I didn't think it would take very long for the Intelligent Design Creationists to respond to my posting on Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory. After all, it's not something they can be very happy about since it reveals how clueless they've been when discussing evolution.
David Klinghoffer, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, gets the ball rolling with: Evolution in Fact and Theory, Revisited. Let's see how he does ...
Around the 30th anniversary of the publication of Stephen Jay Gould's essay with a similar name, Larry Moran has reposted his essay "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory." His article begins by blithely accepting the confused terminological protocol that uses the same word, "evolution," to describe very different things: a) the observation that life forms have changed over vast stretches of time, and b) a set of proposed observations regarding how, by what mechanisms, the forms of life have changed.Hmmm ... imagine using a word to describe a field of study while using the same word when you refer to the theory behind it. Gravity, economics, Intelligent Design Creationism, history, epistemology, black holes, plate tectonics, the Bible, music, atoms, cells, politics, ethics, chemical bonds, the weather, .....
You don't have to be a philosopher to sense that using the same word to designate different things, in a contentious context like this, is bound to result in confusion if not abuse. It surprises me that folks in biology don't establish a more precise vocabulary, unless the confusion serves a purpose they'd rather not admit even to themselves.
In any event, regarding the assertion contained in Moran's title, Casey's formulation has a lot to recommend it:The proper definition of evolution is [What Is Evolution?] ...When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence.
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.Is it too much to ask that the IDiots get the definition of evolution correct? (It's a rhetorical question.) Evolution is not just change. It has to be heritable change and it has to occur in a population, not an individual. And there can be many populations within a species. You'd think that after several decades the IDiots would at least try and understand the subject they're attacking!
As for "neo-Darwinian" evolution, that's part of evolutionary theory. Evolution by natural selection is a fact. We know that it doesn't explain everything about evolution because there are other mechanisms of evolution that are known to have played a role in the history of life. Can some combination of these mechanisms result in the evolution of complex biological features? Yes, of course they can. It's wishful thinking on the part of the IDiots to claim that evolution can never do that. The theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified. Neither has evolution by random genetic drift. There are many viable theories of speciation. Punctuated equilibria seem to be the best explanation for some, but not all lineages in the fossil record. There are lots of theories about mass extinctions. Mutationism seems like a reasonable possibility. Molecular drive is probably restricted to very particular cases. Lamarckian inheritance hasn't been totally ruled out but it's not very likely.
Evolutionary theory is a lot more complicated that the IDiots think. I've spent the better part of 25 years tying to educate them about evolution (fact and theory). How come, after decades of supposedly trying, they still think that "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism" is all there is to modern evolutionary theory?
Is it because they're IDiots? (That's a rhetorical question.)
50 comments :
I feel your pain Larry, I am currently in dialogue with a creationist engineering student from my university (I'm a biology major). He claimed evolutionists never give any evidence, so I wrote several pages outlining three major lines of evidence. When he responded saying "Which do you want to discuss?" I became suspicious that he hadn't read anything I had written and he later admitted to not reading any of it!
Then he linked me to two scientific papers that supposedly proved that ERV's can't be evidence for evolution, making the claim that 1) they are too short lived and 2) ERVs don't reflect phylogeny. I read the papers, one wasn't even about actual ERVs, but rather ERV-like elements, the other was about finding a type-D ERV in marsupials, in the article they specifically said that the type-D ERVs that are found in primates are a distinct clade to the one found in marsupials!
The frustration I was feeling at that point almost made me foam at the mouth. At least read my arguments and read the articles you're citing to me as evidence against evolution!
If David Klinghoffer objects to using terms in strange and undefined ways, he could start fixing the problem by getting his ID friends to quit using "design" as a synonym for "individually created species." Over and over I see "design" opposed to "common descent," so I'm assuming that that's what they mean by "design" in those instances.
No one has responded to explain what they mean or changed what they are doing, so it seems that this is just a rhetorical strategy that they think works with their non-scientist supporters. But it is nothing if not confusing.
IDiots will use whatever definition of evolution they think serves them.
There is no scientist they won't quotemine and no scientific article they won't misrepresent to further their agenda. They latch on to "gaps of knowledge" and areas of debate and speculation at any given opportunity and hail these as straight up falsifications of evolution.
Same old...
Klinghoffer:
When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact.
