haven’t read a lick of the blog. Else you would have the ability to example at least a bit of my “wrong logical reasoning”. Somehow your comment and “diligently studying” don’t go together. I did look at your site, and maybe you would like to review it yourself. Brush up a bit. It may just improve your comment skills.
Dwilkes7 said,
August 30, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Sorry Steve, Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I ABSOLUTELY am not for evolution! My mistake was not giving an example such as, “Almost all credible scientists believe in evolution” = Appeal to Popularity.
My mistake. I should have proofread my comment. Your right, the use of the word “we”. Sorry about that. I’ll be more clear next time.
stevebee92653 said,
August 30, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Roger that. You did come across as evo. I still don’t get the logical fallacies that you note. So l am not understanding the point of your comment.
Dwilkes7 said,
August 30, 2010 at 11:51 pm
The point is this.
I want the EVOs to get TO THE POINT without, name calling = Ad Hominem.
Most scientists BELIEVE some supposed “fact” =Appeal to Belief
All the “best schools” teach evolution = Appeal to Common Practice
I could go on and on! If the evolutionists stop using these fallacies, I would like to hear their “scientific” data. Instead, the same tired out arguments that dont PROVE 1 single thing. Especially the phrase “you just don’t understand how evolution works” meaning anyone can hide behind that accusation, which boils down to “Your too stupid to understand them”.
stevebee92653 said,
August 31, 2010 at 5:37 am
I sure read you wrong. Right on!
stevebee92653 said,
September 8, 2010 at 6:55 am
You copied your comment from some other evolutionaut. Right? I have seen this exact one so many times before. What a snore. If you had a real brain, you would dig in and challenge me where you think I am wrong. You can even get evo-helpers all you want. But you don’t and can’t so you just do a rant-copy. Blah blah Nobel blah garbage blah sky daddy blah talking snake. If you could actually read you would know that I debated several university bio instructors, a PHD molecular biologist, took on 20 or so at richarddawkins.net, and rationalskepticism.org. All posted here for your reading pleasure. Know what? Their answers and refutes were exactly like your silly copy paste. Just a bunch of bullshit from indoctrinates. If you want to comment here I have a page on the rules (1b). Give a read or waste your time writing more trash. Up to you. I DO know what choice you will make. You won’t expose your IQ.
stevebee92653 said,
September 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm
You are not interested in science. You are fully indoctrinated. There is absolutely zero proof evolution invented designed and assembled any bio-system, but you believe it did anyway, and you think you are so smart. Keep fooling yourself. It’s fun to watch. Everything in your comment has already been said dozens of times before on this blog and I have left them posted. Copy/pastes don’t get posted anymore. Why is it that all evos can only trash me personally, but never any information in this blog? You are a clone. A droid. Your brain did the copy, your comment was a paste. You don’t even realize it. Pretty sad for you. If you want to comment, I told you where the parameters are. Give thinking a try if you are so goddam smart. It’s really much more fun.
stevebee92653 said,
September 9, 2010 at 5:44 am
What issues? Name one. Try one at a time, and if it is a genuine issue, it will post. Rants don’t post.
stevebee92653 said,
September 9, 2010 at 1:46 am
Gee, you get thrown off as a boring troll. Shame.
Lucek said,
September 9, 2010 at 1:54 am
The digestive system Started as a simple indentation that could absorb nutrients. As it got deeper it could absorb more dew to increased surface area. Eventually this indentation went to the other side witch allowed the organism to excrete waste matter out of it’s body. This tube connecting what can now be called a mouth and anus is the first organ in the system. From this a simple sphincter would form allowing food to remain in the body longer. The tissues surrounding the tube slowly became better at absorbing nutrients. From this more sphincters separated a section of the tube witch slowly swelled and became a stomach. The stomach formed better ways of breaking down food, while the remaining tube became still better at absorbing nutrients and removing waste from the body. Certain cells in the wall of the tube start to specialize in producing different fluids. They clump together and slowly form larger structures as this is more energy efficient then having them wasting there fluids and having them in the intestines. That’s an evolutionary pathway of one of the larger organ systems. Every step gives a benefit.
stevebee92653 said,
September 9, 2010 at 5:45 am
That’s really good. You have a great imagination.
Adrian said,
September 9, 2010 at 6:20 am
How do you claim it is science when you dont put your work under scrutinity? You claim that evolution is about trying to prove that darwin was right. And i already told you examples of why this is clearly not the case and as expected from you you ignored it.
I.D. Doesnt make any predictions and has no explanatory power. All you say is hypper bunnies from outter dimension made life. Still that doesnt tell anything about the nature of the designer, how it designs, or what predictions can it make to be as strong as evolution. You know this and Discovery institue knows this as well. You are really no scientists and you claim to have a scientific theory whi is 100% certain. Just wishful thinking. You cant even explain how I.D. Is science.
stevebee92653 said,
September 9, 2010 at 4:32 pm
You don’t get the point. Not even close. I am not trying to prove ID. I AM proving that evolution could not be the source for all of living nature. Got it? That intelligence is in the mix when observing nature’s bio-systems is beyond apparent, and doesn’t need proving. The source is not findable, but intelligence is right in front of your eyes. In fact it is IN your eyes.
What? “All you say is hypper bunnies from outter dimension made life” What are you smokin’?
Adrian said,
September 10, 2010 at 2:22 am
Ok then you dont have any qualifications to deny that evolution is the source of all living nature. So somehow all 99% are plain wrong? Not even your most prominent scientist michael behe agrees with that.
Why is the source not findable?
What predictions we should expect from I.D.?
What explanatory power does it have besides “god did it”?
How can we scientifically test I.D.?
If all species are all I.Ded. How come 99% of species are extinct? dint your so loves designer thought about the climate changes on earth?
Why is there bad design? Why the retina is inverted on humans but not cephalopods?
stevebee92653 said,
September 10, 2010 at 3:31 am
All that is required to prove evolution a hoax is
(1) A brain and the ability to use it
(2) Some observational skills which just about everybody has including you
(3) Lack of pre-ordained indoctrination.