Well, it's a start. 'Species' are seen as some kind of constraining chamber. Evolutionary change that takes a lineage out of one such imaginary container and into another is disbarred, but change can occur within the containers. It would be interesting to know what mechanism mediates such "thus far, but no further" restraint. If one accepts that it occurs at all, then evolution has to be prevented to keep species from morphing indefinitely, requiring constant hands-on work from the Designer.
Yes, "evolution" is being used in two different senses in the title "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory". That's the whole point of the article. (Klinghoffer appears not to have read beyond the title.) It would have been more precise to write, "There is one accepted sense of 'evolution' in which it's a fact, and another in which it's a theory". But the title is a perfectly reasonable abbreviation of this.
I suspect Klinghoffer's concern is that Larry is trying to make the following fallacious argument:
P1. Evolution is a theory.
P2. Evolution is a (true) fact.
C. Therefore the theory of evolution is true.
That would indeed be a fallacy of equivocation (since "evolution" is being used in a different sense in each premise). But it's quite clear from the body of the article that no such argument is being made. The article is not so much an argument as an attempt to clear up some terminological confusion. And even taking the title on its own, absent the article, I think it's quite a stretch to read that argument into it.
It's a commonplace and unavoidable fact that words have more than one meaning, even in technical contexts. One has to be careful not to commit fallacies of equivocation. But no such fallacy has been committed here. Of course, IDists should be familiar with fallacies of equivocation, since they commit them so frequently. (Hint: "information" and "specified complexity".)
That said, I don't much like the claim that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The distinction being made here is between certain descriptions of evolutionary history and explanations of the mechanisms of evolutionary change. But there are many different levels and parts of evolutionary history to be described. Some of these are sufficiently well-supported to be called facts, and others aren't. (Larry seems to have in mind just certain high-level descriptions like "modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms".) Also, within the explanations of the mechanisms there are some parts that are sufficiently well-supported to be called facts, and others that aren't. Moreover, I think that descriptions of evolutionary history can reasonably be considered a part of "evolutionary theory".
I think the slogan "evolution is both a fact and a theory" is broadly reasonable, but not really very helpful. I think the following is better (though less catchy): many parts of evolutionary theory are sufficiently well-established to be considered facts. And overwhelmingly established is the broad historical fact that modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms.
Moran posted the following (I have changed one word and bolded it).
"Hmmm ... imagine using a word to describe a field of study while using the same word when you refer to A theory behind it. Gravity, economics, Intelligent Design Creationism, history, epistemology, black holes, plate tectonics, the Bible, music, atoms, cells, politics, ethics, chemical bonds, the weather, .....
The change in bold clarifies the problem.
As Klinghoffer correctly says - evolutionists use the word "evolution" in two different ways.
Evolutionists conflate the fact of CHANGE with a PARTICULAR THEORY about that change.
I have pointed this out a few times on this blog.
Hello Allan Miller.
You posted:
"Well, it's a start. 'Species' are seen as some kind of constraining chamber. Evolutionary change that takes a lineage out of one such imaginary container and into another is disbarred, but change can occur within the containers. It would be interesting to know what mechanism mediates such "thus far, but no further" restraint. If one accepts that it occurs at all, then evolution has to be prevented to keep species from morphing indefinitely, requiring constant hands-on work from the Designer."
The problem is that the changes that are kept are changes that enable the individual to be more successful in its environment. For example a brown bear adapting to a northern clime by "evolving" white fur.
But that just makes the existing species more successful and goes opposite to changing into a different type of creature.
For example, if a bear remaining a bear is more successful then it will not evolve into a different type of creature.
This simple point is always overlooked.
There are other facts about the limits of change as well.
@Anonymous
Words have multiple senses. That's normal. And the various senses of "evolution" mentioned here are all perfectly natural, and not invented by evolutionary theorists for some nefarious purpose.
To use words in multiple senses is not automatically to conflate them. It's only a conflation if you use them as if they were the same sense. And that's not happening here, as I explained above.
The problem is that the changes that are kept are changes that enable the individual to be more successful in its environment.
Nope. A finite population with birth and death acts as a mutation-amplification system. Not every mutation becomes amplified, but enough do. Those that help individuals to be more successful sweep to fixation more quickly than those that are neutral, but ultimately a finite population with mutation cannot stand still, with or without selection.