Even you could do it except you don’t have #3.
Yes, 99% are just plain wrong. But, sorry, your 99% is a hoax as well.
Why is the source not findable? Surely you jest. Is the source or reason for the existence of the universe findable by you? What is your source for intelligence in humans? Consciousness? We humans are not intelligent enough or able to find the source of many entities. You know that, so why would you ask such an inane question. At least read page one so I don’t have to repeat the same stuff here in the comments. I write this blog for a reason.
Predictions using ID and intelligence:
(1) That when we study bio-systems, they will show structure that requires intelligence to invent design and assemble.
(2) There are a group of people who blind themselves to that fact, and pretend that they see no need for intelligence in the invention design and assembly of bio-systems.
Both predictions have come true!
Scientific test for intelligence: (1) Scientifically observe (2) Think (3) Record your observations (4) Reason out this puzzle using your life experience and that of every person who ever walked the face of the earth (5) Scientific polling: Poll millions of people educated 3rd grade or above on the entire planet earth: Have you ever EVER observed any complex OR simple device partially or fully self invent, self design, or self assemble? I’ll bet the percent of “no” will be greater than your 99% of all scientists.
“Why” you ask? Why is the earth here? Why is the universe here instead of nothing? Why the Big Bang? Why are carbon atoms designed the way they are? Why is the sun too hot to walk on? Why is nature beyond incredible but not perfect? Why don’t we all have IQ’s of 400 and above so we could figure this Puzzle out. WHY? WHY? Do you actually think unanswerable questions mean that there is no intelligence in the mix that formed vision, heart lung “machines”, consciousness? Obviously you do. So think that way. I don’t and NEVER will. But I did.
stevebee92653 said,
September 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Adrian:
(1) The source of ID has NEVER been observed.
(2) NS and RM have NEVER been observed inventing, designing, assembling bio-systems.
Ergo: (1) is NOT true science, (2) IS true science
Is that your stance? Pretty slanted thinking.
Adrian said,
September 10, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The “design”of bio systems can be infered to NOT be I.D.ed
Design aims for simplicity which many bio systems are not. How do you explain 98% is junk dna? An intelligent designer wouldnt have put the inverted retina. Unless he is a dumb designer which is unlikely and you would have to make more assumptions that would violate the principle of parsimony.
I agree, the assembly of bio-systems like the eye or heart have not be observed, but many proposals have been made of how COULD have been formed. Yes emphasis in COULD, if the design of bio.systems can be explained without invoking thesupernatural, then why add an explanation which simply begs the question as to “who made the designer?”
We can see natural selection at work, although only on a micro scale because of the time involved. But when have we ever seen a celestial being actually designed something? never
If supernatural events have never been observed, then why assume it happened?
stevebee92653 said,
September 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Re: “Can be inferred to not be ID?” How is that? Since they are designed way beyond a human’s ability to design and our intelligence level, you can just “infer” away intelligence?
Another hoax: 98% DNA. Would you like to try to sacrifice your 98% junk DNA to test that notion? I would bet you wouldn’t give up 1% as a test. That 98% goes with your 99% of all scientists hoax. No notion or idea on the planet earth is agreed to by 99% of a population. Anyway, who would risk their science job by saying they don’t go for evolution? Maybe 1%. Specially in this economy.
Re: “many proposals have been made of how COULD have been formed”. Do you have any idea how many times “could have” is used in this science? Try reading my page on peer reviewed papers. They are one “could have” and “might have” and “perhaps” after another. On the evolution of hearts/lung systems and vision. All “could have’s” and “might’ have’s”.
What is supernatural? Why is it you think the intelligence is “super”? Why not just natural intelligence? Part of nature. Part of the universe. Is dark matter supernatural? We can’t find it; it makes up 90% of the matter in the universe. Is it supernatural? Or just another puzzle of nature. Like the intelligence required for life.
Ritchie Annand said,
September 10, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I’d like to know where you stand on common descent. I’ve had a few discussions with non-creationist ID folks before, and that’s usually a big deciding issue on how to proceed with the conversation.
I appreciate that you gave environmental issues a nod, but you seem hung up on the predator/prey relationship as a driving force. They do tend to drive the “arms races”, and eyes, legs and claws are driven far off the economical path, but don’t forget livers and the like. Livers store vitamins, produce metal-binders, make urea for nitrogen excretion, cholesterol for cell wall plasticity, etc. It’s a chemical economy, and nothing comes without a price: in energy, in trace elements in the diet, in gestation time and/or in homeostasis.
You also seem hung up on exact placement, exact shape, exact timing and the like. It’s more flexible than you’re implying. Specialization is driven by chemical feedback, and it’s all local until the endocrine system gets involved. Even there, similar mechanisms are involved. Much of it involves reacting with the histones around the DNA, and it’s a remarkably physical process.
What I’m trying to get at with that word salad is that development is far more akin to a recipe, seeded with a small bicoid gradient to start it off, than any conception of blueprints or ‘ideal forms’ or the like. Same reason that if you had a sixth toe, it would very likely have all the proper bones, blood vessels and nerves.
As far as where things like certain organs came from, that’s a fine question. It certainly appears, though, that they were not invented de novo for each creature. We used to use comparative anatomy for this particular conclusion, but we have comparative genetics and protein mapping now, available for free to the public in many cases.
Hearts, for example, seem to have a long history. Long enough that the so-called “tinman gene”, NKX2-5 and its fruit fly orthologue, tin-RA are both responsible for heart development. Hemoglobin seems to have an even longer history.
Eyes are a little tougher, though to my knowledge they *all* use the G-protein-coupled receptor system to get their signals where they are going and most if not all use opsins. (Even bacteria use opsins for light detection and on occasion photosynthesis, like with some halophile bacteria) Eyes show some signs of separate development: there are two kinds of visual receptor cells, rhabdomeric and ciliary. Arthropods use rhabdomeric cells to see with. Vertebrates use ciliary cells to see with, but rhabdomeric cells are still present in body parts that control circadian rhythm.