Either way, selection is not a 'being-a-bear' constraint. Selection does not punish individuals that are less bear-like than their parents, because it's not being a bear that is selected, but simply survival and reproduction. Being a bear is not the last word in success. The genetic pool simply currently produces organisms of a type that we choose to call "bear". A succession of changes, open-ended and indefinite, can take place. And there is ample fossil and molecular evidence that it really has.
Species are not discontinous in time. We choose to label them as such, but we are only seeing the current stage of the process, which is discontinuous with any other current reproductively isolated group. But to believe that this categorisation represents a constraint on form is akin to looking at a fairy ring and proposing that someone must have sown individual spores in a circle to get that effect, because there is no way there could be any connection 'beneath the surface' ... could there?
People here can dance around as much as you like.
But what Klinghoffer said is correct.
I have noticed it and posted about it for years.
Evolutionists make up the most convoluted arguments but only fool themselves.
If you were honest you would simply use the word "change" instead of the word "evolution" when you were referring to the fact that life forms have changed over vast stretches of time. In no sense is that "evolution". It is simply change. Evolution is not a fact.
But evolutionists play on the ambiguity.
Why not just admit it.
Let's analyze what I posted earlier:
Moran posted the following (I have changed one word and bolded it).
"Hmmm ... imagine using a word to describe a field of study while using the same word when you refer to A theory behind it. Gravity, economics, Intelligent Design Creationism, history, epistemology, black holes, plate tectonics, the Bible, music, atoms, cells, politics, ethics, chemical bonds, the weather, .....
The change in bold clarifies the problem.
Does everyone see the trick that Moran tried to pull by referring to THE THEORY?
As soon as it is corrected to A theory we see the trick.
Evolution theory is A theory that purports to explain the change of creatures over time.
It would be ludicrous to use the same word for both the field of study (ie. life-form changes over time) and the same word to refer to A theory behind it.
It is ludicrous to say that "Evolution is a fact and a theory".
Evolution is not a fact.
How many times do I have to catch Moran in these tricks?
"How many times do I have to catch Moran in these tricks?"
That crazy old Dr. Moran, using science and reason.
It's a good thing we have "Anonymous" around to lead us to The Truth.
Anonymous, I'd love to hear your model of how The Designer goes about His business. I need a good laugh.
Moran uses tricks. That I have shown.
You can acknowledge that or not.
And I have presented the idea that Nature is the intelligence (the "designer" in your words).
Sorry, all. I'm the "Anonymous" asking for a model for the Designer to work his magic. Typo and fat fingers on my part. :)
So, i'll ask "Anonymous" again . . .
What is the methodology of your great Designer?
How do we test for it?
Is the Designer "god?" If so, which god?
waldteufel, I answered your question in the post just above yours.
Here is what I said:
"And I have presented the idea that Nature is the intelligence (the "designer" in your words)."
If you are not reading my posts, what is the point of discussion?
Anonymous, you have answered nothing.
How does the "designer" do his magic?
What model are you proposing?
Please tell us how your magical designer works.
This is a common problem of IDiots. You don't propose a mechanism, and you don't have any evidence.
I'm reading your posts, but you aren't presenting any evidence or models.
When creationists say "evolution is only a theory", how is that anything using anything other than the ambiguity of both evolution and theory to downplay where the science is to non-scientists? Objecting on the grounds of definitions is being hypocritical.
If you are not reading my posts, what is the point of discussion?
An excellent way to ensure your posts are not read is to submit them as "Anonymous". There is more than one anonymous poster on the anti-evolution side, and when multiples become involved in a thread, it amounts to spamming. Adopting a distinctive moniker would allow you to retain anonymity while giving your readership the chance to distinguish your points from anyone else's. If you have a message to get through, I respectfully suggest that you could do yourself this favour in the way it is delivered.
Evolution theory is A theory that purports to explain the change of creatures over time.
[...]
Evolution is not a fact.
Evolution theory is not one theory. It is a body of work relating to the topic of evolution - change of 'creatures' (and other entities) over time. That a succession of organisms changes (evolves) over time is an incontrovertible fact.
A theory of evolution is Natural Selection. Another is Intelligent Design. Another (which I just made up) is that improbability waves pulse through the universe and allow temporary suspension of normal expectation: routine tiny miracles.
Allan Miller, it sounds like you are agreeing with me that evolution is not a fact.
Sorry Allan, but intelligent design is not a theory, it is a hypocritical bad disguise for religious beliefs.