Eyes do not fossilize well outside of the arthropods. G.C. Young probably has the best-preserved example of the tissues right outside of a placoderm eye.
I invite you to play with some of the comparative genomics and protein tools available. The protein tools are a little more interesting: proteins change more slowly with respect to gene mutation, and you don’t have to deal with introns (RNA that is produced but cut out before transcription). Pop on to uniprot.org and search for HBA_HUMAN, click on the Blast tab and click Blast. Clicking on the colored bars will show you protein alignments, but even just scrolling through the pages and looking at where and what species the other proteins come from is interesting.
AMELX_HUMAN is interesting, too, though we have amelogenin sequences for far fewer creatures.
stevebee92653 said,
September 11, 2010 at 4:48 am
I don’t get your comment. You ask my stance on creationism. Then give me an anatomic/genetic/biochem lesson on extant hearts and eyes?? Que paso?
Ritchie Annand said,
September 14, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Just trying to clarify, since you don’t seem to present your own position, whether you subscribe to general separate creation (be it spontaneous generation, mythical, sculpting, species made to give birth to other species, creation-elsewhere-placing-here, etc.) or general common descent (be it through “tinkering” or attraction of descendents to a set of ideal forms, etc.) or perhaps even “undecided”.
The bio “lessons” were to address a few of the points you made in your essay (e.g. the exactness criteria, which comes across as expecting development to follow a coordinate system) and to show some of the modern evidence of deep time when it comes to some biological systems that might otherwise look like they were totally new and “came from nothing”.
Some on the anti-common-descent side have gone on to make the “common toolbox” declaration, in which case I often go on to show how the _patterns_ of gene and protein difference gainsay that for all except the case of a designer trying to make it _look_ like common descent.
So do you have a position re: how species come about?
stevebee92653 said,
September 14, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Feel free to read the blog. Page 1: “Just a Note for Evolution Fans that May Read this Blog” 3/4 of the way down will answer this question.
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Yes, my position is no person who ever lived on the face of the earth has that answer. Many groups think they know, but 0% of the people in those groups DO know.
Ritchie Annand said,
September 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Would the “great biological and natural design connection between all living things” count as common descent or common design?
stevebee92653 said,
September 14, 2010 at 10:16 pm
The evidence for common descent crashes badly. I am sure you think it’s a lock, but it just isn’t. Feel free to have a look at p. 36. Common descent and the spread of bio-systems are mutually exclusive. The fossil record doesn’t back up common descent except when we bend the hell out of it to fit the theory. Which leaves common design.
Adrian said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Still the 98% of dna has no function whi affetc the phenotypes of species.
Yes could have, its a valid explanation, one which resorts to natural explanations, the only natural designer we have seen ios natural selection.
Why assume an intelligent designer which we have ZERO evidence of it? and it actually raises more questions? whats the difference of sayin “its designed” and “its magic”? it has no explanatory power.
It makes no predictions and it cant be tested so its NOT science.
If you have an explanation of a plausible way of how a crime could have happened, and all the evidence points towards it. Then why break the law of parsimony and are more unnecesary assumptions like “supernatural intervention” or “secret alien program” when natural explanations suffice to explain the crime?
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:00 am
(1) Would you be willing to sacrifice 98% of your DNA to prove your “no function” point? I would bet not.
(2) If an entity cannot be invented, designed, assembled, and sustained without intelligence, why would you pretend that it can and has been shown to?
(3) The prediction is (2).
Adrian said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:19 am
Ok, ive you havent seen any one designed a bio-system then why assume someone exists? And that doesnt solve the question because it doesnt explain ANYTHING. Who made the designer? how did the designer came into being? by intelligent design also? then who made the designers designer? The only designer we know in nature is the blind forces of natural selection.
And yes i am willing to give 98% non-coding dna as long as no change affects me (:
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:36 am
As long as “no change affects you?” What a comedian you are! You’re so damn sure 98% of DNA is useless, it shouldn’t affect you. If you had the choice you wouldn’t give up 1% of your “useless DNA” and you goddam well know it.
What started the universe? The Big Bang? What started life on earth? You don’t know that, just like me. But, oh, you DO know how bio-systems were invented, designed, and assembled. Isn’t fooling yourself fun? I don’t fool myself. I see that intelligence is absolutely necessary. I also see that the source is unknowable. But I don’t pretend that “nothing” did the designing, like you must. See, you are REAL science, and so is “nothing” inventing and assembling bio-systems. You see that all the time, right?
Adrian said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:13 pm
“For evolutionauts, a very simple premise: (1) Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing. That fact doesn’t need testing. It is just pure fact.”
Again just plain bullshit assertions “it needs no testing just take my word for it” And you call evolution a dogma. Oh the irony.
So you also think you are exempt of publishing peer review papers and claim its 100% valid science when no scientists whatsoever agrees with you. Well thats probably for the obvious well multi-science academic conspiracy right?
And most of the first page is just plain old argument from ignorance. Just asking questions “how did that form, how teeth evolved” So you basic answer is. “i have no idea how it formed therefore it is designed taa-daah” Wow you amaze me, you call I.D. science and prove a great theory without ever moving a finger, just saying “its designed”
And thats I.D. In a nutshell. No one has ever reasearched ANYTHING relevant about I.D. all the money spent on the I.D. was for political pressure to teach I.D. on classrooms instead of doing some actual RESEARCH.
I.D. Is religiously motivated, not scientific. dont believe me?
Name one prominent scientist who believes in I.D.
be it religious or not.
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:17 am
I could give a shit which scientist agrees with you, or me for that matter. Got it? I go by my own observations, so kill that attack. I don’t forfeit my thinking to someone else like you have.
Also give up the peer reviewed bullshit. Evo PR is pure bullshit, and evo-fake papers don’t pass MY peer review. Why should I submit a paper to dishonest indoctrinated reviewers. Try my page 5 and 5a. Do you go on forever saying the same stuff that your fellow evos say over and over? Do you ever write anything original? All of your attacks are a trite musty repetitive pile.
I have no idea how teeth originally initiated and developed and either do you. Either does any person who ever walked the face of the earth. So pretend all you want. You must to be an evo.
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:51 am
I guess you aren’t embarrassed to continue repeating the same stuff over and over. So what is your goal here? To waste tons of your time in hopes that you will somehow, with your inane comments, make me change my mind? The odds are not one in a googal of that happening. If I am as you describe, why are you here instead on one of thousands of anti-evo sites?
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:57 am
If I am as you say you are, why are you here? You have no chance of me changing my mind, so what is the attraction? Is everybody that doesn’t think like you a stupid crack-pot? My stuff is published right here for evos like you to attack. As yet there are few, including you, who have the guts to take on my stuff.
Ben said,
January 23, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Many have taken you on and many have succeeded. You just refuse to accept it. You’re the kid with chocolate all over his hands and face that “didn’t go in the cookie jar”. Everyone knows you did – we’ve watched you doing it.
I’d recommend you have yourself sectioned were it not for the periodical amusement I’m blessed with every time wordpress announces you’ve a new comment.
Keep it up Steve you old fruit.
9pt9 said,
January 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm
All you have to do is answer the questions on page 20 and Steve is beaten. Can you answer them? Of course you can’t because evolution is pure poppycock. Unbrainwash yourself.
Dane said,
March 8, 2011 at 2:47 am
If you want to beat evolution, then answer these questions:
1. Establish the existence of the supernatural (which must exist for an intelligent designer to exist as ID does not permit any designer that would exist as being of the organic, natural world) via observed, tested and empirical evidence.
2. Explain how the supernatural functions.
3. Explain how the supernatural works in regards to the creation of an intelligent designer.
4. Explain how we reach a ‘prime’ intelligent designer that, as ID would insist, does not need a designer.
5. Demonstrate the existence of this designer via actual observations and verification of the designer itself.
6. Explain how ID is true without resorting to mere inferences or trying to show that ET is wrong, so ID must be right.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. See what I mean? Questions can be loaded on both sides of the issue. So ET is not an absolute, 100% complete explanation…today, that is. Who knows what it’ll be tomorrow? The insistence that ID MUST ABSOLUTELY be correct is as ridiculous as the insistence that there is ABSOLUTELY zero possibility of anything like an intelligent designer being able to exist. They both claim absolute knowledge and last time I checked, nobody has that.
stevebee92653 said,
March 9, 2011 at 12:03 am
If you want to beat intelligence, then answer these questions:
1. Establish that NS and RM can invent, design, assemble complex systems such as heart/lung/vessel/blood/controller systems via observed, tested and empirical evidence.
2. Explain how the NS and RM functioned to invent entities that had no existence 550 MYA. .
3. Explain how NS and RM works in regards to the creation of complex bio-systems.
4. Explain how we can accept NS and RM as the greatest inventor that ever existed, since the entities that NS and RM invented did not exist on the planet earth 4 BYA.
5. Demonstrate why you think an entity with an IQ of absolute zero has the intelligence to invent, design, and assemble anything. Show me how that has been observed or proved. Have you ever experienced any entity with an IQ of zero invent, design, and build anything? If not, why do you believe NS and RM are/were capable of doing so. Someone told you?
6. Explain how TOE is true without resorting to mere inferences or trying to show that ID is wrong, so TOE must be right.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. See what I mean? Questions can be loaded on both sides of the issue. So ID is not an absolute, 100% complete explanation…today, that is. Who knows what it’ll be tomorrow? The insistence that TOE MUST ABSOLUTELY be correct is as ridiculous as the insistence that anything like NS and RM formed all natural utilitarian entities. TOE claims absolute knowledge and last time I checked, nobody has that.
Your last sentence is my point. We don’t have enough information or intelligence to know the answer to the Puzzle. So I don’t claim to have any answer other than knowing what the answer is not. Since no human who has ever lived has observed any entity with a zero IQ in the process of invention, design, and assembly of any entity whatsoever, we know that the answer isn’t NS and RM since it has a zero IQ. For sure. And because virtually 100% of all utilitarian entities have come into existence through an intelligent source, intelligence must be part of the equation. So there is a hint as to the character of the source. But that’s it.
Adrian said,
March 9, 2011 at 1:28 am
Right. but i think no one is claiming that TOE is 100% correct but i dont know if you willingly dimiss the fact that ID has much much less support than evolution and the only one supporting ID are religious zealots with non-scientific religious agenda.
You have never mentioned a reputable scientist that supports ID.
Your junk science theory is a fraud, and this page is a joke, it is only used by less educated religious people to boost their faith citing this page thinking it is genuinely an “objective” view of evolution but its not and you know it. All this site is ID biased thus not objective.
Im sorry if im the only one to always call on you when you comment stupidities.
stevebee92653 said,
March 9, 2011 at 3:22 am
I don’t really care about ID. All I care about showing what bullshit evolution is. Ya know. Your belief system. Since no one knows the source of all of nature, whatever any scientist says is meaningless. There is no such thing as a “reputable scientist” on this subject. They are all exactly equal. They don’t know any more than my dog about the source for living nature. Many choose to play pretend, just like you do. If you think my site is stupidities, why are you here?
Dane said,
March 9, 2011 at 7:05 am
That’s just it Steve….you DON’T know that NS and RM is not the answer, just as I DON’T know that no such thing as in intelligent designer doesn’t exist. You are inferring that some ID must exist because of something you haven’t seen, namely life begin by way of an unintelligent, unguided process. The problem is you are only looking at the finished result and making an inference from the finished product. It’s useless to use the word “entity”. Evolution is a natural process. Natural processes happen all the time without any intelligence guiding those processes.