Allan Miller posted:
"That a succession of organisms changes (evolves) over time is an incontrovertible fact."
This statement is correct:
That a succession of organisms changes over time is an incontrovertible fact.
This statement is not correct:
That a succession of organisms evolves over time is an incontrovertible fact.
If we agree on this obvious point we can move on to other topics.
waldteufel said...
Anonymous, you have answered nothing.
How does the "designer" do his magic?
What model are you proposing?
Please tell us how your magical designer works.
This is a common problem of IDiots. You don't propose a mechanism, and you don't have any evidence.
I'm reading your posts, but you aren't presenting any evidence or models."
Can someone help waldteufel please.
No matter how many times I tell him that I am talking about Nature he still ignores it.
"A theory of evolution is Natural Selection. Another is Intelligent Design."
Wait... what? How does Intelligent Design fit any definition of "theory" in science?
"A theory of evolution is Natural Selection. Another is Intelligent Design."
Wait... what? How does Intelligent Design fit any definition of "theory" in science?
It's a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena. It's a crap one, with no empirical support of its own, but in that weak sense it is a theory. It does come in many flavours of course, some of which are evolutionary (Intelligent Tinkering?) and some not.
I DEMAND that it be given equal time in the classroom with my theory of probabilistic wobbles!
This statement is correct:
That a succession of organisms changes over time is an incontrovertible fact.
This statement is not correct:
That a succession of organisms evolves over time is an incontrovertible fact.
If we agree on this obvious point we can move on to other topics.
If you don't think that evolution encompasses ALL incremental change in a lineage over time (even that caused by Intelligent Designers), then I doubt we would agree on anything. Don't be afraid of the word: embrace it!
Change in a lineage is an empirical fact. To call it evolution is not to subscribe to dread Darwinism, nor Neutral theories, nor Lamarckism, nor Probabilistic Wobble Theory, but merely to use a common synonym for change.
Biologists use the same word to denote the process by which lineage change (initially a solitary mutation) becomes fixed in populations. Get over it!
Allan Miller, it sounds like you are agreeing with me that evolution is not a fact.
Really? Let me clear that one up then.
Mutation is a fact.
Natural Selection is a fact.
Genetic Drift is a fact.
Change in lineages is a fact.
Allele frequency change in populations is a fact.
Common ancestry (meaning that multiple modern genetic sequences ultimately derive, by template-based DNA polymerisation from a single 'founder sequence') is a fact.
If any of those rings your Pavlovian bell when you hear the word "evolution", then you can take it I am stating evolution to be a fact.
I apologise if I wasn't clear.
"Biologists use the same word to denote the process by which lineage change (initially a solitary mutation*) becomes fixed in populations. Get over it!"
I am aware that evolutionists use the same word for change and for their particular theory.
That is the issue.
To correct it, all we need to do is define "evolution" as the intelligent action of Nature.
Then all is well.
For example:
Evolution is the intelligent action of Nature and is a fact.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
"Biologists use the same word to denote the process by which lineage change (initially a solitary mutation*) becomes fixed in populations. Get over it!"
I am aware that evolutionists use the same word for change and for their particular theory.
That is the issue.
No, that's not it at all. Their particular theory may be Natural Selection, or Lamarckism, Genetic Drift or something else. They use the same word for change in lineage and change in population allele frequency. That is not the same thing as using evolution as a word for "their particular theory". I realise you will never, ever get this.
To correct it, all we need to do is define "evolution" as the intelligent action of Nature.
Then all is well.
For example:
Evolution is the intelligent action of Nature and is a fact.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
Excellent. So we define a problem word as "the intelligence of nature" and get round all truth/falsehood problems by such a strategy? Except for the biggie, that is: the truth/falsehood of this "intelligence of nature" concept that the whole strategy hinges upon.
Fairies are the intelligent action of Nature and are facts. Magic beans are the action of ... zzzz
Allan Miller, it is sad to see you so desperate for something to say.
No point in continuing discussion with you on this.
Allan Miller, it is sad to see you so desperate for something to say.
No point in continuing discussion with you on this.
Fair enough; posting is optional. But I still hope you might recognise the root of the problem. Change in lineage and change in allele frequency are undeniable facts. Therefore, to be something you can deny, "evolution" must mean something else. You may jump through hoops to separate the two, but no-one is obliged to follow you through them. Evolutionists are clear about what they mean by "evolution", but you insist they don't mean what they say they mean.