Since no one knows, in any precise way, how life started, trying to claim absolute knowledge on the subject is ludicrous. Neither you or I know for a fact that the ToE is incapable of expanding to eventually solve what you call the “Puzzle”. Like I said…just because it doesn’t something today does not mean it won’t know it tomorrow. This doesn’t there isn’t an intelligent designer; however, ID needs to give people a better reason to consider it other than inferences and just trying to show where the ToE is incomplete. ID needs to be developed into it’s own workable theory for it to be given any credible standard.
stevebee92653 said,
March 9, 2011 at 6:18 pm
We, you and I, know for certain that NS and RM cannot invent and assemble anything. Ergo, we know for certain that NS and RM are not the source. You choose to believe they are anyway, simply because someone told you so, and lots of people believe. Which is a form of group psychology, nothing more. What you need to do is look at the evidence without your indoctrination filters on. What we know for sure, the evidence for certain is:
(1) The fossil record shows little intra-species change over tens to hundreds of millions of years.
(2) Random mutations and natural selection have never been observed in the process of inventing and assembling any entity whatsoever.
(3) All utilitarian entities require intelligence for their origination and formation. You and I know this for certain. No person who has ever lived has observed entities being invented and assembled without intelligence.
(4) Nature is full of utilitarian entities that must be assembled intelligently. Vastly different parts must come together in order for these entities to function.
(5) Items with one genetic pathway form to match and fit items with completely different genetic pathways which means that random mutations cannot have formed these “fit” items. An example is maxillary and mandiblular teeth, ball and socket joints.
(6) A source for that intelligence is completely unavailable, and may always be.
These we know for certain. Any disagreements? Evolution doesn’t come close to fitting these “for certain” items. Intelligence comes closer but leaves many questions. So ignore what is for certain, and believe evolution if you choose. Which you do. Or be realistic, and admit that humanity just isn’t close to figuring out the Puzzle. Which is what I choose.
Dane said,
March 9, 2011 at 10:28 pm
“We, you and I, know for certain that NS and RM cannot invent and assemble anything. Ergo, we know for certain that NS and RM are not the source. You choose to believe they are anyway, simply because someone told you so, and lots of people believe. Which is a form of group psychology, nothing more. What you need to do is look at the evidence without your indoctrination filters on.”
No, Steve….neither you, I or anyone else know for a fact that is impossible for NS and RM to do such a thing. You are being completely illogical by claiming to know this for an absolute fact. Your stance is “I’ve never seen RS or NM do this, so therefore it must be impossible.” If this is the stance you must insist must be true, then I can insist that neither you, I or anyone else has ever witnessed an intelligent designer invent and assemble ANY kind of living entity, so therefore no intelligent designer exists.
You talk about evolutionists being indoctrinated to a particular type of groupthink, but you’ve fallen into the same trap. Somebody told you that life is way too amazing and complex to be the result of a natural, unguided process…and you believed it. You were already living with this supposition when someone came along and by way of playing into your notion of the impossible, fully indoctrinated into this belief.
As far as your list goes, 3, 4 and 5 are complete suppositions whose evidence rests upon making an inference. You looked life, read some design into it and then someone told you it IS designed. So you ran with it.
The ToE is not by any means complete. Certainly there are functions and mechanics of life that it is still examining and exploring. However, to simply dismiss out of hand because it doesn’t have all the answers right now is illogical. How do know for a fact that it won’t have those answers later? You don’t. How do I know there is no intelligent designer? I don’t. What I do know is that the ToE is farther along in garnering an explanation than any of the other alternatives. If any of the other alternatives were as fleshed out and systematic as the ToE is, I’d be happy to examine them.
Unfortunately, they are not. Religious explanations are not only vague but are entirely without any observable, testable, verifiable data. ID, while presenting a somewhat intriguing idea, does not work on advancing this idea. ID’s straegy is to consistently try and poke holes in the ToE and then relate that if the ToE is wrong, than ID must be right…which makes no sense at all. ID-or any alternative-needs to be able to present it’s own workable theorem to be seriously considered. These alternatives need to forget trying to knock the ToE and concentrate on demonstrating why the alternative it presents is an actuality.
As far as ID goes, one of it’s stumbling blocks is the inevitable admission that it is either self-defeating or that it ultimately rests within a supernatural cause. If ID was to insist that the intelligent designer is, in and of itself, a natural process, this would mean that the origin of the designer is nature itself…and since no intelligent designer existed prior, then the designer is a product of a natural, unguided, non-intelligent process…which would indicate that nature IS capable of facilitating complex life without the need for an intelligent designer. If there IS some intelligent designer, it CANNOT be any organic being that arose from nature. ID expressly forbids this. The only explanation is a designer that exists outside of nature, a being that supersedes nature, that itself requires no designer, no inherent beginning. This is the very definition of supernatural and such a being might as well be called a deity.
Now if you want to talk about what we know for certain:
1. No intelligent designer has ever been observed constructing a living entity.
2. ID rests on inference and supposition, not on anything that has been tested, observed or verified.
3. ID must rest inevitably rest on a false premise concerning nature or in the belief of a supernatural being.
4. No one has ever credibly established that the supernatural exists.
5. ID NEVER posits the idea it could be mistaken.
Those are all certainties. If evolution doesn’t come close to explaining how life on this world grew into what it is, then ID is even farther away. Now, if you want to be realistic, you can admit that no other alternative works as adequately as the ToE does, despite it’s incompleteness, which is what I choose…or you can believe in alternatives that not only fail to possess their own workable theorems but seek to substantiate themselves solely by trying to make something else insubstantial, which is what you choose to do.
stevebee92653 said,
March 10, 2011 at 3:06 am
NS and RM have NEVER been observed assembling and initiating anything or in the process of doing same, except in the imagination of believers. Like you. That is a 100% fact. So it’s a scientific absurdity and completely unscientific to assign the origin of complex bio-systems to it. Or to say you’ve never seen it happen but that doesn’t mean it didn’t. That just doesn’t qualify as absurd.
Re: I can insist that neither you, I or anyone else has ever witnessed an intelligent designer invent and assemble ANY kind of living entity, so therefore no intelligent designer exists.
Your problem here is there are so many intelligently designed entities that NS and RM could not have possibly invented and designed. And that must be accounted for in any theory. Intelligently designed entities with no sign of the source is a tough one. But there they are. Those damn intelligent entities and no explanation for their existence.
Re:Somebody told you that life is way too amazing and complex…..and you believed it.
This is where you are WAY off. I don’t groupthink. I observe, and make my conclusions from what I observe. I observe, 100% of the time, entities with zero intelligence cannot make any utilitarian devices. NS and RM have zero intelligence. Nature has incredibly intelligently designed devices. What on earth do you think someone told me that you think bent my thinking and conclusions? The conclusions are easy for me. For you, on the other hand. You believe entities with zero intelligence can invent, design, and assemble bio-electromechanical devices. Even though your experience and observations say they cannot. THAT is groupthink. Indoctrination. You believe what goes against your observations and common sense.
You say somebody TOLD me something was designed, and I believed it? That shows nothing but indoctrination on your part. No one has to tell me an eyeball shows incredible design. It’s beyond obvious. You, on the other hand, have to play pretend, and make believe eyes are not designed. Another characteristic of indoctrination. You have to pretend what you see and the conclusions a normal objective person would come to isn’t what you see and you adopt illogical conclusions due to your trainers.
Re: If any of the other alternatives were as fleshed out and systematic as the ToE is, I’d be happy to examine them.
The alternative is we are not within light years of figuring it out. Far better, more scientific, and acceptable than a horrible 19th century guess.
Re: religious explanations
I am not religious, so forget that argument.
Putting a limit on what the “design source” can or cannot be is a waste of your time. You don’t know why the universe is here instead of not here. And what the origin of the universe was. Or what came before the universe, if anything. Or the source of life. Of consciousness. There are certain things we just cannot now know. One thing we both know is that RM and NS cannot do what it is credited with doing. We both know that for sure. You choose to believe that maybe it can, and I can’t help you on that, even though it goes against everything you and I have experienced and observed.
Since the source of the intelligence in nature is scientifically unknowable at this time, your 1-5 is a useless exercise. My statement is that intelligence is in the formula, and that evolution is a horribly failed notion. That’s it. I don’t argue the source for the intelligence, which I say on p.1. It can only be philosophical for me right now. I observe the intelligence; there it is. How the hell did it get there? I don’t have the slightest notion. But it IS there. And you can only pretend it isn’t.
Dane said,
March 10, 2011 at 4:00 am
No, Steve….I don’t pretend the intelligence isn’t there. I say I don’t know for a fact that it’s there. Why? Because simply reading design into something doesn’t mean that it was, in fact, intelligently designed.
I don’t know as an absolute fact that RM and NS are incapable of what you-and every other IDer-say it’s incapable of. You insistence rests solely on the fact that you’ve never witnessed RM and NS function to produce a complex system, yet you fail to acknowledge that all you’re doing is looking at the completed structure and never once give consideration to a possible process that worked to evolve that system.
If we’re going to go that route, I’ve never witnessed an intelligent designer invent and assemble a complex biological construct. The whole crux of your argument is that RM and NS cannot do this because…well, no one has ever witnessed them do this and until someone does, you are not simply not going to believe. and you think that’s reasonable…but if I was to say I can’t believe in an intelligent designer until someone witnesses this designer employing it’s powers/skills/whatever in the assembly if complex biological constructs, you would say that’s unreasonable. Fallacies, man.
You keep contradicting your own position. First you say that the most honest observation is that “we don’t know” since any complete explanation eludes us…but then you turn around you DO know…you know, as an absolute fact, that some intelligent designer is responsible and further state that you know, as an absolute fact, that NS and RM cannot do something, even though you have no proof. Then you say that your position on this intelligence is purely philosophical but right after, you turn around say that you have observed this intelligence through it’s mechanisms.
You cannot keep straight your own position. You’ve consistently contradicted your own positions.
Further, you don’t even address my arguments concerning the origin of this supposed intelligent designer. No IDer does. Why is that? Because you know that the argument is correct…either you believe in an intelligent designer sprang from an unguided, unintelligent, which therefore renders ID impotent or that this designer, ultimately, must be a supernatural being, which you don’t want to admit because you know that will make you sound as though you are copping to a religious belief.
In addition, you cannot intelligently demonstrate that any of the alternatives you so willingly embrace are capable of any independent, workable theorems. They depend solely on the same fallacy that they have employed since day one: do our best to make evolution look impossible and then claim that since the ToE is wrong, we must be right. Pure, fallacious thinking.
If the ToE in all it’s entirety is just a patchwork of bad guesses and faulty logic, then all of the alternatives fare even worse. You know that the ToE is indeed correct in the assertions it has made so far, but you choose to pretend that it’s all crap because it neither works they way YOU think it should and also because it is incomplete.
Let’s be serious, shall we? We all know the origin of this perception you have. You looked at life and thought what an amazing thing it is, but how did it all get here? How did all these miraculous biological structures “just happen”? That’s when you got yourself exposed to the whole ID movement. Since then, you have simply been regurgitating all of the ID dogma because it agrees with you. You don’t care that ID itself is in no way scientific..you just roll with it because it satisfies your need to believe in a higher power. You claim that you are not religious, but you sustain a belief in an entity that cannot be seen, observed, verified….there is no test, no methodology, no science that can be employed to determine it’s existence…and yet because you think the ToE will never, ever be able to explain the origin of life, because you think it cannot in any way explain the existence of biological components that you, in your flawed, human perception, view as ‘too complex’, you will give what amounts to the same thing religious zealots employ: blind faith. You are content to continue to believing because of a mental inference you’ve made.
Another huge difference between us is that you cannot and will not even suppose that you might be wrong. That never creeps in. You are so indoctrinated to the ideology of ID and so hellbent on trying to invalidate the ToE that you are blind to any other considerations. I, at least, can allow room for error. Is there some intelligent designer? Is there some “God” or other deity responsible for this? I acknowledge that either of those might be true, but I do not acknowledge them as viable alternatives as, currently, neither presents a workable theorem to sustain itself.