Evolution is the intelligent action of Nature and is a fact.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
Evolutionists claim that "evolution" is a fact and a theory.
This is an odd claim. If it is a fact then why do we even need to say it is a theory?
They must be talking about two different things. And indeed they are talking about two different things. But inexplicably, they choose to call these two different things by the same word.
What they really mean is that CHANGE is a fact. And additionally that they have a theory which they call "evolution theory" to try to explain how change occurs.
If they were honest they would clearly distinguish between these two different things.
But oddly enough they are not honest.
Others who do not subscribe to the theory, are quite willing to accept the fact that CHANGE occurs. But evolution theory (defined as processes such as natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift) cannot actually explain the changes we see in the fossil record.
Consequently there is a need to posit a level of intelligence such as the intelligence of Nature.
One way of putting it is:
Evolution is the intelligent action of Nature and is a fact.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
It surprises me that scientists who are familiar with the complexity of the operations of the cell at the molecular level, believe that that complexity could have developed by the crude methods of evolution theory. No reasonable person could look at that complexity and believe it came about through accidental, random means.
As just one example, here is an interesting article about the brain:
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=219%3Auniversity-finds-brains-complexity-beyond-belief&catid=42%3Arnr-articles&Itemid=1
How could anyone in their right mind actually believe that evolution theory could explain such a complex organ?
But evolution theory (defined as processes such as natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift) cannot actually explain the changes we see in the fossil record.
Ah, so all those thousands of scientists over the past 150 years or so have missed something that Anonymous knows, eh? Their equations and observations are all wrong or some sort of put-up job, then. And you know this because you've studied it carefully, right?
Really, what sort of rhetorical worth do you think your unsupported statements have? (My guess is you are aware we all understand your comments to be valueless, but you are oh, so lonely for any sort of "discussion" that this will have to suffice.)
Consequently there is a need to posit a level of intelligence such as the intelligence of Nature.
Goodness, two logical fallacies in one sentence. First is the "only alternative" fallacy - even if all of the science supporting evolution were wrong, why would teleology be necessary as an alternative? The answer is, of course, that it wouldn't. There have been and continue to be many alternatives to the modern synthesis, and all the serious ones lack a teleological component. Second is the teleological fallacy itself - that intelligence is necessary to explain natural phenomena. I like to call this The Thermos Fallacy, after my favorite joke illustrating just how laughable it is. No one who gives a minute's serious thought to natural phenomena could believe it.
As just one counter-example, that quantum stuff you were oh-so-fond of raising until I pointed out you were full of hot air shows there is an unavoidable random component to the way the universe works (which of course includes biochemistry). It has been proved, to as many decimal places as you care to go, that the workings of the universe are not intelligently guided in any way, but are as random as a series of coin flips. All the natural processes you see around you, including the origins of species, have an unavoidable random chance component.
One way of putting it is:
Evolution is the intelligent action of Nature and is a fact.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
Substitute "unicorns" for "Nature" in the previous sentence and it would be equally as (in)valid. No matter how desperately you wish it to be true, mere repetition doesn't make it so.
Don't know how much I'll bother to continue. Your lack of any support for what you say tends to make your posts boring, even in comparison to other IDiots who've hung out here.
Yeah, I know I remarked that I might not continue, but this was just too rich to pass up. Looks like we're back a couple of centuries to "Gosh, it's all so darn complicated" as the so-called "reasoning" behind teleology.
Anonymous writes:
It surprises me that scientists who are familiar with the complexity of the operations of the cell at the molecular level, believe that that complexity could have developed by the crude methods of evolution theory. No reasonable person could look at that complexity and believe it came about through accidental, random means.
Yes, and who could possibly believe that the stunning beauty and complexity of the Grand Canyon was the result of random geological forces? (Just try to model it with a computer and see how many trillions of CPU cycles it takes on even a powerful machine. Even better, run a geological model on a computer using random inputs and see how often the Grand Canyon results. Pretty much never. It's a mathematical impossibility!)
There's only one answer left, people: The Intelligence of Rocks.
Here is the full article on the complexity of the brain:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html#ixzz15gKimfLp
Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have spent the past few years engineering a new imaging model, which they call array tomography, in conjunction with novel computational software, to stitch together image slices into a three-dimensional image that can be rotated, penetrated and navigated.