I don’t think our dialogue is capable of progressing because neither one of us is going to relent, so I suppose this has to end where it started….you think what you think, I think what I think.
stevebee92653 said,
March 10, 2011 at 4:52 am
You have left by doing an excellent job of misinterpreting just about everything I wrote. Your evo-filters are on. I don’t say at all that I know the source. I do say that I know for sure what it isn’t. Discussing the source of intelligence is like discussing the source and reason for the universe. So why ask, then call it a victory when I say I don’t know? I admit I don’t know all over this blog. Evolution is what the source is not. ID has been around for thousands of years. “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 marvellous intelligence and wisdom.” Socrates
Your notion that ID is new and is a disguise for Creationism has been planted in your head by your trainers. You swallowed the great big pill, and it will stay down. That’s what evolution does. Thanks for the try. By the way, you skip answering the many questions on this blog by sloughing them off as old creationist crap. Which mean you can’t answer, and won’t try because you know you would fail. Very typical. Bye
Dane said,
March 10, 2011 at 5:21 am
Since you are so big on answering questions, let me ask you a question and see if you’re willing to answer it:
Can you present an alternative to the ToE that exists as workable, viable alternative theory whose framework extends beyond mere inferences and criticism of the ToE?
Yes or no?
stevebee92653 said,
March 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
No. Which doesn’t make evolution correct. I have said on this blog over and over: There is no plausible theory that can be made from the evidence we now have. Inserting a horrible 19th century notion as science is ludicrous. My only goal with this blog is to crash and trash evolution. Show it to be the fake that it is. Not to prove ID, or make up any other theory. That won’t come until after I am long gone.
cadman2300 said,
March 11, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Self-contradiction alert: You’ve already made countless statements about how there needs to be an “intelligent source” that governs nature which is literally no different than saying god-did-it. This is most likely the reason you were so reluctant to defend that idiotic statement from your PZ video.
Sorry Steve but you need an alternative theory with greater explanatory power if you’re gonna debunk anything and invoking the supernatural is not gonna get you very far. That’s just the way science works. You don’t have to like it, you just have to live with it.
And then there’s this issue regarding your inventor’s history.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/why-stevebee-is-wrong-t14136-1980.html#p747304
On the plus side, instead of a asking why anyone should care what a dentist says about biological evolution, they’ll now be asking why the opinions of a failed inventor should amount to anything in the face of everything else.
In the meantime, keep on failing.
stevebee92653 said,
March 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Tell delvo he doesn’t know shit about my processor or the testing that it went through. His essay was a great laugh. What a joke. I got tired of answering idiocy from people like you who actually think you can make earth escape velocity with a pogo stick and pick up a two ton boulder with 40 tries. That is so dumb that it removes you from any credibility on any subject including biology and pogo sticks. The cat is out of the bag on that one. It’s not like you can seriously say what you did, then say you made a mistake. It shows your thought processes off so well.
My processor has processed over 5,000,000 films. Failed? I think not. It’s fun to watch people who don’t know shit talk about things like they do. Like lucek, delvo, and you.
On the plus side, why should anyone care what a pogo flier says about biological evolution, they’ll now be asking why the opinions of a pogo-person should amount to anything in the face of everything else.
I love the “stevebee is lying about his patents” thing. “He’s dishonest.” “He’s a liar.” “He says he has patents, and he doesn’t”. “Oh, he does have patents?” “Well, he says he has five, and he only has four. He’s a liar.” “Oh, he does have five? Oh, well then he’s a liar because he said here he has four! And he has five.” “The things he invented are probably just aesthetic improvements on stuff already built” “Oh, it’s an x-ray film processor?” “Oh, well he didn’t properly test it.” “It’s a failed processor”. Now go back and tell the zombies that it processed over 5,000,000 films and ask them if that’s a failure. lucek is going to invent a new developer? har har har. What a bunch you are. The most fascinating reading on the planet. I can’t wait to see lucek’s processor. What fun. It’s so easy to see why y’all are so completely fooled by evolution.
Cadman, you aren’t educated enough to even write anything on this subject. No person with a third grade education would come up with the stuff you have.
Now on to Anders Lyndon…….and the U of TA, Arlington. (Not the U of T, Arlington, Texas.) “Who is Anders Lyndon?” “What is the U of TA?” “It’s the U of Texas”. “Is the U of T the same as the U of TA?’ “Of course it is!” “There is no Anders at the U of T?……”
What a bunch of scientific geniuses all of you are. And a pure waste of time. The less you say Cadman, the better you look, and less chance of more gaffs. Keep that in mind.
That thread us sure entertaining, though. So keep it up.
Dane said,
March 11, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Well, having read a bit of that thread and then having watched the vid you posted at YouTube “Richard Dawkins, Ev-Ilusionist, Exposed”, clearly states that a Dr. Aders Lyndon of U of TA, Arlington is responsible for the material.
Okay, that’s all well and good. However, it’s impossible to follow-up. I cannot locate any record of any place called “U of TA Arlington”. Even Googling it in quotes, which is what you do when you want returns that have that EXACT phrase, results in 7 hits…and all those hits are either here at this website or at the Rational Skepticism site. The same thing happens if you Google “Dr. Anders Lyndon”.
So, since you say that people need to think for themselves, I’d like to know more about this institute and this person. I’d actually like to look into what kind of research this U of TA, Arlington does and more about Lyndon. Surely if the material was available for the vid you posted, then I’m assuming Lyndon has other material to peruse, so it’d be interesting to see what more he has to say on the subject. Is there some link you can provide so I can do those things?
9pt9 said,
March 27, 2011 at 2:47 am
Dane, the evolutionary position must assume no intelligence. Even though there is zero evidence that RM is responsible for life. Zero. It begs the question. It assumes there is no intelligence to begin with and flows out from there. Both positions are a belief.