They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study:
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
A mutation is a directed change by the intelligence of Nature.
Is a cancer-forming mutation a directed change by the intelligence of Nature? Or is it just the Good Ones?
What about a mutation that enhances parasitic behaviour - hookworms, ticks, lice, malaria and so on? That's great for the parasite, not so great if you are crawling with the bastards. Parasites, indeed, exhibit some hugely complex life cycles that, one would imagine, might form a useful area of study for the Irreducible Complexity brigade. Or do we just gloss over the rather more unsavoury creations of this Disembodied Intelligence?
Nature is not disembodied.
Look around you.
Nature is not disembodied.
Look around you.
I don't see many bodies down the microscope, which is the only place you will see most of Nature. But yeah, in the multicellular world, I see bodies, some of which individually can be said to possess intelligence, inside heads, emergent upon complex physico-chemical interactions. As you note, the human brain is a hugely complex thing that you think cannot have happened by blind processes. Yet Nature's 'super-brain' that can somehow guide mutagens to the right site has no such locality. And is somehow excluded from your Rule of Complexity-Can't-Just-Happen. Intelligence without a brain doesn't bother you, but complexity without a designer has you up in arms ... ? Please yourself.
Care to address the actual point, the morality of Nature, while you're at it?
Allan Miller you don't understand Nature if you think you need a microscope.
Think biosphere.
I have proposed that the origin and development of creatures is based on the intelligence of Nature.
Evolution theory is based on "mutations happen, speciation happens". In other words on no explanation at all.
Anonymous writes:
Allan Miller you don't understand Nature if you think you need a microscope.
Think biosphere.
Sorry, but "the biosphere" having intelligence doesn't work as a matter of physics and biology. The speed of the communications that have to take place for intelligence to be present, particularly gene-modifying intelligence, don't (in fact can't) occur among entities in the biosphere.
Just more empty slogans from you that are no explanations at all.
And you still haven't answered either Allan Miller's question about whether this non-existent "intelligence" is responsible for various painful and fatal occurrences we see alll around us in Nature. Nor have you answered my question about what could have been responsible for the origins of Nature before there was a biosphere - the intelligence of molecules? How far do you wish to extend your nonsensical notions of teleology? Molecules? Atoms? Subatomic particles?
I'm not expecting an answer. You never give any, just ask more inane questions.
Folks think they understand reality, but do not factor in the significance of the EPR paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Reality is quite different than the limited worldview that evolutionists hold.
Leave it to Anonymous to trot out scientific concepts that have nothing whatever to do with anything he's talking about as if they were some sort of evidence. First we had virtual particles; now it's Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR).
Sorry, Anonymous, if you actually knew anything about EPR, you'd know that there have been numerous experimental verifications of the fact that EPR actually does not violate the rule that information cannot be communicated faster than light. No support for your blatherings there, I'm afraid.
the limited worldview that evolutionists hold
It's surpassingly obvious you understand nothing of the naturalistic world view. You can't even manage to comprehend Wikipedia articles written for a popular audience. So it's rather rich that you'd feel qualified to criticize what you evidently don't understand.
When Anonymous and other anti-evolution skeptics can provide us with an alternative explanation for the well-known, well-researched phenomenon of ring species, then I might be willing to give them some credit. Until then, I think they're just blowing smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Hi Sloan.
What problem do you see with ring species?
I am certainly interested in analyzing it if you will contribute.
If evolutionary change in DNA does not happen in an individual it will not happen in a population. Before the population DNA changes the individuals in that population's DNA must be changed.
Supposing a male deers sperm gets bombarded with cosmic radiation which miraculously splices millions of DNA code to form into a whale's sonar. This deer then has to find a mate with similar
mutations or the sonar DNA will get bred out and disappear - leaving
the deer's offspring back to eating pinecones instead of catching squid.
If this sounds daft - it is - why don't evolutionists do a course
in probability theory - or just go to their local bookmaker and ask
him what the chances are that the deer evolves into a whale.
The changing of the DNA of say a mouse into the DNA of a bat through
genetic damage is so absurd it cannot even be a theory.
Darwin did not know about DNA so he has some excuse for thinking
breeding and speciation was evolution - but scientists today have none. What does the mouse do while awaiting millions of supposed years for the flying bat and its sonar to perfect itself.
The title of this post is "The IDiots Respond". Thank-you for your contribution.
Post a Comment