If you can refute any of steves material then do it. Answer the questions on page 20. Otherwise your evo position is no more solvent than ID. The position here is evolution is BS. That’s all. Feel free to prove otherwise with the best evidence you have.
Ronnyboy117 said,
March 23, 2011 at 3:40 am
You have said that Evolution has not been able to establish or even answer certain questions to which you have agreed. So we should turn to other Options such as ID to answer such questions. I am with Steve bee on saying that you are extremely indoctrinated. I am neutral with this creationism vs. ID vs. Evolution Debate but this is a place for open minds. Until then its pointless to come to rant about religion when this site is about science and I am pretty sure Steve’s biology degree gives him a pretty Good advantage and ability to reason about science. So before you come to complain about religious dogma you seriously need to look at yours.
Adrian said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:50 am
Well at least you have the honesty of saying that “you dont know” and which i would be appreciated if you apply to an area which you dont have any relevant credentials concerning evolution.
Argument of ignorance, if you believe in intelligent design is just faith. “How did teeth evolve? why mice have 2 ears? why chicken tastes like chicken? i dont know so they are designed (:”
There is no other observed source for life on earth, so why just postulate that someone else did it? how did aliens came into being? i wouldnt be surprised if we were designed that also these beings came into being by natural selection. Otherwise what other explanation do you have?
Creationism?
Magic?
Any other supernatural intervention?
Adrian said,
September 15, 2010 at 4:01 am
Im here to learn if you have the capacity to aknowledge that your position is not science-based but faith based. And i want to learn why you make excuses to not publish this revolutionary theory and be hailed as the new newton. But of course charlatans arent interested in that.
I know that people like you wont ever change his mind, because they are as closed and dogmatic as creationists.
I on the other hand, im still waiting for an explanation of how The intelligent design came into being, what predictive power it has, how can it be tested, what should we expect from the designs, why some are bad “designs” and why some are not.
Also what is your point of having this page here? you are not going anywhere because you are too lazy to do reasearch. So what is it? just to make creationists read what they want to read and reinfforce their beliefs?
You wont change your mind with anything.
I on the other hand im willing to change it, if present evidence other than
“look its complicated, its designed see? you need no proof just trust me, it needs no testing or alternative theories”
Its no different than saying “Its magic”
ZERO explanatory power.
Adrian said,
September 15, 2010 at 4:04 am
I have the guts to take on your stuff because i expected something new or some other argument i havent thought of. But no, its actually less informative than the main I.D. webpages of the discovery institute. And probably many dont have the “guts” to challenge someone who is not even a scientist.
I dont go around trying to “debate” every creationist webpage. They are based on faith so its really no use i waste my time.
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 4:17 am
You have no guts. You just repeat tired evo-comments. You never read or refer to anything in this blog. Again, why are you here? You are a bore.
9pt9 said,
September 15, 2010 at 11:24 am
Lol way to go Steve! I’ve been following your exchange w Adrian. What vacuum. ANOTHER obtuse broken record.
stevebee92653 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Isn’t it astounding? It’s hard to keep posting this stuff because they have only one point: “I can’t read what you write. I have no idea what you have to say. If I could read it I can’t challenge you, and I know goddam well. So I will demean.” Like a dog that can’t stop barking. Repeat hundreds of times.
I posted a couple of other Adrians. He knows why chicken tastes like it does! The guy is amazing.
Adrian said,
September 30, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I Can read exactly what you say in this site, which is mainly bollocks, you still havent presented any evidence for intelligent design. Have you ever been able to see this I.D. in action? no thats where every IDiot gets stuck. Evo doesnt require supernatural intervention. Any idiot which some basic notions of science would know that saying god did it, I.D. did it or magic did it, solves no questions and only raises more, that is why I.D. will never be science because it has ZERO explanatory power.
You think just common sense applies everywhere, A watch is complicated and it designed. Therefore EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Again another fallacy. Common sense has very little use in science, actually the breaktroughs in science go against common sense. Your a typical charlatan who says that your research cant be peer reviewed. Thats why homeptahs say, magicians, telepaths and other pseudo-science which are no different from ID. Its just like cold fusion. BOLLOCKS.
stevebee92653 said,
October 1, 2010 at 2:08 am
Adrian, you need help. The purpose of this blog is none other than to disprove evolution. To show it as the bullshit it is. That’s it. Not to prove ID, even though it’s overwhelmingly obvious that it’s in the formula.
Adrian said,
September 30, 2010 at 6:07 pm
The obstuse record is another one which presents no evidence for supernatural intervention or even evidence for a designer.
Rob said,
October 1, 2010 at 9:49 am
“Science is committed to philosophical naturalism and therefore science must assume that no Creator, and no purposeful intelligence, is behind our existence … All that science can address is the question of: ‘granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what’s the most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?'” (This is obviously what Adrian believes in)???
Hey Adrian…when your evo scientists can create a big bang theory or black hole in their labs you’ll get some respect but don’t assume everything else must be wrong because it doesn’t fit in with your selfish way of thinking. You are so narrow minded if you fell on a needle it would blind you in both eyes!!
Better still can you or any of your evo mates improve a fully functional DNA strand by randomly changing and adding nucleotides??? I thought not!
If cells pass on information to randomly improve upon itself where did the first cell get its information from to start this so called random improvement?? Too bad you really are not in the hunt for absolute truth at all…especially when you don’t consider other plausable theories. Please don’t judge us simply because we choose to BELIEVE differently to you!!
I hope you understand that if you take gibberish, and randomly mutate it with more gibberish, you will still have gibberish!! To me that’s exactly what evos arguments are…Gibberish!! Remeber though you guys are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms…and your arguments are purposeless as well…but that’s in your DNA…you can’t help it!!
Steve, you are to be commended for your foward thinking and rational questions/comments and logical reasononing…keep up the good work!! Some of us really enjoy it!!
9pt9 said,
September 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm
And now the “faith” card against you. The irony is you only tend to post about stuff you CAN see and claim “we don’t know” to what you can’t see.
I re-read the population page. GREAT page.